Misleading Impression Created About Votes on Environment

Your article “Baptism of Oil, Malathion Greens O.C.’s Legislators” (March 11) conveys a misleading impression of our county lawmakers’ votes on environmental issues.

As a staff member of Assembly Gil Ferguson, I did an analysis of the way the survey used by your news writer was conducted. Had The Times conducted its own survey rather than relying on a survey designed by a highly doctrinaire group, the results would have been far different.

If a lawmaker agrees with the concept of a particular bill but finds some provisions unworkable or unbalanced, he or she can either vote against the bill or abstain.

To abstain from a vote is not the same as voting against a bill, yet the League of Conservation Voters’ survey counts abstentions as “no” votes in the overall score and ranking. Thus, a false interpretation of their survey is virtually imposed.

It’s true that our county’s legislators and most Republicans voted against many of these bills, but since when is a “no” vote to be automatically considered as wrong?

In fact, in the 1987-88 legislative session, more than 40% of Assemblyman Ferguson’s votes were in line with the position favored by the League. More than half the bills Ferguson did oppose were eventually vetoed by the governor, which should indicate that the bills were not all that good.

PETER CALAGNA

Field Representative for Assemblyman Gil Ferguson