This letter ran in edited form in the Guam Daily Post on April 21. The letter asks the speaker to see to that the legislature is composed of senators not quarterbacks.
Speaker Barnes:
It’s time to send the
quarterbacks on your team to the NFL or better yet back to a high school
football team. The quarterbacks, those who would rather pass than vote, are
Sens. (Taitano), Perez and Therese Terlaje. When the roll was called on Bill
335 three voted yes, 9 voted no and those three didn’t vote at all. Like good
quarterbacks (Taitano), Perez and Terlaje passed instead of voting.
An uniformed observer
would be dumbfounded by the three’s inability to vote on a matter that was so
highly publicized and contentious. Query: are they so indecisive that
when the role was called they hadn’t yet decided on how to vote? Of
course not. The “pass” had a far more sinister purpose—to score points!
The corrupt practice of what can be labelled “strategic voting” is not new as
is shown in the December 27, 2015 PDN op/ed set out below.
Roll call votes are
conducted in alphabetical order from Castro to Torres. When the vote was taken
on Bill 335, voting third Senator (Taitano), who apparently suffers from
nomenclature dysphoria uses Marsh for roll call purposes, passed. When it was
Senator Perez’ turn there were five no votes. Perez passed. She could hold on
to see if six others would join her and (Taitano). On the second time around
there were nine no votes thus freeing up the three to vote no.
Strategic voting is
cynically used to gaslight the public. Days hence the three quarterbacks
will be able to brag, “Oh yeah, I voted against the curfew.” The strategic
voting may also be advanced as, “I DID support you, Governor.”
The final vote on 335 was
three yeas, nine nays and three quarterbacks. Twelve senators openly voted
their positions. The three quarterbacks played a cynical game.
As the “coach” of the
team it’s time you exercised some leadership to end this chicanery. In order to
be of assistance, I have set out language that could be incorporated into a
resolution amending the standing rules or better yet an amendment to the GCA to
end this despicable practice. Random rather than alphabetical roll call of
senators who must vote rather than strategically equivocate is the remedy
for this serious procedural malady.
AMENDMENTS TO
THE STANDING RULES
Rule 1.01(g)(2) Voting on
Roll Call. Whenever a roll call is required by the Rules, or ordered by I
Liheslaturan Guåhan, or demanded by three (3) Members, every Member within I
Liheslaturan Guåhan should must without debate answer “aye” or
“nay” when the Member’s name is called. The names of Members shall be called in
alphabetical random order and no Senator shall be permitted to
vote or change the vote after the announcement of the
vote by the Presiding Officer.
Rule 1.01(g)(6)(A) Failing
to Vote. If any Member fails to vote for a period of over two (2) minutes, or
“passes,” or refuses to vote more than three (3) consecutive times after the
Member’s name is called, the Member shall be construed as declining to vote,
and the Member’s vote shall be entered as a “nay” vote by the Clerk of the
Legislature, unless the Member is excused from voting pursuant to Section
1.02(g)(6). If any Member refuses to vote after being ordered to by the
Body, that Member’s vote shall be entered as a “nay” vote by the Clerk of the
Legislature.
AMENDMENTS TO
STATUTE
3 GCA § 2104.1 is added
to read:
§ 2104.1 No bill shall be
passed by I Liheslaturan Guahan except upon a single roll call vote, the names
upon which shall be called in random order.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Klitzkie
PDN
December 27, 2015
https://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/2015/12/27/senators-need-publics-trust/77935756/
https://www.guampdn.com/story/opinion/2015/12/27/senators-need-publics-trust/77935756/
Senators need public's trust
The top issue that the Legislature must address in 2016? There are three:- the
loss of public trust;
- the
loss of public trust; and
- the
loss of public trust.
Because roll call votes are taken in alphabetical order, a name at the end of the alphabet is a huge tactical advantage. The Adas vote first, Won Pat last. Senators who “pass” instead of voting are counting votes. If a senator’s vote is not the critical eighth, the senator can vote for or against the bill with impunity. Sen. Tina Rose Muña Barnes has apparently mastered the tactic.
When the bill to roll back the salaries (204-33) of all elected officials came on for a vote, Barnes passed. Being stuck near the alphabetical middle of the roll call, Barnes could see her yea vote plus four more from the rest of the list would pass the bill. On the second roll call, the count facing Barnes was 7-7. Her no vote controlled. The bill failed. Had the vote been 8-6 against, coming to Barnes, she could have voted yea, obtained bragging rights for voting to roll back her own salary but kept the money!
On the bill to roll back only senatorial pay (201-33), three other senators joined the “bragging rights but keep the money club:” Sens. James Espaldon, Brant McCreadie and Rory Respicio. Although they had repeatedly opposed the rollback, including a no vote on 204-33, when they saw that it was a safe vote they voted in favor of the bill.
When all votes on both bills were counted, 10 senators showed a willingness to cut senators’ pay back to pre-Nov. 21, 2014 — yet both bills failed. Sens. Mary Torres, Nerissa Underwood and Judith Won Pat voted to cut all salaries but voted against the bill to cut only their salaries. The rollback didn’t happen but Sens. Espaldon, Respicio and even Won Pat will now be able to brag, “Yes, I voted for a bill that would have cut my own salary.” Strategic voting at its best.
The strategic voting described above, along with attempted parliamentary maneuvers by Sen. Frank Blas Jr., strategic voting on various motions (hard to uncover because the Legislature doesn’t keep a journal) plus the gutting of bill 4-33, which would have rolled back salaries, thwarted attempts to do the right thing. But five senators — Espaldon, McCreadie, Respicio, Torres and Won Pat — can now brag that they attempted cut their own salaries. However, a careful analysis of the record shows that that must have been the farthest thing from their real intent. They apparently are attempting to piggyback on the good will accruing to Sen. Mike San Nicolas and the four others who have fought the good fight.
Space limitations and a devotion to brevity prevent the listing of all the machinations of most senators to protect their ill-gotten gains from the Great Salary Ripoff of Nov. 21, 2014. That’s the day that acting Gov. Ray Tenorio sent his salary increase bill to the Legislature along with his call for a special session — the special session which lasted little more than an hour. The Won Pat Ten passed the bill and sent it to Tenorio, who signed it into law the same day!
The bill raised salaries by $24,120 per annum and was retroactive to Jan. 15, resulting in a $20,000-plus windfall for senators with the money actually in their pockets in 24 days. Pretty good for a notoriously slow-pay government!
Since the Great Salary Ripoff of Nov. 21, much of the reported news, commentary and public discussion centers huge salary increases, retroactive payments, budget shortfalls, etc., all following the trend the Legislature established in November of last year. The Legislature led the way.
There is a continued squandering of its political capital and the public’s trust because of the crass maneuvers to hang on to on to the money.
It will take time and new faces to restore public trust in the Legislature, but here’s a beginning:
- Roll
back salaries to $55, 307;
- make
the rollback retroactive,
- keep
and journal as required by the Organic Act (none on line since
2014);
- scrupulously
comply with the Open Government Law;
- take
roll call votes in random order; and
- senators
vote yea or nay, no “pass.”
Robert Klitzkie is a former two-term senator in the Guam Legislature.
93.3 FM 4-6 PM M-F
No comments:
Post a Comment