Open Government…yawn…who needs it
I don’t follow the local stuff half as much as I should. But on Friday there was a brillian piece by the NJ blaming the Dems and saying the GOP is trying like hell to open our government. They were more than happy to tell you if someone was an R or a D in that article.
Is Peterson a D or an R? The article doesn’t tell you until the 2nd Paragraph.
Peterson’s Senate Bill 4 would end 23 years of closed-door traditions that have taken root in the General Assembly since 1985, when it exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act that it passed in 1977. All other legislative bodies in the state, from Wilmington City Council to the tiny Viola Town Commission, must do the majority of their business in public. But not the General Assembly.
“Sen. Adams had promised me in June that Senate Bill 4 will be discussed in caucus, and it will get a committee hearing,” Peterson said. “Long story short, he reneged.”
ruh, roh…It’s a she said, he said, she said moment…who you gonna believe? The grumpy old man that has had a vice grip on things for god know’s how long or the little old lady pushing open government?
“I have discussed that bill with members of the committee,” Adams said. “Some of the members prefer the House bill. Some of the members like her bill. Some of the members would like to see a compromise between the two.”
He was referring to House Substitute 1 for H.B. 60, which guarantees open committee meetings and open records. The House bill is modeled after the Freedom of Information Act, guaranteeing access to legislative records and requiring advance public notice for committee meetings.
“If we do something this year, it will probably be some kind of a compromise bill,” Adams said. “But I said it would be discussed and it has been discussed.”
hmmmm, who to believe….
I forgot this priceless quote from Copeland:
And there are legislators who fervently support open government but don’t want to join in what would be seen as a slight to Adams, who is elected to his position by the full Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Charles L. Copeland, R-West Farms, said that is one hurdle facing Peterson.
“With a petition, you’re making a bold statement that the leadership that was elected by the entire Senate is not representing the members of the Senate,” Copeland said. “I don’t have a problem with petitioning a bill out if we make sure it’s the right bill and the right time to do it.”
The bill is flawed. It’s not worth the effort at this point.
like I said…yawn…who needs open government
FSP,
How flawed? It simply redefines the General Assembly as a “public body” under the terms of Title 100, Chapter 29 of the Delaware Code. If the original FOIA law is constitutional, and it’s stood for 41 years, how can SB-4 be a flawed bill?
I know, it’s another Republican lie! We’re not going to keep calling these misunderstandings, or misguided interpretations. We’re going to call them what they are, LIES! Damned Republican LIES.
You have no credibility left Dave. So sad.
It’s unenforceable on future General Assemblies. SO it would only be good for a few months, and then it would go “poof.”
Sounds pretty damn flawed if you ask me.
I know it’s the only good government idea you D’s have to hang your hats on, but I’m sorry, it’s a bad bill at this point.
Let me know if I need to explain it further.
FSP, You have failed to provide the source of your discovery. If we were talking about the epilogue language, you have a point but SB 4 is not pertaining to epilogue. All you have to do to gain credibility is sight your source. We democrats are capable of looking up the opinion.
i’m going with the thought that even if we get open government for three months it’s better than nothing. Sort of like bush’s tax cuts Dave that you are so gung ho for.
See we start out with this open government thing temporarily then next thing you know it sticks around.
Once you crack open the door Dave it gets harder to shut. So if we get 3 months so be it. At least for 3 months we can see how disgusting local politics really is…
So isn’t something better than nothing dave?
“So isn’t something better than nothing dave?”
It would be, yes. However, petitioning a bill to the floor is a major uprising. And the bill will almost certainly not pass unamended, and will be further amended in the House.
If we’re going to go to those dramatic lengths on a bill, SB 4 is not high on the list. The first bill that should be petitioned onto the floor is the bipartisan SR 13, which changes the Senate rules. If you petition and pass that, no one would ever have to petition a bill out again.
So this is about Peterson and her baby (SB4) and not about really improving the process.
PI — I’ve read it, but I don’t have a copy. I’m trying to get a digital copy right now.
