Meanwhile, the bozos in the State Senate (and a much larger collection in the State House of Representatives) still have not figured out the right thing to do, in spite of unprecedented voter activism in the last election telling them in no uncertain terms what to do: PAY IT ALL BACK! EVERY RED CENT! Here’s Tim Potts:
Pay Watch 18 – Paybacks Are A….
Thoughts on Covering Democracy in Pennsylvania
December 28, 2005
Background
Disasters always linger with foul vapors and visions arising from their memory. So it is with the Pay Raise of 2005. Despite its repeal and the tacit admission that it never should have occurred, some lawmakers cling to their ill-gotten gains like river sludge to basement walls following a flood.As we turn the corner on 2005 and head into the election season of 2006, two organizations that were at the forefront of the repeal movement are documenting the continuing disaster. Rock the Capital (organizers of the September 26 Rally for Repeal in Harrisburg) and PA Clean Sweep (champions of giving voters a choice in next year’s elections) are making sure that every voter can find out whether those who claim to represent them have returned their “unvouchered expenses.”
Rock the Capital (RTC) has been tracking the Senate where 27 Senators initially took this unconstitutional increase in income. As of December 19, RTC reports that 16 Senators have repaid or have pledged to repay the unvouchered expenses while nine Senators have said they will not return your money to the State Treasury. Those nine – all but one of whom are Democrats – are:
Sen. Jay Costa, D-Allegheny
Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia
Sen. Vince Hughes, D-Philadelphia
Sen. Shirley Kitchen, D-Philadelphia
Sen. Gerry LaValle, D-Beaver
Sen. Charles Lemmond, R-Luzerne
Sen. Robert Mellow, D-Lackawanna
Sen. Raphael Musto, D-Luzerne
Sen. Michael Stack, D-PhiladelphiaThree of these senators are up for re-election in 2006, but only two of them – Mellow and Musto – may face the voters. Lemmond has decided to keep the money and retire, thereby increasing his legislative pension.
Pennsylvania’s pension plan for legislators, boosted by 50 percent in 2001, is among the most generous pension plans in America.
For the full RTC report, including some revealing public comments by these senators, visit:
http://www.rockthecapital.org/newsAdvisory2.htm.
Meanwhile, PA Clean Sweep has created a “Hall of Shame” for those who took unvouchered expenses:
http://www.pacleansweep.com/cgi-bin/payitback.cgi
(Be patient; it can take a little while to load.)Here they identify, and provide emails and phone numbers for, those lawmakers in both the House and Senate who:
- Took the money and won’t prove that they’ve given it back. PA Clean Sweep lists 136 of them as of today.
- Took the money but have provided proof that they’ve given it back. There are 22 so far.
Of course, if the PA Supreme Court rules (as it should) that the original pay raise of July 7 was unconstitutional, everyone will have to repay the unvouchered expenses and all of the organizations working for higher public integrity can claim, “Paybacks Are Accomplished.”
Questions for Lawmakers
If keeping unvouchered expenses because they were “legal at the time” (the Mellow excuse) is a matter of principle, what principle was at play on July 7 when you made the secretly negotiated pay raise “legal” without public knowledge or public debate in the middle of the night?Which lawmakers will return the unvouchered expenses, and which will continue to treat citizens and taxpayers with contempt?
How many lawmakers would rather retire than repent? How many of those who keep the money will retire like Sen. Lemmond rather than face up to their constituents? How many who didn’t take the money will find the prospect of facing a reform agenda next year to be so daunting that they will find other work to do?
Questions for Citizens
Will Pennsylvania citizens keep pushing lawmakers to return their repealed pay raise? Will this be a “tipping point” issue with voters on primary or general Election Day – an issue that will change votes, all other things being relatively equal?Will Pennsylvania citizens use the continuing reluctance of lawmakers to make amends as leverage to force broader reforms in one of the worst legislatures in
America?Tim Potts, Co-Founder
Democracy Rising PA
www.democracyrisingpa.com
P.O. Box 618, Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-8570
As always Tim, we are in your debt for keeping these clown’s feet to the fire. We need a concerted effort in May to unseat incumbents by placing other candidates on the ballot, and in November, an even greater effort to turn the all of the Representatives, and as many of the Senators as are up for re-election. They have brought shame and disgrace on our great Commonwealth.
In other news, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has agreed to here Gene Stilp’s case that the Midnight Pay Raise was unconstitutional. Also, the court has agreed to here the suit of nine greedy judges who think the Repeal was unconstitutional. Whichever case gets decided first, I suppose, will signal the decision of the other. Here is the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer on this news:
Top court will hear pay-raise lawsuits
It will judge both the act increasing salaries, and the one repealing the raises. The issue is mired in politics.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau
Posted on Wed, Dec. 28, 2005HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for the first time in 20 years, has agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a legislative pay raise.
In a 6-0 ruling the court also said it would consider another lawsuit that challenges the repeal of the pay raise.Almost immediately, questions were raised about the potential conflict of interest with a court that benefitted from the July pay raise and would stand to benefit from its decision. Some experts said the court would likely apply a legal standard that says if all judges eligible to hear a case have a conflict, the necessity for a decision prevails over the conflict of interest.
Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy, who was criticized for his role in drafting key concepts of the pay-raise legislation and for his vocal defense of the legislature, has recused himself from all pay-raise cases.
The court said in its ruling Thursday that it would consider a case filed by Harrisburg political activist Gene Stilp that questions the propriety of how the General Assembly passed the legislation, which gave raises of 16 percent to 34 percent to officials in all three branches of government.
The Stilp case will examine constitutional questions in the act that have been the subject of lawsuits before, including whether the pay-raise law reflected the bill's original purpose, that legislation be brought before a committee before it goes before the full chamber, and that bills pertain to a single subject and be considered on three separate days.
The suit also challenges the legislature's use of "unvouchered expenses," which allowed lawmakers to take the raise immediately and thus sidestep a constitutional
prohibition against voting themselves a mid-term pay increase. In a 1986 ruling that has been used by the legislature to defend subsequent raises, the state Supreme Court found that the use of unvouchered expenses was constitutional.The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Stilp case after the Commonwealth Court - where it was originally filed last summer - found his suit moot following repeal of the pay-raise legislation.
Yesterday, Stilp said the high court's action recognizes the public-policy implications of the legislature's action, which touched off a statewide good-government movement."This is part of the effort to restore integrity to the courts of Pennsylvania," said Stilp, who first sued over a legislative pay raise 10 years ago.
The second related case the Supreme Court will hear was filed by Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John W. Herron, challenging the repeal of the pay raise.
Herron's suit was one of three suits filed earlier this month by nine judges who cited a state law that says judges' salaries can't be cut unless the salaries of all state officers are reduced at the same time. That provision is intended to insulate judges from political influence."I'm pleased that the Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction over the case," said Herron's attorney, Robert C. Heim. "It does so only in matters where it has concluded that it is a matter of substantial importance to the litigants and to the public."
Stephen MacNett, chief counsel for the Senate Republicans, defended the constitutionality of both acts yesterday. "We spent a lot of time discussing how to handle the repeal," he said.
Among the parties named in the lawsuits are Gov. Rendell, House Speaker John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) and Sen. Robert C. Jubelirer (R., Blair), president pro tempore of the Senate.
Asked at a news conference yesterday in Philadelphia whether the administration would defend the raise, Rendell said that he could see his administration supporting only the constitutionality of the judges' raises.
Some critics questioned the appearance of a conflict of interest in state judges hearing a pay-raise case. Rep. Greg Vitali (D., Delaware), a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit over the pay raise, said he wondered whether judges who "have pecuniary
interest in the outcome" have a conflict of interest in hearing the case.Stilp said he planned to file a motion next week to have Supreme Court Justice Sandra Schultz Newman removed from the case because he led a campaign to oust her in last month's elections. Newman, one of two justices targeted by an anti-incumbent campaign, narrowly won a second term on the bench, while Supreme
Court Justice Russell M. Nigro was voted out of office. Nigro's term will expire Sunday.
-----------------------------------------
Staff writer Amy Worden can be reached at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com. Inquirer staff writers Carrie Budoff and Christine Schiavo contributed to this article.-----------------------------------------
This article is posted online at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Click this link: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13496917.htm
This blogger’s feeling here is that this case should not be heard by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and that it should go to the United States Supreme Court, as no state court can be shown to have no stake in the outcome. If the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rules on these cases, they will be forever tarnished, and branded as unfair, and impartial, no matter which way they rule. If justice is to be served here, it needs to go to the high court. In other words, the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania needs to recuse itself on these cases! However, since issues of state constitutions are not within the purview of the Federal government, except as they cross over the line between state and Federal rights, in this case, the Supreme Court could fairly be asked to issue a brief as an amicus curae.
Finally, where in the world is the American Civil Liberties Union on this issue?
THE CENTRIST
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs. " Albert Einstein
Copyright © 2005, “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment