Democrat Chair Censors Official Document
January 29, 2010We’re going to hear about Democratic committee chairs censoring reports on certain bills this week. Just so redhampshire readers know first, I’m including here a memo I received from Mary Beth Walz, Chair of Local and Regulated Revenues and my response to it. Ironically, this report was posted on this very web site yesterday, so Walz and others will soon learn that in this high tech age, it’s not as easy to censor as it was in the days of the Spanish Inquisition and John Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts.
From: Vaillancourt, Steve
Sent: Fri 1/29/2010 4:08 PM
To: Walz, MB
Subject: RE: Minority Report
Mary,
This report is perfectly acceptable. It talks about the bill and the discussion we had during committee executive session. It mentions the spending cap over-ride and goes into great detail as to how this bill is not government by referendum but simply an attempt to amend a city charter (much like a constitituional amendment at the state level would be). I didn’t get into the smoke and mirrors in the blurb (the Manchester airport argument, school spending, etc) since those are in fact the irrelevent points, but since they were discussed in committee, I trust they too are open to debate. The word “too emotional” was used during the discussion, so I have every right to use it in the discussion. It seems to be the prime defense of those opposed to the bill (voters are too emotional to decide), so I have more than a right; I have a duty to counter that argument.
The minority blurb has already been sent to every Republican member and will immediately be sent to every Democrat along with every member of the media.
I look forward to having any discussion on the House floor. I will not be contacting you in your office Tuesday. I understand your desire for “secret” behind-closed-doors discussions but as an advocate of free and open government, I will not be part of them.
Let the record indicate that when I asked for a subcommittee on this bill, you suggested secret behind-closed-doors discussions at that time. So much for openness and accountability, the much ballyhoored words of our current president. You may insist on government conducted behind closed doors, but I will never be party to it.
It is truly beyond sad, into the realm of tragic, that you choose to use censorship rather than debate a subject on its merits.
Enclosed for all to see is the censored blurb.
House Bill 1522
Majority–12-6, ITL
Minority Report–Interim Study
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt for the minority of Local and Regulated Revenues: Tragic is the only word the minority can think of to describe the majority reaction to this bill which would simply clarify the right of people in cities and towns to vote on spending cap referendums. In fact, such spending caps have already been approved in numerous cities, and this bill simply represents an attempt to forestall law suits declaring the will of the people as illegal. Tragically, rather than addressing the basic right of people to vote to amend their charter, the majority tried to bring forward smoke and mirrors, claiming how specific proposals could be flawed. Nothing about this bill would mandate any specific proposal; that would still be up to any given city or town. The same city or town would have the right to repeal a spending cap in a succeeding year, so nothing in this bill would tie the hands of future generations or even of voters two years out. Tragically again, the majority insisted that people were “too emotional” to vote on their city charter. The minority believes this is tantamount to saying people are too stupid too decide what is best for them. Too emotional to elect Barack Obama? The minority thinks not. Too emotional to elect Scott Brown? The minority thinks not. Tragically, it seems that only the minority of the committee has confidence in the intelligence of voters to make decisions. This bill would also mandate an override (by a two-thirds vote) of any spending cap, but since that might be imperfect, the minority was more than willing to study the ramifications of passing this bill so that we would have a better idea of how to make it “more perfect” next time around. To simply kill it is to shovel dirt on the graves of our founding fathers and our democratic principles and to provide another big pay day for lawyers.
Rep. Vaillancourt
cc: All Reps, Media
From: Walz, MB
Sent: Fri 1/29/2010 12:28 PM
To: Vaillancourt, Steve
Subject: Minority Report
Sent: Fri 1/29/2010 12:28 PM
To: Vaillancourt, Steve
Subject: Minority Report
Steve,
I reviewed your Minority Report on HB 1522 and I cannot approve it. The Minority report is supposed to be about he substance of the bill. Your proposed report strays to unsubstantiated allegations and speculative arguments. If you would like to submit an amended report, I will review it. I will be back in the office on Tuesday.
Mary Beth