I doubt the public will agree with your spin, Dave (with good reason, I might add). What happened to the “Democrats want darkness, Republicans want light” spin? Now it’s about the Senate rules? What bullcrap. That’s the LEAST necessary of the FOIA changes — and the most partisan.
What happened to the strategy of letting the Democrats stand up for closed doors? You say Adams et al would block it — good, let them. Let everyone see what they stand for. Only now that push comes to shove, your caucus has chickened out. Spin that one however you want — sounds to me like the whole caucus should move to Sussex County, where they could blend in with the rest of the chickens.
It’s time to put up as change agents or shut up as poseurs. Choice is in your court, Dave. Or, more specifically, Copeland’s. I had high hopes for him, and once more he’s showing me a lot more mouth than cajones.
Al — It’s a stunt. Stay tuned.
I STILL don’t understand how changing the wording of Chapter 29 would only apply to this session. This would change the LAW to include the G.A. Not just for one session but for all time, unless it got changed again.
This just sounds like the same Republican wishful thinking we’ve all gotten so sick of, Valerie Plame wasn’t a covert agent, John Kerry wasn’t a war hero, Sadam Hussein plotted 9/11 and had WMDs. And most recently, the U.S. economy is robust.
LIES Dave LIES!
Legislative acts that apply to the governing of one General Assembly are not enforceable upon future General Assemblies, because each General Assembly is a different body.
That’s why they have to pass new rules at the start of every GA. Everything governing the GA is either in the Constitution or in the biannual rules.
“Legislative acts that apply to the governing of one General Assembly are not enforceable upon future General Assemblies, because each General Assembly is a different body.”
And, they are only found in the epilogue language….you know, the same language that gets your girl Nancy Wagnor’s husband a job every year.
What are you talking about in epilogue language? Legislative acts aren’t limited to epilogue language. And it’s irrelevant. Whether it’s in epilogue language or bill text, it’s still unenforceable in the future.
“Legislative acts that apply to the governing of one General Assembly are not enforceable upon future General Assemblies, because each General Assembly is a different body.”
And, these ‘legislative acts’ are found in the epilogue language….you know, the same language that gets your girl Nancy Wagnor’s husband a job every year. If by chance what you’re saying is correct, the entire Delaware Code would have to be voted on at the beginning of every new session.
“the entire Delaware Code would have to be voted on at the beginning of every new session.”
No. Only the sections that apply to the governing of the General Assembly itself. Which, again, is why the rules have to be passed anew every two years.
While I didn’t know that Dave was such an expert on Constitutional law, if what he says is indeed true, then the ‘sweeping ethics reform’ package unveiled by the R’s to so much fanfare last week also would only be good for the remainder of this General Assembly, and would have to be revoted upon each subsequent session.
Which explains why he knows so much about ‘stunts’.
Good point. Have to look into that one.
have to look into that one
NOW THAT IS PRICELESS! How come dave know’s so much about what WON’T work with this bill, but didn’t know if it would apply to a recent bill his boys just passed?
It didn’t pass, yet, genius. Plus, that package was just introduced at the end of last week, and I haven’t even read it yet. The FOIA bill’s been around for SIX YEARS.
oh spare me. You didn’t know that this thing was going to be around for only 3 months. Some crappy talking point you and your boys are putting out there.
hack
What? What are you talking about?
It’s a stunt. Stay tuned.
DV – You’re simply not worth having a conversation with. It literally hurts my brain to sink to your level.
Question: How does one know when Dave doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about?
Answer: When his lips are moving or his fingers are tapping on the keyboard.
Don’t like reality? Make something up. That’s the Republican motto.
keep believing we are different Levels Dave.
what I was attempting to say was that I find it ironic that you know this particular situation will only last 3 months. My assumption is it is due to your stunning ability to be a partisan hack and not your intelect regarding the process.
So when you didn’t know the answer to Steves question about something YOUR party just pushed through that would fall into this 3 month window I assume that you are simply spouting talking points regarding the open government issue only being good for 3 months.
pardon me if I’m wrong, but you not knowing the answer to steves question, but knowing the answer to the Democratic Bill stinks to high heaven.
sorry if you had to stoop dave…
“So when you didn’t know the answer to Steves question about something YOUR party just pushed through that would fall into this 3 month window”
I realize that this is DL, so I automatically have to say things at least twice, but nothing has been “pushed through.” The bills were just announced FOUR days ago.
The FOIA bill was first filed in 2002, more than 1,200 days ago.
So what Dave? Why does that make any difference in how the LAW is applied. Oh wait, IOKIYAR, I forgot.
feel free to repeat yourself Dave, at some point maybe you will see that the shit that comes out of your mouth doesn’t make sense.
and just so I beat you to the punch:
I know most of what comes out of my mouth already doesn’t.
hah!
Rebecca — You are a walking Kos glossary with a total lack of creativity. At least DV’s not boring.
“Why does that make any difference in how the LAW is applied.”
I’ll get out the crayons and have my two-year-old draw it out for you. Check back later.
wooohoooo!
I don’t have the burden of a legal education so I won’t pretend to be a lawyer. I will leave that to others.
The bottom line is every action of the General Assembly which involves raising revenue or spending revenue should be open to the general public.
I would offer those who say the bill is flawed to offer a “clean” bill and let’s stand for something resembling openness.
You mean like this?
So, let’s get this straight. Charlie copies the House Bill and signs off on it as the author. Does Charlie think that by this grandstand move that he’s off the hook for following through with his committment last year to sign onto the petition to release SB 4 and vote on it? Let’s face it, you’re as repulsive as all rethugs and all of you are looking for one small hook to hang your party on so you don’t completely crash and burn in the election. Your party has so little to offer this state that you can’t even provide a viable candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, county exec, county council, or any legislative seat. You’re sweating bullets over the likely loss of Lofink’s seat, Still’s seat, Wagnor’s seat, Spences’s seat and God knows how many other seats in various governments up and down the state. Let’s face it, you’re a bunch of has been losers. Bye, bye!
PI — Sounds like you’re personally offended.
What happened was Copeland created a bill that’s (a) much more likely to pass; (b) addresses legislators concerns about their communications with their constituents; (c) is tougher than the House version, particularly on why a committee is permitted to go into executive session; and (d) is constitutionally viable.
I can tell by your reaction that he did the right thing, because if it wasn’t the right thing, you wouldn’t be so angry.
And I bet we keep at least three of those four seats and pick up one or two in the House.
Plus, who would want to run the county after the mess that the Dems have created?
Go get your beverage of choice and have a good cry.
If SB4 would apply only for the balance of this legislative session, why is the General Assembly’s original act of exempting itself from FOIA still in effect? Wouldn’t that have to be voted on for every session, since each is a different legislative body?
Also, as a co-sponsor, Copeland needs to put his signature where his mouth is. And Bruce Ennis should stand behind his campaign commitment to open government, not cower in fear before I Hate Democracy Adams.
“Legislative acts that apply to the governing of one General Assembly are not enforceable upon future General Assemblies, because each General Assembly is a different body.”
This is such a specious argument. If it were true, much of the DE Code related to the DE Legislature is now null & void because it hasn’t been re-enacted.
This is just a smoke screen the GOP is throwing up to cover themselves for breaking the campaign promise they made during the election year of 2006 and the one Copeland made again on WDEL when Fulcher was still on the air. After spinning a bunch of BS about what the Repubs promised, Copeland finally promises again he will sign Peterson’s petition THIS YEAR. You can hear him make the promise again around 2 min & 40 seconds into the first posted audio:
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/sen-copeland-on-risks-of-opposing.html
Clearly, Copeland’s initial denials expressed his real agenda: not to sign the petition.
Now back to the horseshit:
“Legislative acts that apply to the governing of one General Assembly are not enforceable upon future General Assemblies, because each General Assembly is a different body.”
