Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
March 31, 2005SG Meeting Called for SaturdayBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanHere is the e-mail from President Brent Chaney calling a special session of SG for this Saturday at 8 am to hopefully discuss and vote on the election reform bills. This is from the "secretive insider listservs" that I think some have claimed in the Texan, meaning, the representatives and committee/agency listservs. Dear Student Government Members, In comparison to most bills in the Assembly, it had more time for members to find out about it, do research, attend forums, etc. than other bills they complain are rushed. Is there any bill in the Assembly that has some level of controversy that isn't decried as being 'rushed'? If Brent went to more than one meeting on the Bill, and if general members actually showed up to the who knows how many different meetings on this bill, maybe they would be more informed. Oh heavens, there are differnt points of view from the student body! Sound the "must not vote on legislation alarm" because we aren't all singing Kumbyah as we unanimously approve it by voice vote! Get serious Representatives, you use the same damn excuses for every piece of legislation that comes before the assembly that someone, usually Grant Stannis, doesn't like. I can't even think right now of one piece of legislation this year that was actually voted on if it was contested, and was instead tabled into non-existance without any vote up or down at all. If you don't like legislation, vote it down. Don't 'not deal with it' or worse as the case was this week, leave with your ball because you don't want to play. The rest of the e-mail below the fold. Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at March 31, 2005 09:27 PM | TrackBack Comments
I stumbled upon this blog while reading up on SG. Unbelievable. Good post on the issue. Posted by: abdul at March 31, 2005 11:04 PMIn response to the accusation that AB 18 is "rushed": We held meetings. We consulted lawyers. We researched SG election procedures for other schools. We asked the opinions of students. We held a big forum which almost none of the current reps who are opposed to the bill attended. We asked for the input of anyone who would listen. What, pray tell, would you have had us do that we haven't already done, or tried to do? Brent needs to quit scapegoating the authors of AB 18 and start blaming certain assembly members for being prejudiced and totally uncooperative when we asked for input. The fact is, Stanis and Co. have had it in for us from the start, and no amount of dawdling would have changed that reality. And what's with this "everyone is responsible" crap? If we had gotten our way, SG would currently be raking in the praises from the Texan and the student body. Don't blame the bad PR on us--we're not the ones who screwed over the democratic process. Posted by: Amanda at March 31, 2005 11:24 PMIn Brent's defense the many discussions I've had with individuals in the prepration of the bill have noted there was a rush and the need to do this quickly. To say there was no expediency is to deny reality. There have been meetings and I think the authors have done an admirable job of getting in touch with as many people as possible in the short amount of time this was put together. However, as a proponent of election reform, I believe firmly that real election reform would have been better assembled with more time and more stakeholders brought into the process. The reasoning behind doing election reform now, as explained to me by the authors is political. It is to do it before the new assembly takes control and understandably so: The new assembly isn't likely to vote for proper reform. This is why, on the other side, they tried to stop debate. Both sides are acting with politics in mind, let us get off of our high horses. Where it crossed the line is when Stannis and Co. broke quorum. The Killer Ds, Killer Bs, and Dirty 30, the most famous quorum breakers of Texas history all were impelled to do so because of an unprecedented change of senate rules to allow a bill to be considered without usual senate consent. In this case the quorum was broken to stop a bill. Grant, Courtney, and Clayton (all three of whom I ran with and the latter two my reps) did the assembly and their constituents a disservice not only because they left, but because they showed up to disrupt the meeting in the first place. Posted by: matth at April 1, 2005 12:13 AMMatt- You and I are on the same side on this one, but as an historian I have to correct one thing. The Killer Ds didn't break quorum because of a rule change, they were simply killing a bill much like Stanis and Co. have done. I would say that the content of the bills is what makes the difference, however. The Texas 11, Killer Bs and (I believe) the Dirty 30 were all resisting rule changes that were leading to either bad bills (redistricting, split primaries) or protecting corrupt leadership (the Dirty 30). Still, not a big difference, just wanted to throw this out there. -AD Posted by: Andrew Dobbs at April 1, 2005 01:42 PMPost a comment
|
|
|
