Trickle Down Republican Obstructionism

Remember this little stunt... (0.00 / 0)

... the next time GOP Chairman Sununu gets up on his hindfeet and fulminates about Democrats wasting time on inconsequential matters in the middle of a recession. I don't recall Sununu criticizing Vaillancourt over wasting the time of the entire legislature to feed his ego trip.

Vaillancourt has emotional problems. Sad, really, but he shouldn't be allowed to play these games. The House ought to change its rules to require at least 3 members to pull a bill from the Consent calendar, and a similar number to call for a division vote.

If you want to see Vaillancourt's assininity in action, they are on the House website.  Select audio or video for the morning session of 02/10/2010  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:09:10 AM CST

nah... (0.00 / 0)

I would prefer to see the rules stay the way they are, even though Steve Vaillancourt was abusing them.  This guy was NOT being harassed by his committee chair; the Speaker bent over backwards to be fair to him; he was given every opportunity to reach a compromise; his grievances were imaginary--- but there are cases where a minority of one might have a real grievance.

The Speaker was accused of censoring blurbs... she does not, as you will see in a few hours when a downright obscene blurb will be posted in the calendar as the minority response to a marriage equality bill.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:39:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So how is the interest of NH served... (4.00 / 2)

... when one emotionally distrubed individual with a chip on his shoulder is allowed to interrupt the business of legislating in the middle of an economic crisis? This was a stunt, pure and simple. It was a misuse of the rules.

In my experience, if there is truly only one Rep who wants to take a bill off the Consent calendar, it is for personal and/or petulant reasons. If there is a good reason, or even just a not-awful reason, you can get two of your colleagues to go along with you.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 15:08:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 2)

This is the kind of stunt US Senator Shelby pulled with his hold on the President's appointments. It is not good government, and the rule should be changed so that a petulant individual who happens to be in the legislature does not waste the people's tax dollars and resources like this.

This is the same state rep who was paid thouands of dollars in mileage money for going to Concord when the legislature was not in session, when he had no committee business. That is another rule that should be changed: no mileage money for legislators going to Concord if the legislature is not in session, unless there is a hearing of a committee at which they physically testify or on which they sit.  Ten thousand here, ten thousand there, before long we have enough money to fix up a state park.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 16:22:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

right noew the law just says (0.00 / 0)

Chapter 14 of the RSA's states that legislators can get mileage whenever they are in Concord on legsislative business.  The lawbook currently doesn't get into any detail on what is or is not legislative business.  Session days and committee hearings would be an overly restrictive definition: somtiems memebrs fill in on committees they are normally assigned to; sometimes members may need to follow bills in other committees; sometimes members have to come in to testify on bills they are sponsoring;  sometimes members have to come in to testify on bills they are not sponsoring; sometimes they have to prepare for a future hearing or session day; sometimes 4th graders from their district come in; sometimes (e.g., if you happen to be the Speaker) you have administrative duties.  Probably it is best to leave it to the members' discretion. Any member who doesn't feel comfortable taking the mileage on any given day is free not to sign for it, or to donate it to charity.

In Vaillancourt's case, he does sign in for his mileage every day he is at the State House (which averages about 4 days a week), but I believe he would come in even if he wasn't getting the mileage.  I know he doesn't do whatever the hell it is he does just for $11.40/day (or whatever it is in his case) worth of mileage.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 21:03:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For the Record: Rep. Elliott's Minority Report (4.00 / 1)

HB 1590-FN, repealing same sex marriage.  MAJORITY:  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.  MINORITY:  OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Robert B. Thompson for the Majority of  Judiciary:  This bill takes away rights granted by this legislature last year.  We already have loving committed couples married in New Hampshire.  These couples and their children now enjoy equally the legal and societal benefits of marriage.  There has been no detrimental impact to the state of New Hampshire.  This bill is flawed and unjust. Vote 12-8.      

Rep. Nancy J. Elliott for the Minority of  Judiciary:  The minority believes that last year the legislature made a mistake passing gay marriage.  Legislators ignored the voice of the citizens of New Hampshire to attend to the desires of special interest activists.   These activists would have us believe that heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are the same thing.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The consummation of gay marriage cannot even be spoken of in polite society and a gay marriage is not valid without it.  We have said that this new group of people are married because of these practices.  This new marriage has nothing to do with fairness as two people that love each other but do not consummate, cannot be married.  To the minority this is confusion and should not have been placed into law.  The minority believes that it is time to recognize the error that was made and pass HB 1590 to repeal gay marriage.        

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 16:58:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OMG (4.00 / 1)

The consummation of gay marriage cannot even be spoken of in polite society and a gay marriage is not valid without it.

And where exactly is the consummation of a heteresexual marriage spoken of in polite society?

This is just bigotry using 10 dollar words.  What a waste of the state's time.  

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 17:06:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]