[ If you would like on/off the LA Ping List please FReepmail me and your name will be added to or taken off of the list. ]
Posted on 06/28/2006 7:08:41 PM PDT by Libloather
Jefferson exit spurs new rules
By Josephine Hearn
Several House Democrats have proposed significant changes to their party’s caucus rules, with at least two of the changes prompted by internal caucus controversy over the recent ouster of a caucus member from the Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) has written a proposal to handle situations in which leaders may seek to revoke a lawmaker’s committee assignment while he or she faces government investigation. Butterfield and others were upset that Democratic leaders ousted Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the committee while he faces a federal corruption probe. The proposal would establish a standard that any removal be “in the best interest of the caucus.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has devised a different proposal to deal with the same situation, although he would not elaborate on the details.
The caucus rules cover such delicate areas as how to determine committee assignments and seniority, how to vote for leaders and what to do with members charged with crimes. The rules allow Democrats to eject a member from a committee who changes political party, according to a copy obtained by The Hill. Any member may be expelled for any reason by a two-thirds vote.
But the rules are silent on the issue of removing lawmakers from committees while they face ethical questions.
Rules 48 through 51 deal with internal disciplinary procedures and require that a committee chairman or ranking member step aside temporarily if “indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.” If the member is subsequently convicted or censured by the House, he or she “shall not serve as chairman or ranking minority member of any committee or subcommittee for the remainder of that Congress.”
Similar rules require the top four Democratic House leaders to step aside should they be indicted, convicted or censured.
Butterfield would like to expand those rules to set forth a procedure to handle cases where “a specific accusation” has been leveled against a member, his spokesman said. Twenty percent of the Democratic caucus would first have to agree that the matter deserved investigation by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to determine if “the best interest of the caucus” would be served by taking action against the member.
After the committee presented the results of such a probe, it would vote to issue a verbal warning or a written reprimand or to remove the member. Removal would require a two-thirds vote of both the five-member steering committee and the larger Democratic caucus.
“With [Jefferson], it was not defined. No one knew what the standard was,” Butterfield said.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), who also sided with Jefferson, agreed that Democrats need straightforward procedures to deal with similar situations.
“There needs to be a clear rule so that we don’t have any disputes like this in the caucus in the future,” Meeks said. “Now that the emotional outpouring is over, we can focus on putting a rule together.”
The caucus will likely debate any rules changes extensively. Reps. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) sent a letter to all House Democrats soliciting input on how Democrats should change their caucus rules.
House Democrats waded into the often contentious process of redrafting the rules earlier this year with the aim of eliminating ambiguity that might lead to internal conflict should their party win control of the House in November.
Capuano heads up the rewrite as chairman of the Democratic Committee on Organization, Study and Review (OSR).
“We have stressed to our colleagues that we must conduct this study in a manner that is open and transparent. To that end, we are requesting your ideas and feedback on improving the structure, organization, and substantive nature of these rules,” wrote Capuano and Clyburn, the Democratic Caucus chairman.
The pair reported on the first formal OSR meeting June 22, noting that the committee had expanded the rewrite to go beyond mere technical corrections and consider broader changes.
“The committee also agreed that it will review suggestions of a procedural and substantive nature, and seek to address these concerns,” they wrote.
Democratic lawmakers have at times expressed interest in changing the caucus’s governing document, a series of 51 rules cobbled together over decades and chronicled in expansive detail in more than 26 pages.
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) voiced the desire of many younger lawmakers that the caucus adopt term limits on committee chairmen.
The OSR panel will likely meet to begin discussing those ideas and many others the week after the July 4 congressional recess, Capuano said.
“If somebody gives me a suggestion, I promise to bring it before the committee, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it myself,” he vowed.
Capuano himself is interested in proposing a rule to expel a member from the caucus automatically if he or she fails to vote for a Democrat for Speaker. Such was the case with former Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio), who voted with Republicans to make Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) Speaker in 2001.
That usually happens when you have no standards...
[ If you would like on/off the LA Ping List please FReepmail me and your name will be added to or taken off of the list. ]
I see.
Democrats fumed when Republicans tried to change their rules to prevent opportunistic indictments that take advantage of Republican rules that indicted leaders must step down from their position.
What is the definition of "best interest of the caucus?" Can it be in the "best interest" to keep someone in their post if it is the right person in the right job?
-PJ
Also, they can't run the "Culture of Corruption" theme with him still in play.
That, and us doing that drives a crowbar between the CBC and the main Dem body. Divide and conquer.
It must include a clause that allows a house member to retain his post if his "roommate" is found to be running a gay prostitution ring out of your apartment.
"Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), who also sided with Jefferson, agreed that Democrats need straightforward procedures to deal with similar situations...“There needs to be a clear rule so that we don’t have any disputes like this in the caucus in the future,” Meeks said. “Now that the emotional outpouring is over, we can focus on putting a rule together.”
Okay, here's a clear rule, dumbass. Your fridge has $90K in it, you can't be on Ways and Means. That clear enough, you sleazy SOB!?!?!?!
If the general business of all politicians was open and transparent, the American people would not have to be having this conversation.
Perhaps they should seek the advice of Tom DeLay...
-PJ
It must include a clause that allows a house member to retain his post if his "roommate" is found to be running a gay prostitution ring out of your apartment.
-------
Yes, it would be appropriate -- the socialist libs of San Freakcisco are totally jealous of Barney -- aren't the libs a real bunch of beauties? The criminal and perverted gutter trash of our society...oh, I better check the freezer and see if my payoff money, er, bonus money is still on ice....
...........Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has devised a different proposal to deal with the same situation..........
He probably proposed a specific exemption if a queer was caught with his unit caught in a pages' arse!
Gee, its too bad they didn't choose the "best interest of the American people" as their standard....
Thew problem with a "clear rule" is that your own party has to decide BEFORE your trial if it thinks you are guilty or not. They don't want to remove you from your position based on the phony charges brought by a political hack DA (See Delay!) but they also don't want to keep a guy in office when he is about to go to jail. That drags the whole party down. Thus, you may have to go to trial with your own party already deciding that you're guilty. That would suck!
Get the reporter from Out! to ask him.
Scandal Woes Likely to Benefit William Jefferson
Losing his seat on the influential Ways and Means Committee and being investigated in a federal bribery probe could actually benefit U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) in his bid for reelection, said Ken Moore, professor of political science at the University of Louisiana. "Being seen as a taker of bribes will probably help him with the typical Louisiana Democratic voter. Yielding to temptation makes him more human. Working the system to extract extra benefits makes him crafty. These are traits admired by the chiselers and parasites that comprise the voting base in this state."
According to Moore, the eight-term congressman is going to say: "I took these turkeys for plenty. I can do the same for the citizens of Louisiana. This is essential to relieving our people of the effort and expense of the Katrina cleanup."
"In Louisiana, corruption or bribery or incompetence has never been a bar to holding office -- or returning to office," Moore noted. In support of his contention, Moore pointed to the reelection of Ray Nagin as mayor of New Orleans. "Here we had a clueless boob responsible for untold suffering due to his incompetent handling of the Katrina disaster getting reelected by playing the 'race card.' The road map for Jefferson's reelection campaign has been clearly laid out for him."
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
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.
