House rules address absolute authority (kicking Craddick)

[sonias]

Postcards blog AAS 1/26/09
House rules address absolute authority


The kind of stand-off that occurred between then-Speaker Tom Craddick and the Texas House is unlikely to happen again under a draft of new House rules.

The rules are expected to be discussed by House members behind closed doors on Tuesday afternoon and debated publicly on Wednesday.

One provision addresses the so-called 'absolute authority' issue.

In 2007, Craddick refused to allow a vote on a motion to remove him. Under this draft, it makes it clear that such a motion is privileged and should be considered. If a speaker still refuses, the member can appeal to the full House by gathering 76 signatures.

:kick:

And in related news:

Postcards blog AAS 1/26/09
Fewer committees under proposed House rules

There are five fewer committees in the Texas House under the proposed new rules.

Government Reform is merged into State Affairs; Judiciary into Civil Jurisprudence; Law Enforcement into Criminal Jurisprudence and Law Enforcement; Local Government Ways and Means into Ways and Means; and Pensions and Investments is merged into Financial Services and Pensions.

Regulated Industries was eliminated and its duties spread over five committees. A new committee, Technology and Workforce Training, was created.

There will be 35 committees instead of the previous 40.

Packing them in!

I love that Craddick will have to vote on absolute authority! :bounce:


Sonia

[sonias]

1. Well the "absoltue authority" got it's check today

AAS 1/29/08
TEXAS LEGISLATURE
With little squabbling, House OKs rules

By Laylan Copelin
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, January 29, 2009

(snip)
Finally, in response to attempts in 2007 to remove Craddick as speaker, the House passed a rule saying a majority — 76 members — can remove a speaker.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, urged members to raise that number to 90, saying removing the speaker is an emotional vote that could jeopardize legislation. (Craddick himself supported that higher bar Wednesday.)

But Rep. Jim Keffer, an Eastland Republican and one of the leaders in the revolt against Craddick, disagreed.

"It's a problem to build a firewall around a speaker who's not doing his job," he said.

In the end, the House voted 87-60 to allow a majority to remove a speaker.

:woohoo:


Of course Craddick supported the hight (90 member) bar because he liked being dictator. What an Crad(DICK).

You win some, you lose some. Voter ID will not be blocked in the house. I expect we'll waste a lot of time once again this session on a stupid bill that does nothing to prevent voter impersonation fraud. But that was never the intent of the bill anyway. It's all about shaving 3-5 percentage points of the voters who happen to vote Democratic. :grr:



Sonia