662 - Days since the pay raise of 2005
1 - Law enacted to improve government integrity
0 - "Best-in-America" laws enacted
"Defining Votes" on May 8
"Defining votes." That's what lawmakers call votes that "define" a lawmaker's true commitment to a position or an issue.
One week from today, the Senate State Government Committee will hold five defining votes when it takes up proposals for:
These are not only defining votes on each of the reforms but defining votes on whether the Senate is willing to take up structural improvements to state government. Failure in committee will be further evidence of the need for a citizen-driven constitutional convention to debate and decide these and dozens of other issues.
Each of the proposals is subject to amendment both in committee on May 8 and on the floor of the Senate if they pass in committee. To date, no one has made claims that any of the proposals would meet or exceed a "best-in-America" standard, but both the committee vote and the amendment process offer hope.
"While every Senator may not agree with every bill and amendments may be offered to hone an acceptable resolution, the public floor debate needs to happen and it needs to happen right now. The Senate needs to tell Pennsylvania how serious it is about Constitutional reform and help frame the debate concerning a Constitutional Convention," Eichelberger said when announcing his bill.
Meanwhile, the House State Government Committee is missing in action. Similar reform bills are pending there, but the committee has not scheduled a vote on any of them. One such bill is House Bill 721 by Rep. RoseMarie Swanger, R-Lebanon, which would prohibit lame-duck session.
While the Speaker's Reform Commission is considering many proposals, others such as Swanger's are not on the commission's list and could get prompt action by the House State Government Committee. As the second anniversary of the pay raise approaches, the House committee's failure to act is bound to fuel citizen skepticism about whether their Representatives are serious about raising standards of public integrity in state government.
Questions
- How will members of the Senate State Government Committee vote on these proposals?
- Are other Senators urging committee members to send the bills to the floor or to kill them in committee?
- Will failure in committee strengthen the movement for our first constitutional convention in 40 years?
- How much longer will it take for the House to get serious about reforms beyond those that are being considered by the Speaker's Reform Commission?
- What does the lack of House committee action say about the leadership in the House?
Some have suggested that the attitude, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission," is at the heart of what's wrong with state government. Stealth legislation is based on that premise, and it worked until the pay raise. But public officials now must think twice about that approach.
Perhaps that's at the heart of the controversy surrounding Secretary of Environmental Protection Kathleen McGinty and Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources Michael DiBerardinis. Shortly before Senate was scheduled to vote on their confirmation for a second term in office, the Philadelphia Daily News broke the story by John Baer that companies employing the spouses of both cabinet officers received contracts totaling $4.4 million from the agencies.
Some have defended the job performance of McGinty and DiBerardinis as leaders of their agencies. Others have said they are the victims of a partisan and ideological smear campaign that was timed to do maximum damage.
All that may be true, but it is beside the point. The point is that citizens expect and deserve better. If cabinet officers know that the companies where their spouses work are going to bid on contracts, they should make every effort to disclose that fact before contracts are bid and awarded so that citizens can have confidence in the contracting decision.
The State Ethics Commission yesterday said the two cabinet officers should not be involved in future contracting decisions. It would not say whether an investigation into past contract awards is underway. Presumably an investigation would tell citizens whether the contracts were competitively bid, whether the bidding process was normal and whether the contracts were awarded on the basis of cost or on some other basis.
Transparency before the fact would avoid all of this. So will the Commission's recommendation that someone outside the agencies award contracts involving a cabinet officer's spouse.
Tim Potts, Co-Founder
Democracy Rising PA
©Democracy Rising Pennsylvania 2001-2007. All Rights Reserved.
Liberty
Copyright © 2007, Pennsylvania Order of Liberty Blog; All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2007, THE CENTRIST; All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment