Friday, May 30, 2003
‘The repeal was gaveled through on a voice vote...’: Three votes. Three controversies. Three instances of legislators holding up their collective middle-finger to the public. ... Here goes:
Vote No. 1: A gaveled-through voice vote to repeal the voter-approved Clean Elections Law. ... Here’s the Globe story and Herald story.
Vote No. 2: Another gaveled-through voice vote to impose a statewide smoking ban. ... Here’s the Globe story and the Herald story.
Vote No. 3: Absentee lawmakers on the seat belt vote. ... Here’s Brian McGrory’s conclusion on Vote No. 3, a conclusion that could just as easily apply to Votes No. 1 and 2: “But if you get the sense that there's a haphazard nature to the way business is done on Beacon Hill, you're absolutely right. Sometimes they swill beer during key votes. Sometimes they pass bills in the dark of the
night. And sometimes they don't bother showing up at all.”
Hub Blog’s response: Despite some criticism, Hub Blog has been waging a one-blogger crusade against the underhanded way the smoking ban was imposed in Boston by an unelected board -- and the way the actions of unelected boards in general have been used to create ‘momentum’ for a fait accompli vote by the full legislature. Now we don’t even get an open debate and vote on the issue in the legislature. Just another ram-it-down-their-throats maneuver. ... I’m eagerly waiting for the Globe and others to howl about the underhanded way the Clean Elections Law was repealed without open debate and a roll-call vote. Maybe they’ll make a connection to the ram-it-down-their-throats way the smoking ban has been systematically handled. Doubt it. ...
Attention Clean Elections Law supporters: Doesn’t it suck being on the losing end of one these ‘technically’ legal antics? As for all others: One day your views on an important issue will be handled in the same contemptuous way. And think of this when it happens: You bloody deserve it for having not spoken up when it happened to others. ...
As for the seat belt law, well, as I said yesterday, at least they’re holding open debates and votes on the issue.
Vote No. 1: A gaveled-through voice vote to repeal the voter-approved Clean Elections Law. ... Here’s the Globe story and Herald story.
Vote No. 2: Another gaveled-through voice vote to impose a statewide smoking ban. ... Here’s the Globe story and the Herald story.
Vote No. 3: Absentee lawmakers on the seat belt vote. ... Here’s Brian McGrory’s conclusion on Vote No. 3, a conclusion that could just as easily apply to Votes No. 1 and 2: “But if you get the sense that there's a haphazard nature to the way business is done on Beacon Hill, you're absolutely right. Sometimes they swill beer during key votes. Sometimes they pass bills in the dark of the
night. And sometimes they don't bother showing up at all.”
Hub Blog’s response: Despite some criticism, Hub Blog has been waging a one-blogger crusade against the underhanded way the smoking ban was imposed in Boston by an unelected board -- and the way the actions of unelected boards in general have been used to create ‘momentum’ for a fait accompli vote by the full legislature. Now we don’t even get an open debate and vote on the issue in the legislature. Just another ram-it-down-their-throats maneuver. ... I’m eagerly waiting for the Globe and others to howl about the underhanded way the Clean Elections Law was repealed without open debate and a roll-call vote. Maybe they’ll make a connection to the ram-it-down-their-throats way the smoking ban has been systematically handled. Doubt it. ...
Attention Clean Elections Law supporters: Doesn’t it suck being on the losing end of one these ‘technically’ legal antics? As for all others: One day your views on an important issue will be handled in the same contemptuous way. And think of this when it happens: You bloody deserve it for having not spoken up when it happened to others. ...
As for the seat belt law, well, as I said yesterday, at least they’re holding open debates and votes on the issue.
