How “Transparent” Of Them
What should have been a routine organizational session of the S.C. House of Representatives devolved into protracted chaos yesterday, as RINO Speaker Bobby Harrell forced a bizarre and potentially unconstitutional rules change on his members by refusing to allow any amendments on a so-called “government transparency” proposal.
Meanwhile, using a series of conflicting rulings from his Speaker’s chair, Harrell prevented a legitimate government transparency proposal offered by Rep. Nikki Haley from even being debated.
Given the public relations beating that Harrell has deservedly taken on this issue over the past few months, his preemptive chess move yesterday was as “transparent” a damage control effort by a politician as we’ve seen in some time.
In shutting down Haley’s proposal – and refusing multiple attempts to amend his own bizarre plan – Harrell was able to force the chamber to approve a deeply-flawed rules change that opens a Pandora’s Box of ethically questionable voting requirements.
For example, under Harrell’s new rule lawmakers who miss a vote for whatever reason would be automatically recorded as having voted in the affirmative, irrespective of whether or not they were even present in the chamber at the time of the vote.
Worse still, the so-called “transparency” sections of Harrell’s new rules change amount to little more than a codification of items the House is already required to record its votes on.
“We’re already doing roll call voting on 99% of these things,” admitted Rep. Brian White, who was sent to the podium to defend Harrell’s plan.
Nevertheless, it became clear to frustrated Republicans and Democrats as the debate dragged on that it was going to be Harrell’s way or the highway, particularly when the Speaker began contradicting himself on the rationale behind his conflicting rulings.
In one bitterly ironic moment, Harrell referred to the parliamentary points of order approved by the House’s Rules Committee in the past … mere seconds after dismissing a colleague’s objection on the grounds that “the Rules Committee doesn’t exist.”
“The only authority is the chair’s interpretation,” a visibly-agitated Harrell said when pressed on another contradiction, referring to his power to rule anything out of order regardless of the rules of the previous session.
“There was not a whole lot of control in the chamber,” former Democratic Majority Leader James Smith said at the conclusion of the maddening, marathon debate. “Not a good way to start the session.”
Smith – who was one of the first lawmakers to sign onto Rep. Haley’s transparency proposal – actually attempted on several occasions to bring it up for a vote, but Harrell “refused to consider it.”
“They’re not addressing the issue,” Smith said. “I don’t know why (Harrell) chose this route.”
Haley’s proposal is simple – it would require a recorded vote on everything except ceremonial measures.
More specifically as it relates to taxpayers’ wallets, it would require recorded votes on four key areas – individual sections of the state budget, second reading of all bills (which is where issues are decided in the legislature), amended third readings of all bills and conference committee reports, which is where differences between the House and Senate versions of legislation are resolved.
Harrell’s rule change does not require recorded votes in any of those four key categories.
“The House leadership used its power to thwart the people’s will and deny them accountability,” S.C. Policy Council President Ashley Landess said. “They scammed the public by pretending to pass transparency.”
Gov. Mark Sanford agreed, saying that Harrell’s plan “will not provide the maximum amount of transparency the people of this state have asked for.”
“It should be really simple – every bill should get a roll-call vote on second reading, period,” Sanford said. “Whether the change comes in the form of a rule or a law like the one proposed by Rep. Haley and many others, we think this issue is one that’s worth revisiting in January.”
Rep. Gilda-Cobb Hunter also threw in her support for Rep. Haley’s proposal during the debate.
“If we were really interested in accountability and transparency, wouldn’t we just pass Representative Haley’s bill?” she said.
Bucking the trend, Rep. Todd Rutherford said the House already has “enough transparency” because it’s on television.
Interestingly enough, yesterday’s debate was not televised on SCETV due to budget cuts, although it was made available over the Internet.
“We don’t need anymore roll call voting,” Rutherford said nonetheless. “You’ve got seats in the chamber, watch it on TV or hire a lobbyist.”
Yeah … because in these economic times who can’t afford to go out and hire their own lobbyist?
Anyway, now that you know what happened on the floor, stay tuned to FITS for more on the back stories from yesterday’s chaotic cluster at the State House.
Comments
By Idiot on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
Wow, Rutherford is an idiot. I hope he is skewered for those stupid thoughts.
What a pompous, arrogant view.
By Gloria on December 3rd, 2008 at 6:22 am
So did Harrell not just create twice as much work for everyone by requesting they go to the clerk and have to request a NAY vote if that is their intention? That would take more time and chaos. What are the buttons for on each the desks? There is a lot of arrogance in thinking that anyone who is not with the speaker needs to go and remove their name from the automatic YEA. What kind of democratic process is this? The only part that is legitimate is the roll call vote on legislative pay raises and incentives. The rest is fluff and a poke in the eye of every legislator to take part in this now cumbersome voting process. Harrell just wants to create chaos and/or does not have control.
