Comments on: Suspending The 60 Day Rule Gives Speaker Craddick Too Much Power http://capitolannex.com/2007/01/29/suspending-the-60-day-rule-gives-speaker-craddick-too-much-power/ Outside Austin, But Terribly Well Connected Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:42:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Vince Leibowitz http://capitolannex.com/2007/01/29/suspending-the-60-day-rule-gives-speaker-craddick-too-much-power/#comment-99810 Vince Leibowitz Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:47:50 +0000 http://capitolannex.com/2007/01/29/suspending-the-60-day-rule-gives-speaker-craddick-too-much-power/#comment-99810 You know, you make a very, very, very valid point. We may need to reconsider our approach on this. Vince You know, you make a very, very, very valid point. We may need to reconsider our approach on this.
Vince

]]> By: WUSRPH http://capitolannex.com/2007/01/29/suspending-the-60-day-rule-gives-speaker-craddick-too-much-power/#comment-99809 WUSRPH Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:19:24 +0000 http://capitolannex.com/2007/01/29/suspending-the-60-day-rule-gives-speaker-craddick-too-much-power/#comment-99809 I hate to disagree with you, BUT based on my study of the legisaltive process for more than 30 years, I must for two reasons: 1. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule gives the GOVERNOR, not the Speaker, control over the legislative agenda---which is the lesson learned by those of us who were around (and or involved) the last time the rule was not suspended. This allows the governor to weal and deal for support for his programs by offering emergency declarations for support. 2. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule means that everything else will pile up at the end of the session---including all those "peoples bills" you and I support. The effect is to dramatically increase the power of the Calendars Committee (i.e.--the Speaker and his "friends") by making their actions in putting or not putting bills on the Daily Calendar (and when they are placed there) even more important. It also increases the already strong pressure to limit debates on major issues because of lack of time and/or increases the power of the leadership to say, "You have to accept it as it is as we just don't have the time to change it". Delaying action on items until late in the session is already a deliberate and well-honed practice used by Speaker after Speaker (including Pete Laney) to achieve their legislative goals. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule just makes it even easier for him to use time pressure as a tool to advance his/special interest’s goals. I hate to disagree with you, BUT based on my study of the legisaltive process for more than 30 years, I must for two reasons:

1. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule gives the GOVERNOR, not the Speaker, control over the legislative agenda—which is the lesson learned by those of us who were around (and or involved) the last time the rule was not suspended. This allows the governor to weal and deal for support for his programs by offering emergency declarations for support.

2. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule means that everything else will pile up at the end of the session—including all those “peoples bills” you and I support. The effect is to dramatically increase the power of the Calendars Committee (i.e.–the Speaker and his “friends”) by making their actions in putting or not putting bills on the Daily Calendar (and when they are placed there) even more important. It also increases the already strong pressure to limit debates on major issues because of lack of time and/or increases the power of the leadership to say, “You have to accept it as it is as we just don’t have the time to change it”.

Delaying action on items until late in the session is already a deliberate and well-honed practice used by Speaker after Speaker (including Pete Laney) to achieve their legislative goals. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule just makes it even easier for him to use time pressure as a tool to advance his/special interest’s goals.

]]>