We are constantly encouraged by the efforts of four individuals in particular, who are active in taking steps to right the ship of government in Pennsylvania. These four, Tim Potts of Democracy Rising, Russ Diamond of Operation Clean Sweep, Gene Stilp, a citizen-activist, and Eric Epstein of Rock the Capital are in the van of the reform movement rising from the grassroots of Pennsylvania.
To be sure, there are others. But these four are out in front of the effort, and now have joined forces in a law suit seeking to declare the Midnight Pay Raise of last summer unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, which says, among other things, that members of the General Assembly may not benefit from a pay raise until the next session of the General Assembly, and that bills may not be amended to change their original scope or purpose. Act 44, as the Midnight Pay Raise is formally known, violated both of those provisions, among others.
THE CENTRIST fully supports these men in this effort to clean out the greedy jackals in Harrisburg that inhabit all three branches of state government. Of particular interest is the provision about not altering the original intent or scope of a bill. Our most grand and worshipful masters in the General Assembly, who treat the business of state government much the same way as the Medieval Church treated secular knowledge, has been passing bills on the most tenuous of connections to their original intent. Most connections would not survive a “six degrees of separation” analysis. If the court upholds this provision as having been violated, and strikes down Act 44 accordingly, then the precedent is in place to strike as unconstitutional Act 71 of 2004, passed in the exact same stealth manner a year before the Midnight Pay Raise”.
Here at last is the opportunity for the one branch of state government that should be guarding the rights of the people, rather than conspiring against them as did Chief Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ralph Cappy, who has admitted his roll in consulting and conspiring with the leadership of the General Assembly in not only passing the Midnight Pay Raise, but also in creating that most despicable process, the “unvouchered expense”. The unvouchered expense allowed legislators to collect on their pay raises early, many of whom continue to keep the money despite the repeal of the pay raise.
Below is a press release on the oral arguments made yesterday before the State Supreme Court, less Ralph Cappy, who has recused himself from the case. In this case, picture Cappy as the manager of a baseball team ejected by the umpires during the game. He must leave the bench, but he stays in the tunnel leading to the dugout so he can continue to run the team:
Once again we salute these wonderful citizens who are taking the fight for clean government to the front lines, and we congratulate them on the first of many honors that are due to them.Argument in Pay Raise Lawsuit Brings Four Reformers to Court
April 3, 2006
For Immediate Release
On Tuesday, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears argument about whether the pay raise of 2005 was unconstitutional, four of the state’s leading advocates for government integrity will witness the proceedings.Gene Stilp, a citizen activist from Dauphin County, filed one of the lawsuits the court will consider. The other three filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Stilp. They are Russ Diamond, chair of PA Clean Sweep; Eric Epstein, coordinator of Rock the Capital; and Tim Potts, co-founder of Democracy Rising PA.
While Stilp will participate in the argument, the other three will be only interested bystanders. The court last week refused the request of their attorney to participate in oral argument.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on five questions:
Does Stilp have standing to bring a lawsuit seeking to have the pay raise declared unconstitutional?
Did the General Assembly violate Article III of the state Constitution in the way it enacted the pay raise?
Does the system of unvouchered expenses established in the pay raise bill violate the Constitution’s prohibition against lawmakers receiving additional compensation during their current term of office?
If the pay raise law is declared unconstitutional, does that violate the section of the Constitution that prohibits reducing the salaries of judges?
Is the Stilp case moot as a result of the General Assembly passing a partial repeal of the pay raise?
Last July 7 at 2:00 a.m., the Pennsylvania House and Senate passed legislation without public hearings, public debate or public knowledge increasing the salaries of officials in all three branches of government.
Following intense public pressure throughout the fall, the General Assembly repealed the pay raise but did not require those who had received increased salaries and unvouchered expenses to return the funds. As a result, lawmakers who took the unvouchered expenses will receive higher pension benefits.
The repeal also authorized a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, of 3.6 percent for lawmakers and other public officials. The COLA took effect December 1.
Stilp and the other three contend that the General Assembly violated five provisions of the Constitution whose purpose is to ensure that citizens have the opportunity to participate in the formation of laws and to ensure that lawmakers must stand for re-election before raises take effect.
They also argue that by declaring the original pay raise unconstitutional, there is no need for the court to address the question of whether the repeal violated the Constitution’s prohibition against lowering the salaries of judges because the judges would have no right to the additional compensation in the first place.
Here is a link to the brief Diamond, Epstein and Potts filed in support of Stilp’s lawsuit:
http://www.democracyrisingpa.com/DR_Litigation.pdf
Common Cause/PA, which is challenging the pay raise in federal court, has chosen the four advocates to receive its “Public Service Achievement Award.” Three of the four – Stilp, Diamond and Potts – received “Citizen of the Year” honors for 2005 from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Chronology of the Case
August 10, 2005
Gene Stilp files a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court seeking to have Act 44 of 2005 (the pay raise) declared unconstitutional, alleging violations of Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution in the manner of enactment and in the substance of the enactment.Article III, Section 1: “No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, ask to change its original purpose.”
Article III, Section 2: “No bill shall be considered unless referred to a committee, printed for the use of the members and returned therefrom.”
Article III, Section 3: “No bill shall be passed, containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or part thereof.”
Article III, Section 4: “Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House. All amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill, and before the final vote is taken, upon written request addressed to the presiding officer of either House by at least twenty-five percent of the members elected to that House, any bill shall be read at length in that House. No bill shall become a law, unless on its final passage, the vote is taken by yeas and nays, the names of the persons voting for and against it are entered on the Journal, and a majority of the members elected to each House is recorded thereon as voting in its favor.”
Article III, Section 8: “The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase in salary or mileage, under any law passed during such term.”
November 16, 2006
The General Assembly passes and Gov. Ed Rendell signs Act 72 of 2005, which repealed Act 44 in part but did not require the return of “unvouchered expenses” authorized by Act 44.November 30, 2005
Senior Judge James R. Kelley dismissed the Stilp suit as moot because of the enactment of Act 72.December 22, 2005
The Supreme Court took plenary jurisdiction over the case and listed it for argument at the same session with Herron v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which seeks to have Act 72 declared unconstitutional, alleging violations of Article V of the Constitution.Article V, Section 16(a): “Justices, judges and justices of the peace shall be compensated by the Commonwealth as provided by law. Their compensation shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth.”
Please help. It is your state government. Here are some things you can do to help: contribute to these folks, visit their websites, get involved, stay involved, recruit others to the commitment to clean up state government, and whatever else you do, vote, but keep your hands off the party levers! Make informed choices. Stick with Operation Clean Sweep candidates, and do not under any circumstances vote for an incumbent!
Stay tuned!
THE CENTRIST
“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- 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 © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment