burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


7.12.2007

 

Speaker votes

In the veto session Wednesday, House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, cast votes on both the energy and campaign finance override questions even though she was presiding. That was surprising.

Under House rules, the speaker votes only in the event of a tie or to create a tie. Or she steps down and has someone else preside so she can vote. Then the person presiding gives up his or her chance to vote.

Donald Milne, clerk of the House, explained today that the state constitution sets out the procedure for override votes and that trumps House rules. It says that a 2/3 majority of members present is required to override a veto. Since the speaker is a member, the tally of members present includes the speaker. And since the speaker was counted to determine how many votes were needed to override the two bills, Milne concluded her vote should count, too.

"I felt, and others agreed, that she is not only entitled to vote but obligated to vote," Milne said.

The override vote on the campaign finance bill fell short by a single vote, with one Democrat joinng the Republican caucus to support the governor's veto and three Democrats absent. It would have been a two-vote loss without Symington's vote. Democratic leaders say the three absent lawmakers support campaign reform, so they predict passage of a comparable bill next winter and say they will have enough votes to sustain a veto -- should Gov. Jim Douglas again reject the measure. On any vote to pass to the bill, however, Symington wouldn't be voting.

-- Nancy Remsen

Comments:
Who was absent?

1) Shap Smith
2) Warren Kitzmiller
3) ??
 
If the Dems were all present, it wouldn't have been a loss at all.
Carping about Symington's vote is
irrelevant.
 
Why were they absent?

And besides that, why do they have to be present? If a vetoed bill can't be changed for this session, why can't their votes be handled by some early voting mechanism?
 
The missing Democrats were Rep. Warren Kitzmiller, D-Montpelier, who was in Montana; Rep. Sue Minter, D-Waterbury, who was in Peru and Rep. Virginia McCormack, D-Rutland, who was in Alaska.

-- Nancy Remsen
 
Kitzmiller, Minter, and McCormack must be looking for real estate.
 
Kitzmiller's, Minter's, and McCormack's absences are completely unacceptable. They work for us, and they should not have been on out-of-state vacations on the date of an important vote. The date for the veto session was set back in May, so they had plenty of time to change their plans.

Symington should give these three members a good talking-to. If Ralph Wright were still around, these three would have been reassigned to the Fish and Game Committee before the end of the day. As a committee chair, Kitzmiller's absence is particularly egregious. He owes his chairmanship to Speaker Symington, and should not have let her down by being absent for these votes.

At least Kitzmiller's colleague from Montpelier, Jon Anderson, redeemed himself for his vote to sustain the veto of the budget adjustment act earlier in the session by voting to override on both energy and campaign finance.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Beloved bloggers: Much as I hate to be a stick in the mud, we can't have you going off using words that would be offensive to my mother. I had to delete an otherwise legitimate response from here because of two such words. Here's the part of that message from "anonymous" that would pass the mother test:

"If Ralph Wright were still around, these three would have been reassigned to the Fish and Game Committee before the end of the day."

If Ralph Wright were still Speaker, we wouldn't have had this fiasco in the first place. Because when Shumlin came over and said to Wright, "Here's the global warming bill. We're gonna fund this bill with a questionable tax on Vermont Yankee, even if will get vetoed by the Governor," Ralph Wright would have said, "Are you ... nuts? No way. It'll get vetoed by the Governor and we won't win an override. We'll look like ... (let's say, doofuses), so we're not doing it. Now go back to your chamber."

And that's the difference between Ralph Wright and Symington. It would never have come to a doomed veto showdown with the Governor.

10:57 PM, July 12, 2007
 
I happily accept your edits and apologize for my "exuberance." It reads just as well your way.
 
You are so right about how it would have been and it should be.
 
We need a new Speaker - ASAP!
 
Please replace her.
 
It seems that a new Speaker of the House in Vermont is desperatly needed!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010