I guess that means the exclusion of DE from the FOIA exception is now null & void and the DE Legislature IS subject to FOIA since the exception has been re-enacted.
Well, if that’s how the DE really feel, why sponsor any FOIA legislation since the DE GA is subject to FOIA.
I’ll tell you why they don’t. It’s because they are blowing smoke out of their bascksides and they don’t want to petition out Peterson’s bill because it won’t give them another campaign piece to print on on a pamphlet stating how they sponsored FOIA legislation that either passed or was turned down by the DEMS.
They don’t want open government; they just want to run on it. If they really wanted open govt, they wouldn’t have put into their new proposal the power of committees to go behind closed doors any time they wished, which undoubtedly would be the same time they do now for the budget & bond bills, etc.
It’s a fraud.
There is a court decision. Al referenced it above. The court decided as a co-equal branch of government that they could not enforce rules set by one General Assembly on another without some sort of constitutional authorization to do so. It was a FOIA case, brought by the News Journal.
So both the FOIA exemption and any FOIA requirement are unenforceable, and the legislature can abide by whatever rules they see fit every two years.
And as far as your petty, weak arguments of partisanship go, they don’t explain why Copeland offered to give Adams lead sponsorship of the bill.
This is a good bill, addresses nearly all of the legislators concerns, has compromise and wide support, and has a much better chance of becoming law than SB 4.
I can understand why the Peterson sycophants have trouble handling it.
Dana, thank you for your post. Well said. Dave has still failed to provide any form of evidence for his assertions that SB4 is not the best answer to open government. Removing one line from the existing law is a lot cleaner way to re-open government. All of the jibberish that has been cut and pasted from the existing law, from the HB alternative bill, and from the resesses of Charlie’s mind is unnecessary to accomplish the simple task of opening government.
Thanks again, Dana, for saying all of that in a concise, reasonable way. Maybe now Dave will be able to comprehend it.
“They don’t want open government; they just want to run on it. If they really wanted open govt, they wouldn’t have put into their new proposal the power of committees to go behind closed doors any time they wished, which undoubtedly would be the same time they do now for the budget & bond bills, etc.”
There are set conditions under which a committee can go into executive session. So this statement, like most of what comes out of Garrett’s mouth, is not true.
PI — Nice to see you’re still angry this morning.
To answer your question with one small example, SB 4 does not protect the emails between a legislator and a constituent, even on sensitive matters (Family Court, financial, etc.).
SB4 does not allow for executive sessions for any of the six reasons in Copeland’s bill.
SB 4 does not exclude caucuses, which is a deal-killer among 90% of the legislators.
So, essentially, the petition is simply Peterson flexing her muscles to take on Adams to put a bill on the floor that simply won’t pass.
What’s the point?
All of those things are protected under the current FOIA Law, Chapter 29, Dave. Every other governmental body or agency operates under the existing law without sharing emails from constitutents or personal privacy information or information that would hobble negotiations. They have all managed to do this under the exisiting law. There is no need to write a new law, unless you are trying to blow smoke! This is a pure smoke screen.
I can always count on Rebecca. You see, if I had said there was no difference between the two bills as it pertains to open meetings, people like Dana and PI would have hemmed and hawed and picked and prodded. But since you’ve said it, they can’t. Thanks.
The reason they are the same is that this bill is a FOIA bill for the Legislature alone, so a lot of the original FOIA statute had to be copied into it.
As far as the communications go, there are significant differences between Chapter 100 and Copeland’s bill. You can read both for yourself.
Folks, calm down. FSP has now made it crystal clear that his only agenda is to give his Rethug patrons a generic ‘open government’ issue with which to try to rescue their imperiled House majority.
Unfortunately, Karen Peterson, a legislator with real guts, had the temerity to challenge Uncle Thurm, and in the process, exposed Charlie Eleuthere Lammot Irenee duPont (I’m guessing here, it’s hard to keep track of which cousins have married each other over the decades) Copeland for the poseur that he is.
