About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

O'Brien's Shenanigans May Cost State $18 Million

by: TimothyHorrigan

Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:56:30 AM EDT


The State Senate met on September 7th for a brief "veto day" session.  They voted on 5 Senate bills which had been vetoed by the Governor.  3 vetoes were overridden, 2 were sustained.  

The House voted on 2 of those 3 overridden vetoes on September 14th.  The veto on SB 88 (the "Ward Bird Bill") was also overridden in the House.  SB 57's (a title loan bill's) veto was not voted on at all on September 14th. SB 3's (a retirement system bill's) veto was tabled, which was a constitutionally dubious move- but this is not the shenanigan which I am complaining about.

The Senate suspended its rules to pass SB 198, which makes a technical change to the welfare laws, bringing them into line with federal Social Security Law.  It will reportedly save the state $2 million a month if passed.

TimothyHorrigan :: O'Brien's Shenanigans May Cost State $18 Million
The House couldn't start hearing SB 198 until after its September 14th meeting.  O'Brien did arrange to suspend House rules to introduce several new bills on the 14th, even though the Governor did not call a special session- but none of them addressed the problem SB 198 solves.

Here is the scandalous part.  Before and after he was elected Speaker, O'Brien has been on a crusade against the family-law system.  He created a new committee, the Petitions & Redress Committee, primarily (though not exclusively) to push back against the family courts and the Division of Children, Youth & Families (aka the DCYF.)

He is especially irate about the actions of the Marital Masters: these are a small group of court officers whose job is to try to work out child custody and divorce agreements.  One of these masters, Philip D. Cross, has become the target of much vitriol because of his involvement in several especially complex and contentious divorce cases.  (As far as I can tell, he is actually one of the better marital masters.)  In 2010, there was an unsuccessful attempt to remove Master Cross and two judges from office, and similar attempts will be made again in 2012.

O'Brien has introduced a non-germane amendment to SB 198 which basically stipulates:
   

Marital Master Contracts. No new marital master contracts shall be entered into by the state and no existing marital master contracts shall be renewed, extended, reinstated, transferred, or modified by the state on or after the effective date of this section.

This amendment would take effect immediately on passage of the bill.

On its own merits, this amendment would be a bad bill, although restructuring the family court system is an issue worth debating.  Eliminating the marital master program altogether is an unwise move; eliminating it abruptly is an even unwiser move.  It is also unclear whether it would be constitutional to disavow their contracts like this.  (An additional complication is that the Marital Masters are employees of the judicial branch, not independent contractors.)

Tacking it onto SB 198 is allowable under the rules, but it is also a scandal.  If the House passes SB 198 as is on October 14th, without the amendment, the Governor can sign it immediately.  If O'Brien's amendment is passed, the Senate first has to agree to a conference committee.  They don't have to do so.  

Even if the Senate leadership agrees to a conference committee, they probably won't agree to O'Brien's amendment.  That presumably delays the passage of SB 198 until at least January 2012.

O'Brien's gesture against the Marital Masters will cost the state at least $6 million.  If a whole new bill has to be introduced to replace SB 198, it might not pass till June, in which case O'Brien will have cost the state $18 million in all.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not to mention, (0.00 / 0)
and I don't know if this holds any bearing at all or not, the Senate is out of session for the rest of the year.  Would the Senate have to be gaveled back into session for a Committee of Conference?

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

they are still in recess (0.00 / 0)
According to the September 7th Senate Journal, the Senate didn't adjourn.  The last motion of the day was:

MOTION TO RECESS TO CALL OF THE CHAIR
Sen. Bradley moved that the business of the day being completed, that the Senate recess to the Call of the Chair for the purposes of sending and receiving messages, processing enrolled bill reports and amendments and when we recess, we recess to the Call of the Chair.
Adopted. The Senate is in recess to the Call of the Chair.

I was in the gallery for the September 7 session.  I recall that President Bragdon told his colleagues (just before gaveling the meeting to a close) that he was not planning to call them back any time soon.  I don't expect him to call the Senate back just to consider O'Brien's amendment (or to consider O'Brien's new bills, for that matter.)


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the clarification (0.00 / 0)
All I could remember was what the Monitor reported.

"We start working to beat these guys right now." -Jed Bartlet

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox