Speaker O'Brien Lied To The N.H. House Friday, March 30, 2012 at 04:27PM
Speaker Bill O'Brien owes the New Hampshire House and me personally an apology. Never has there been such clear proof that a Speaker out and out lied before the New Hampshire House. The very same week that the Speaker decided to shred the New Hampshire Constitution (Article 44) by bringing up a veto override vote prior to the veto message being printed in the House calendar, the Speaker made a liar out of himself regarding the matter of printing the debate on redistricting in the House calendar. I almost always vote against printing debates in the Journal. In this age of streaming audio and availability on the Internet, printing debates is a waste of time and money (both for stenographers to transcribe remarks and for extra pages and binding in permanent journals). Thus, I always insist on a division vote when motions to print remarks are made. That way, the Speaker cannot rule a voice vote as he chooses. In fact, a few weeks ago, a Motion was made by Deputy Majority Leader Shawn Jasper to print ONLY THE REMARKS OF Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt'on a topic in the journal (TOTALLY UNFAIR...IF YOU PRINT ONE PERSON'S REMARKS, IT'S ONLY FAIR TO PRINT THE ENTIRE DEBATE ON A GIVEN SUBJECT). I insisted on a division vote, and the motion failed, as I had hoped it would. Thus, Republicans had repudiated the vanity of their deputy and assistant deputy leader when votes were recorded rather than voiced. This week, a motion to print remarks on the gay marriage bill (HB437) failed by a close margin ON A DIVISION VOTE. When Bettencourt moved to print the entire remarks of the redistricting override in the Journal this week, I immediately asked for a division vote (any single member may ask for a division). Here's what the tape of the session proves. Rep Vaillancourt stated, "My Speaker, I understood that a division had been requested and accepted prior to people filing their protests. How could we go back on the division acceptance after the protest?" Speaker O'Brien, who had ignored his own acceptance of a division and gone to a voice vote, lied, "The Chair will state the chair heard no division vote which is, after all, the criteria as to whether there will be a division vote." OH REALLY? Here's the truth, as will be reported to Democrats this week (and kept from Republicans unless they read it here). Speaker O'Brien had earlier stated, "The question before the House is shall the debate surrounding the governor's veto be placed in the permanent journal. IT WILL BE A DIVISION VOTE." In other words, the Speaker had in fact heard my request for a division vote, and he had stated that it would in fact be a division vote. YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. Everyone in the room heard me ask for a division vote (I'm not known for a soft voice!). As Representative Soltani noted, "Mr. Speaker, I heard it; and the birch trees outside of the Ronal Reagan plaza in Epsom heard it. During the debate, a request for a division was made. What has become of us? What has become of our Republican party that we deprive a member a request for a division?" The evident is overwhelming. Not only did the Speaker lie to the House about his hearing, but when I challenged the ruling of the Chair, Jasper (once again living up to his nickname HIS VILENESS) accused me of a "temper tantrum". Getting to the truth a temper tantrum? Only a truly vile person would so state! YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology from either O'Brien or Jasper. In fact, it's not me they need to apologize to, but to the entire institution. So what happened? Between the time I asked for a division AND THE SPEAKER ACKNOWLEDGED THE HE HEARD IT, Democrats filed protests over the unannounced vote on redistricting. Seven minutes elapsed, but those minutes certainly did not negate my ACKNOWLEDGED REQUEST FOR A DIVISION. Rather than admit he made a mistake, the Speaker lied about his hearing. This whole episode helps define the meaning of tyranny...just as breaking the Constitution defines tyranny and denying Democrats a right to caucus (which O'Brien did Wedneady) defines tyranny. We have an out and out tyrant in the Speaker's chair, wielding the gavel of a once proud institution. Tyranny is abusing power because you have the votes to do it, and know you can get away with the abuse. The fact that only a few Republicans (who had all heard me ask for a division) were willing to stand on principles when I challenged the chair...such unprincipled lemming like action is what allows tyranny to exist. When (supposed) good people refuse to stand up to a tyrant, then and only then can tyranny exist in New Hampshire or the United States. We have a liar and a tyrant in the Speaker's chair only because Republicans (who know better) allow it.
No comments:
Post a Comment