Freeper’s response? Peterson’s pulling a ‘stunt’. One problem with that. If Freeper was right, then so was Charlie Copeland, virtually the entire House majority, and, oh, yes, Freeper himself.
At first it was amusing watching him contort himself into a sub-human pretzel (to borrow language from the Atkins imbroglio), but by now, it’s frankly boring.
If Charlie ‘To the Manor Born’ Copeland fails to stand up for SB 4, despite previous public statements that he would, it effectively puts the lie to all of the Rethugs’ self-righteousness the past two years.
Let me be clear. I strongly support SB 4 and admire Karen Peterson for what she’s trying to do. Despite Freeper’s foray into constitutional law, I would much rather hear from constitutional lawyers than Charlie’s cabana boy.
Failure by Copeland to support the petition to release and failure to exercise leadership over his caucus will forever define him as a hopeless partisan and the antithesis of an open government advocate. And endless pages of rantings by FSP can do nothing to change that basic equation.
Steve is the classic example that everyone has the right to an opinion, just not a good one.
The reason it’s a stunt is that the bill will not pass, petitioned to the floor or not.
And if it’s not a stunt, why has KP lined up her Democrats to sign the petition first, ensuring that the 11th signer (who would be the target of recriminations), will be a Republican?
Please, Steve. You’re as much a partisan as I am.
If open government is as important to Peterson as her pet bill and the credit, she’ll sign on to the better, more passable bill and the constitutional amendment that makes it last.
And we’ve painfully learned that no one votes on open government, so no one’s using it as a campaign issue.
But the collective ire of the cowards who fail to put their names behind their statements tells me that Copeland’s on to something with this bill.
leave it to politicians to make something so easy to do, so complicated…
no one wants this. Delaware is a joke
If open government is as important to the 11th republican as recent showboating by some of his colleagues would indicate, he’d sign on to Peterson’s bill, get his cronies to do the same and tell Thurman Adams to put his drawer where the sun don’t shine.
That’s easy for Peterson to say. Her committee assignments have already been taken. She has nothing to lose by signing on. Plus, Adams won’t take staff away from the Democrats. He WILL take it from the Republicans.
Is it worth someone’s job, a real person’s livelihood, to put a bill on the floor that won’t pass? Ask yourself that.
Now you’re simply resorting to pure cowardice, Dave. Besides, what’s a state job worth, anyway? You’re always berating state employees as being overpaid and underworked, so this will likely solve a pet peeve of yours.
Seriously, though, when a stand must be made then it should be made. Now is the time.
For a bill that won’t pass, and won’t be worth the paper it’s written on in four months? I don’t think so.
And employees of the legislature are not even remotely the problem. Especially the extremely limited staff of the Senate minority caucus.
“There are set conditions under which a committee can go into executive session. So this statement, like most of what comes out of Garrett’s mouth, is not true.”
Dave is deceiving people once again. The bill allows for closed meetings that are “consistent with the Rules of such Chamber of the General Assembly”–which means the Senate can make a rule to hold secret meetings beyond the scope of the bill. On WDEL Copeland said it sounded like a real problem, showing once again Burris is out of the loop.)
Also the GOP’s faux open government bill allows for items to be added to the agenda to any committee meeting on the spot, which includes secret meetings. So it’s an easy matter for the a committee to go into a a secret on a personnel matter and while they are there agree to vote to buy a golf course or whatever.
There are huge loopholes in this bill to make it a FOIA facade. It’s the stuff for a GOP campaign piece handout.
Is it worth someone’s job, a real person’s livelihood, to put a bill on the floor that won’t pass? Ask yourself that.
Give me a break. One, I don’t believe for a minute that you care that this person’s livelihood is at risk (this person’s livelihood is at risk everytime they stand for election). Two, when do we get a press conference noting that all of the high-minded principles you try to beat up Dems with don’t apply to the repub caucus, because, you know, a man’s gotta work?
“SB4 does not allow for executive sessions for any of the six reasons in Copeland’s bill.
