Posted on 06/11/2008 2:20:31 PM PDT by Ebenezer
BATON ROUGE -- Senators took less than five minutes Tuesday to pass a pay raise for themselves and House members pegged at 30 percent of the pay of members of the U.S. Congress.
With no votes to spare, the Senate approved, 20-16, Senate Bill 672 by Sen. Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, sending it to the House for debate. House members cheered passage of the bill while watching the Senate proceedings on their desktop television monitors.
Duplessis told reporters after the vote that Gov. Bobby Jindal will not veto the measure, although he may allow her bill to become law without his signature. "He takes a position of no position and has agreed not to veto it," Duplessis said. "At a lunch today (Tuesday) he said he will not veto it. Those are the words from his mouth."
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Pelican State ping
I would have liked to see Jindal veto the bill.
He said he was against it, but wouldn’t veto it. Sort of a John Kerry straddle.
“I was for it before I was against it.” Or was it the other way around?
I would have liked to see Jindal veto the bill
Let them hang themselves. We are incensed and are making it known. They are going to regret that 5 minutes of madness!!! No more politics as usual here!!!
if the story is accurate, it would be interesting to see what all the people who have been hailing jindal as the next reagan have to say about it.
30%? Huh? Most workers are fighting for 3 - 4%! Isn’t there any way to stop this shameless money-grab?!
Oh, yeah...and Jindal -- you're a disappointment. I cut you some slack when you wanted to let the executive branch not have as stringent ethics laws as the legislature and I cut you some slack on other stuff, but no more.
There's some stuff here about Jinal not being what we'd hoped. Some of the article is just journo-whining about not enough access, but there are some bad signs emerging about Jindal.
If Jindal lets this stand, his administration is OVER, period. The Louisiana legislature did not elect him, the people of this state did. It's veto or else.
Hubby got a 2.5 in April.
A pox on all their houses!
He’s not for it, but won’t veto if it passes if what the Advocate wrote is correct.
Well you could file an ethics complaint against the 20. It is wrong to vote yourself a pay raise.
BUT THEN... They would not have to answer them until what September 15th at the earliest. Longer if they modify SB543 back to its original form in the House because y'all are too busy sleeping to object to it. Quickie transcript from the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee on SB543 by Senator Quinn 1:15 Sen Quinn Now is the time, I learned a long time to get my bill through I want to get my bill through, I want to be intellectually honest, now is the time to clean this bill up. The only thing that has come to my mind is regarding agency proceedings and I want to talk about that now because I would rather do that now than on the floor, I want to get a clean bill to the floor and non-controversial, for example, Board of Ethics comes to mind, particularly dealing with legislatures they oversee us when they have a problem and they are asking for all types of they ask for some very intensive information and very time consuming information and we know what our schedule is like here from sunup to sundown and I want to take a moment to make sure we are clear on what agencies and proceedings mean, what is an agency? and I realize this is my bill but this is something that I have not fleshed out and I welcome committee members input because it does concern me that it has never been tested but it is certainly problematic. I think we are all happy to cooperate with any agency particularly the Board of Ethics but it is very very difficult to do so when we are in the middle of session if not impossible ... is there a definition of agency... I am happy with leaving it the way it is and if we want to test it individually with those agencies when the time comes um unless somebody has a burning desire to place a definition of agency in this bill at the moment ... Her concern and I concern is that we would not want the board of ethics to think that they were exempt from this, I can only tell you from personal experience that they do not think that they are subject to this. Personally I was told that. You seem very surprised to learn that this even existed um its created some real hardships so lets just leave it the way it is and we will just test it on an individual basis the only problem with testing on an individual basis they then believe that you have something to hide and you are being uncooperative with them when you are not you are just trying to do your job here at the legislature and make them happy at the same time and it is a nearly impossible task I can tell you that. ... Burns Let me ask staff and perhaps I was hasty in adopting the amendment. That was my understanding, pretty much any agency that would have subpoena powers 1:18 Quinn They have subpoena powers directly. I want you to know because we had that big arguement over Inspector General subpoena power that the board of ethics can issue a subpoena 1:18 Burns I know we have used agency as a general term before 1:19 Quinn So you are suggesting that if you receive a subpoena from the Board of Ethics you can invoke this particular um law and ask for a continuance until after session. 1:19 Quinn That goes over very big with them, let me tell you. laughing 1:19 Burns? I was told by staff and I was thinking on page 4 of line 10 the bill does cover and it is based on previous law it does cover civil case, criminal case and administrative proceeding I ... technical amdenment that i 1:19 Quinn That is fine, we will just leave it.
Source: http://ladads.info/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=895&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=0
In other words, SB543 - which passed through the Senate essentially unanimously - would have exempted all of the legislators from having to answer ANY ethics complaint or go to court for ANY reason for the duration of their term in office.
All they would have had to do was to obtain that benefit would have been to get on a legislative committee that met MONTHLY (or every other month) to secure continual 60 day continuances.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NEWS01/806120314
House to debate pay raises on Friday
http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/OPINION01/806120312/1014/OPINION
Pay raises: Well-oiled scam
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/19813634.html
Jindal won’t stop raise
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1213248670134190.xml&coll=1
Raise breezes onto House floor
http://www.thedeadpelican.com/2008/lactioncouncil.htm
http://louisianaconservative.com/?p=526
http://www.houghpublishing.com/Jindal_must_veto.html
http://www.rogersrants.com/blog/default.aspx?id=193&t=An-Open-Letter-to-Lawmakers-Supporting
An Open Letter to Lawmakers Supporting Pay Raises
With satisfactory performance, Louisiana state employees are granted an annual 4% merit increase in their pay.
SB 3rd & Final Subj to Call
SB 672 BY DUPLESSIS
LEGISLATORS
EG +$5,829,043 GF EX See Note
FINAL PASSAGE
YEAS
Mr. President (D)
Erdey (R)
Martiny (R)
Adley (R)
Gautreaux (D)
B Michot (R)
Broome (W) (Minority) (D)
Gray (W) (Minority) (D)
Murray (Minority) (D)
Crowe (R)
Jackson (W) (Minority) (D)
Nevers (D)
Dorsey (W) (Minority) (D)
Kostelka (R)
Shepherd (Minority) (D)
Duplessis (W) (Minority) (D)
LaFleur (D)
Thompson (D)
Dupre (D)
Marionneaux (D)
Total—20
NAYS
Alario (D)
Gautreaux N (D)
Quinn (W) (R)
Amedee (D)
Hebert (D)
Riser (R)
Cassidy (R)
Heitmeier (D)
Shaw (R)
Cheek (W) (R)
McPherson (D)
Walsworth (R)
Cravins (Minority) (D)
Morrish (R)
Donahue (R)
Mount (W) (D)
Total—16
Absent
Long (R)
Smith (D)
Be sure to email or call Jindal and tell him to veto this. How disappointing if he doesn’t.
Something has to happen. The people of LA are incensed! The calls are coming in to local New Orleans radio station 90% against 10% for (I guess Senate relatives are calling in. Ann Duplessis started this absurdity. She and the rest will rue the day they tried this obscene pay increase. They think we will forget but we won't. If it passes,we will put aside every July 1 to have demonstrations reminding the people of this debacle.
My first response is that if that's the case, why did he feel that he needed to get involved in the legislature's ethics reforms?
My second response is that if this is merely a matter internal to the legislature, then it shouldn't involve the use of my tax dollars, right?
Jindal’s statement says that “the Legislature is a separate branch of government that should manage its (internal) affairs.”
My first response is that if that’s the case, why did he feel that he needed to get involved in the legislature’s ethics reforms?
Bobby Jindal is a very smart fellow. I want to trust he will do the right thing. So, off with the heads of the 20 self-gratifying Senators but Bobby is still my man. This incident will again make LA a laughing stock in the newsrooms across America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.