By Cockfighter on December 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Rutherford could not have sounded more like an idiot…and I saw it streaming live on my computer!!! Thing is though Rep. Rutherford, I work, I don’t get to stay home and watch on eTV or watch on the computer as you suggested. I took yesterday off for a doctors appointment and in sitting with my ABATE bud and reviewing this years legislative session we ultimately ended up coming across the Little Hilter Show.
I would much rather be able to go online and look and see how my Representative, and others, voted on issues important to me. Can someone please send to me because I cannot get it, how everyone voted on the helmet law?
GO COCKS!!! We have baseball to look forward to!
By Bill on December 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
I agree, Rutherford is an idiot. I was very surprised at his comments and his behavior.
And who is his side kick Rep Kennedy? Had they been drinking before the session?
I hope so…being drunk is better than being stupid.
By Workin' Tommy C on December 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Harrell and Rutherford are not engendering trust with their scam “rules change” since we DON’T TRUST THEM TO BEGIN WITH!
This has got to be a matter of law and Nikki Haley and the others who are bravely stepping up to the plate FOR US are skewering the corrupt politicians with their proposal.
How can any honest politician (a contradiction of terms in most cases) have a problem with the people knowing how each individual voted?
The ONLY answer is that they’re obviously trying to hide something.
Why? The only answer there is that they’re doing something–like doling out corporate welfare, giving themselves more privileges or money, or passing laws that are otherwise unethical, immoral, crooked, etc.
By Silence the Noise on December 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Bobby Harrell is the idiot….Rutherford has an excuse….being a used car salesman in these economic times is obviously maddening.
Bobby can’t even come up with an origional idea. His passionate thank you speach was full of lies and bullshit. Not to mention that he swore to uphold the constitution but not 5 mins later passed an unconstituional measure.
I wouldnt be suprised if this is a move to get Henry McIdiot some measure of credibility in his ill-fated attempt at running for governor…..you see…..someone is going to ask for a constitutional ruling…..then all the sudden Henry becomes the poster idiot for transparency…..despite the fact that he has no freaking clue where he last parked his car.
Remember how he BOTCHED the investigation and prosecution of the sexual deviant who kept his victim locked in a cellar?
By Kevin on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
It appears that someone doesn’t want to have a record that can be traced when voting on anything, should they decide to run for higher office. What makes Speaker Harrell think that he can accomplish anything this session that he was unable to accomplish in all of the previous sessions he held his seat. I once was a fan of Speaker Harrell but need I repeat the common phrase that doing the same thing time and again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. We MUST get new blood in the legislature, lest these arrogant public servants start to see the relationship the wrong way.
By mijeel on December 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
When did the people of South Carolina elect Bobby Harrell “king” of the State House of Representatives? Harrell’s arrogant if not dictatorial behavior is simply unacceptable. Are there any members of the House clever enough to figure out a way to reign in the reign of “King Bobby?”
By WMD on December 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
You fools are being fooled by Sic Swill. He is like Milwaukee’s Beast with his bitterness and bad aftertaste.
The Speaker’s proposal IS transparency, but (s)Will does not want it to pass because it will take the wind out of his girlfriend Nikki Haley’s sails.
All this story is is Will Folks getting paid to come after Bobby Harrell who has done nothing but promote transparency since he was elected.
Speaker Harrell is a true conservative leader who believes in open government. If you look at his record it is clear. He believes in letting sunshine in but the difference is the Speaker believes in getting something done not getting a lot of selfish media attention for himself. THat is the difference.
Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine have started a deliberate attempt to undermine the Speaker. It has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with smearing the Speaker so they can look good.
We cannot do anything with Nikki because she is a minority woman which is too bad but ask Nathan about his little plan and how that worked out. He messed with the bull and got the horns and Nikki will get her chairmanship she covets taken away today when the LCI board is restacked.
So Will it looks like your two “transparency” heroes are going to need to drink a big tall glass of sit down and shut the hell up.
By Workin' Tommy C on December 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
What color is your Kool-Aid, WMD?
If it’s so impossible to get things done with a law like Nikki Haley’s, why do all but a handful of other states have such laws AND get things done?
What corruption are you and YOUR buddies trying to hide?
By Statesman on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
WMD, Roll me up one of those Fatties you’ve been smokin’.
By Gene E. Nowak on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
WMD the only transparency is your attempt to slay the messanger.
The speaker like Obama does want a paper trail following him to the voting booth. No record equals no proof in their world.
By Cliff on December 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Harrell needs to go. Haleys’ bill is the only one I support.
By Trying on December 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Could someone explain how 100% of actions being recorded not being transparent enough
By Quiet on December 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
WMD…..you and BIN need to stick to the twittering and leave the thinking to those with a brain.
By Workin' Tommy C on December 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
My impression is that Speaker Bobby Harrell is a crook. Why else would he be pulling these shenanigans and attempting to undercut Nikki Haley’s attempts at complete openness.
Sorry, but when one person wants everything on the record and the other does not, there’s no other logical conclusion one can come to, namely that Speaker Bobby Harrell is a crook stealing from the people of this state.
By Matt Moore on December 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Cockfighter- there are no recent roll call votes on helmet laws (the current laws are over 20 years old). However, I’d encourage you to take a look at ABATE’s legislative prorities and cross reference them with the SC House and Senate Journals. That way you can track the movement of ABATE supported/opposed bills.
Above all, requiring more roll call votes would give taxpayers, ABATE and other watchdog groups an idea of where legislators stand on their issues. As you’ll see in the House and Senate journals, those roll call votes haven’t happened.
Just as an FYI, any new bills related to ABATE’s supported/opposed issues will have to be refiled for the 2009-2010 legislative session. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you need further help.
Best,
Matt Moore
Executive Director
SC Club for Growth
By Ron on December 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Hi Will,
I’m an active Republican but out of frustration would support about anyone regardless of party that might be willing to run against this “rino speaker” of the house just to get him out. LOL
By Silence DoNoGood on December 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Will (or to whomever it may concern) – you fail to clarify a few things in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. Was the proposed “government transparency” rules change amendable to begin with? If so, was Rep. Haley proposing her amendments at the appropriate time for discussion and debate? Also, did the Rules Committee ever exist? Usually Rules Committees are Ad Hoc and are created and disbanded once their job is fulfilled. So, the Rules Committee may not be in existence today but the rules they drafted could still “hold water.” There are several loop-holes with your story that I hope you’re able to clear up. We wouldn’t want you, being such a huge fan of transparency, to be hiding something from your loyal and faithful readers.
By Gene E. Nowak on December 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Trying; You can not seriously by calling a voice vote a recorded vote. It is only an opinion of the chair, which is not being challenged by the opposition.
By Trying on December 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The house rule says that it is to be printed as a roll call vote so people are voted yes unless the tell someone no. So we will know the vote of every member on everything
By Workin' Tommy C on December 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Trying: Why bother? Nikki Haley’s bill would make EVERYTHING a roll call vote, simplifying the procedural processes that could then compensate for any “slowdown” in the legislative process.
Personally, I don’t think it would make much difference in speed and even if it did, so what??? It’s darn well worth the small sacrifice. If they have to stay later some days and they don’t like it, they can resign!
By Paris Hilton on December 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Oh, Bobby your such a BIG boy. You really showed them. WOW, I am soooo impressed with you. I feel like saying “that’s HOT” but your you’re NOT really. But hey, you and I have got something in common, transparency. People are always saying how transparent I am. I think that is HOT, whatever they mean.
By Cliff on December 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Haley’s bill would allow for second and third reading votes to be recorded as this is when they can tack on amendments that can kill a bill or make it go on through. This is the meat of the matter.
By Junior on December 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Way to show your moronic selves. Harrell, Bingham, and Merrill should feel real proud for destroying not only the Republican Party and Caucus but for dismantling democracy. What arrogant pricks!!
By Bob Bearden on December 4th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Will,
You should practice transparency and reveal who PAYS you to promote them on this website.
Who are your clients!
By Workin' Tommy C on December 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I find it amazing that people who are corrupt automatically assume everyone else is corrupt as well.
There are a few of us out here who will fight for what is right based on our Christian teachings and our intrinsic concepts of right and wrong.
By Silence the Noise on December 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Sadly….Fitsnews has no clients…..its a blog dumbass.
The only blog getting a paycheck from politicians is The Palmetto Scoop…..just ask Henry McMaster and Bobby Harrell…..
By Nuts on December 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
And don’t forget the trial lawyers Silence…
By Cliff on December 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Well they’ve moved Nikki out of Labor, Commerce and Industry into the Ways and Means Committee yesterday.
By SCBCB on December 4th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Ballentine is a tool. This state is run by the Budget and Control Board; not the House, or the Senate, or the Governor. Ballentine got used like the rookie, junior representative he is. Now that he has been banished to 3M, maybe he’ll learn how politics work in South Carolina.
By Ashlyn on December 5th, 2008 at 6:40 am
The only tools apparently in this shed are the Hoe Annette Young, Pecan and Nut Picker Upper Bingham, Trowel Sandifer, Pooper Scooper Merrill, and the big Compost Dump Harrell. These tools are useless, elect more professionals like Haley and Ballentine.
By Workin' Tommy C on December 5th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Ashlyn: Too funny!