SB 4 does not exclude caucuses, which is a deal-killer among 90% of the legislators.”
More deception by Burris. It was understood and stated publicly in 2006 & 2007 that when Peterson’s bill would come up for a vote, amendments would be offered by the GOP (especially caucuses), which Peterson knew would be coming.
Beyond that a FOIA laws cannot trump laws that protect privacy, either state laws or federal laws. That’s been established by case law so many times, no one the least bit interested in telling the truth would cast doubt on it, which probably tells us something about why Burris is casting doubt on it.
And there’s no enforcement — real enforcement — provision in the Republican Bill. If they violate the law, they have to vote against themselves when a citizen brings a complaint. BIG, HUGE, LOOPHOLE! This is NOT A SERIOUS EFFORT TO BRING OPEN GOVERNMENT TO DELAWARE. As Dana says, it is merely window dressing for future campaign literature.
I gotta get myself some Vitamin R — it not only gives you delusions but it gives you the energy to keep hammering away at them until everyone else gets tired.
By the way, where is that Supreme Court decision? We’re still waiting Dave.
“And if it’s not a stunt, why has KP lined up her Democrats to sign the petition first, ensuring that the 11th signer (who would be the target of recriminations), will be a Republican?”
She has lined up 3 Dems (4 including herself) as she said on WDEL yesterday and the GOP Senate promised in 2006 & 2007 to sign it. That means if they kept their promise, there would be enough votes to bring it up for a vote.
Which is why the GOP is reneging on signing the petition. They want to run on open government, not enact it.
One thing needs to be made clear. No one TOOK any committee assignments away from Peterson. She DID however resign from the Sunset Committee after the leadership usurped everything the committee had accomplished. There’s a HUGE difference between resigning on principle and having something taken away. It speaks to integrity, but that’s not something I expect Dave knows much about.
The only other thing that stikes me as amusing is the fact that Dave bears a grudge against Karen for the support and respect people afford her for wanting to do the right thing. Karen has legions of people supporting her and Charlie only has little ole Dave. I don’t know who I feel more sorry for, Charlie or Dave…..
“If open government is as important to Peterson as her pet bill and the credit, she’ll sign on to the better, more passable bill and the constitutional amendment that makes it last.”
Poor, Dave, Peterson made a fool of him on WDEL this morning. She said she would cosponsor the bill and withdraw hers if it was a good FOIA bill.
“Is it worth someone’s job, a real person’s livelihood, to put a bill on the floor that won’t pass? Ask yourself that.”
This from a person who is complaining because of a bill that stop employers from firing people for the silliest reasons one can imagine: like have green eyes, or looking bad wearing green, for having curly hair, for having a cat as a pet–you think of it, in DE bosses can fire you for it.
And we are expected to believe that Dave Burris gives one whit about these employees?
Give us a break, Burris. It would be an “at will” firing and you support it.
http://delawarepolitics.net/2008/03/18/dems-trying-to-end-at-will-employment/
Good point, Dana. The R’s were supposed to join Sen. Peterson regardless. This is what I remember from their grandstanding during the ’06 election in which they promised to do so even if they didn’t gain a majority in the Senate. I know I told you then I thought all the GOP’s press releases and conferences were farce disguised as reform.
And now we have Dave Burris bitching about Sen. Peterson’s petition calling it, essentially, meaningless political theatre. The R’s made a promise nearly two years ago. By not joining Sen. Peterson they’re effectively reneging on it.
I don’t know where to begin.
1) We’ll wait and see if Peterson signs on to the consensus bill, which, by the way has been in the works since January and has involved leadership on both sides of the aisle legitimately trying to work out a compromise that brings open government to the legislature, not some kamikaze stunt for headlines.
In fact, Peterson’s stunt is actually JEOPARDIZING the chances for open government to pass this session. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
2) PI is clearly personally attached to Peterson which clouds everything she says. And Peterson still has very little to lose by challenging Adams, while everyone else has quite a bit to lose.
