Teamwork

I don't really have the energy to recap the bizarre political and procedural paths that the property tax legislation (the '7% bill) has taken over the last year, but suffice it to say that solving a Rubik's Cube is easier than pinning down the issues surrounding this legislation.

When you take an inherently complicated issue that resonates LOUDLY with constituents, and then mix in some pointed policy differences, and add some competing political agendas, you have a recipe for fireworks.

Yesterday's debate and vote was enough to give you a brain cramp. I was proud to be a sponsor of the underlying bill, and while I may consider it imperfect, I don't belief that there is any 'perfect' answer to this legislative quandary. The bill was the product of a lot of work by a lot of people, and represented a compromise agreed to by the interested parties. (Why the Governor unraveled all of that work through his amendatory veto is a whole story unto itself.)

But the situation was created in which a vote for the motion to override was technically a vote to reduce relief for homeowners, since the Governor's AV provided more relief that does the underlying bill. Further compounding the situation is President Jones' claim that he won't call the override motion if it was passed by the House. And if the two chambers don't agree on a single course of action, then the bill dies and homeowners get no relief.

At the same time, the amendatory veto is very likely constitutionally infirm and would almost assuredly be subject to a court challenge. Plus, I am not comfortable with making the bill permanent since I think that lessens the pressure to fix the underlying issues of how we assess property.

Accordingly, many of us were faced with a dilemma in that there was no real 'right' vote. After a pretty substantive, and respectful, debate, a number of us voted no, with the hope of furthering some additional discussions and a new compromise in the coming days.

The motion to override carried with over 20 votes to spare. But that didn't prevent something from happening that I don't recall seeing in my legislative career. Very shortly after the vote, the bill's sponsor had me removed from the bill. And today, in a move that either makes it better or worse, depending on how you look at it, my colleagues who also voted no on the motion were also removed from the bill.

10/3/2007	House	Override Amendatory Veto - House Passed 092-019-000; MOTION #2
10/3/2007	House	Remove Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. John A. Fritchey
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Harry Osterman
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Sara Feigenholtz
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Greg Harris
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Jay C. Hoffman
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Julie Hamos
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Coulson
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Kathleen A. Ryg
10/4/2007	House	Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Karen May

Sure, I can hear the argument that 'if you're not going to vote in support of the override, you shouldn't be a sponsor', but that argument doesn't really hold in a situation like this one that had a lot of convoluted components to it. Sponsorship of a piece of legislation is most often used to indicate a legislator's support for, or commitment to, an issue. And by and large, it is something usually handled with professionalism and courtesy.

Now I have seen sponsors removed at times with some political considerations at play, but I've never seen a member remove eight colleagues from their own party from a bill in an act of retribution. Let alone in an instance when their motion still carried by an overwhelming margin.

Does it make a real difference at the end of the day? Of course not.

But it sure doesn't win any teamwork awards either.

To read or post comments, visit Open House