3) You all are forgetting that Copeland and several Republicans already signed the petition once, but Peterson couldn’t get it done.
4) A public vote on the floor of the Legislature is hardly a lack of enforcement. I’d say it’s stronger and more public enforcement than Title 100.
To your third point, Dave: Then they should have no problem signing it again.
It would be an at-will firing, and perfectly legitimate, Dana. (Plus, it would even be protected if that awful at-will bill passes, because they exempted the state from their bill. Frauds.)
But it’s also a preventable firing, by not signing on to a meaningless petition. So the R’s hold someone’s fate in their hands, forced into that position by Peterson’s stunt, while they’ve been working tirelessly behind the scenes for months to actually bring FOIA to the legislature.
call me crazy but:
Is it worth someone’s job, a real person’s livelihood, to put a bill on the floor that won’t pass? Ask yourself that.
FUCK YES IT IS ASSHOLE. THEY AREN’T WORKING FOR THEMSELVES. That’s the point of serving your country and state isn’t it? Their needs don’t come first Dave. Our needs do? So if it means that one person loses their job so 800,000 people get to see what our State Government does then so fucking be it. One job isn’t important enough to keep if it means getting an open government.
Christ, no wonder the Bush administration has so many draft dodgers!
Mike — I’m sure they will consider signing it, if the consensus process they’ve been working on for months falls apart or isn’t finalized before the end of session.
As to all of the charges that the R’s want to run on open government but not enact it, that would actually be a winning strategy. It worked for Bruce Ennis.
But running on open government is not effective. Ask Sen. Feroce and Sen. Ramone about that.
I can’t think of one race in either chamber that we will be running on open government in 2008. So you can drop that crap.
“So if it means that one person loses their job so 800,000 people get to see what our State Government does then so fucking be it. One job isn’t important enough to keep if it means getting an open government.”
Signing the petition doesn’t pass the bill, DV. It just gets a vote on the bill. The vote would fail. So there would be one person out on the street for nothing but Peterson’s headlines.
I wasn’t talking about 2008. I was talking about 2006. I can’t cut crap I didn’t crap.
As for Bruce Ennis, I knew that dude wasn’t going to budge because I knew he be an ass-boy of Thurman Adams. Now we all see that’s true. I took no position in that race because I didn’t give a damn. It is what it is.
How would the vote fail, Dave? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the petition was to bypass the rules and bring it to a floor vote where it’s been assured passage, right?
“I thought the petition was to bypass the rules and bring it to a floor vote where it’s been assured passage, right?”
No. It’s not been “assured passage.” It’s only “assured passage” if everyone who signs the petition votes for the bill. But once the bill gets amended through the nose, which it most certainly will, it will lose votes.
“I wasn’t talking about 2008. I was talking about 2006. I can’t cut crap I didn’t crap.”
I wasn’t talking to you there.
Well you addressed me at the top of that comment and didn’t insert another name, so I think it was a logical deduction to assume you were addressing me. My apologies for not picking up.
“the consensus bill, which, by the way has been in the works since January and has involved leadership on both sides of the aisle legitimately trying to work out a compromise that brings open government to the legislature”
Consensus = the leadership of both sides of the aisle: i.e., Copeland & Adams.
Spoken like a true oligarch wannabe.
“Well you addressed me at the top of that comment and didn’t insert another name, so I think it was a logical deduction to assume you were addressing me. My apologies for not picking up.”
Reading it again, I can see where you would think that. My bad.
“Consensus = the leadership of both sides of the aisle: i.e., Copeland & Adams.”
No. Consensus = enough support to reach the floor and pass both chambers.
Whatever it takes to actually get it done.
Word from OOGA is that there is definately enough votes to pass it on the floor, Dave.
But it’s also a preventable firing, by not signing on to a meaningless petition. So the R’s hold someone’s fate in their hands, forced into that position by Peterson’s stunt, while they’ve been working tirelessly behind the scenes for months to actually bring FOIA to the legislature.
*
this is where reason has left the building to make room for cheap partisan bullshit.