by Rep. Chris Clem
posted May 28, 2006
 Rep. Chris Clem |
The first bill dramatically increased the retirement benefits of legislators. Democrat leadership was determined to push it through both chambers. Democrat Chairman of Finance Craig Fitzugh was the sponsor. As the day wore on it became clear that the Democrats would not adjourn until this bill passed. Sen. David Fowler tried several times to adjourn without passing the bill. He came close. But, in the end, the Democrat leadership of both chambers were able to pass this dramatic increase in legislative pensions.
The second piece of legislation that took up most of this Saturday was even more suprising. Democrat Majority Leader Kim McMillan sponsored a bill that will dramatically increase the difficulty of any write-in candidate from ever qualifying for the ballet. Currently, a write-in candidate must have 5% of the vote in a primary to win the nomination for that respective party. If 5,000 people vote in that primary, then the write-in candidate must attain 250 write in votes in order to win, assuming no one qualified for the primary. Rep. McMillan's bill would require the write-in candidate to receive 5% of the registered voters in that district. Accordingly, most house candidates have about 30,000 registered voters. A write-in candidate would have to receive 1,500 write in votes in order to qualify as a candidate.
This "Incumbent Protection Bill" was the final bill. We debated it for hours. The Democrats did not have the votes to pass it in either chamber. Finally, around 8 p.m. they were able to pass this bill in the Senate. They moved it to the House. I attempted to call for "the Rule." "The Rule" simply requires all members to sit in their chair and not push the vote botton for anyone else. In other words, only members sitting in their chair should vote while under "the Rule."
I realized that 10 members were not in the chamber. Six of them had gone home and were no longer in Nashville. Democrat Speaker Jimmy Naifeh refused to recognize me and allow me to call for "the Rule." Republicans then objected to calling for a vote. We raised the required five hands. Naifeh claimed he saw no hands. He then allowed the vote.
In order to pass there must be 50 votes. The bill received 58 votes. Ten of the members who voted for the Incumbent Protection Bill were not even in the chamber when someone voted for them. Six of the 10 were not even in Nashville. Ironically, if I had been allowed to call for "the Rule" then the Incumbent Protection Bill would have fallen two votes short of passage.
That is how the legislature spent most of the final day. We had passed the budget on Friday. We came back an extra day in order to give us more money and prevent write-in candidates from qualifying against us. I will miss fighting against such corruption.
(Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, is not seeking re-election to his House District 27 seat)
* * *
Mr. Clem should be congratulated on his efforts to put a stop to all the shenanigans that go on in our legislature. True, I do not have a complete picture as to why anyone would want to serve in the legislative body, but I can see some tremendous benefits received by those elected.
Complaints are always made by those elected about "low pay," but don't they receive perks that far and away exceed the expectations of us not named to serve? Such as fully paid medical insurance, a stipend of retirement funds for each year served, daily expenses that greatly exceed what is needed, i.e., food, room, automobile, phone, mail expense? At least I always assumed so. Maybe I'm incorrect on some of these opinions but never has the general public been advised on the exact nature and amount of the extras.
Take for instance one of the longest serving members of the Senate, now under indictment for accepting "donations" from lobbyists for favors. What will be his retirement pay? Could someone enlighten the general population on that? And what of the fringes received by family members--- jobs at such places as the DHS or other governmental agencies? Does he also get medical insurance paid by the citizens? Mr. Clem could expound a little. What of the costs of prosecution? Can the public expect reimbursement of prosecution expenses if he is convicted? When first indicted, I surmised a deal would be made so that his perks would not be lost if a plea is entered. Let us await.
Again I appreciate Mr. Clem's fight to curtail the outrageous conduct of the Tennessee legislature. The business of this State should not be so involved and so costly. In my humble opinion the less time spent by the elected, the less the cost and the less foolish laws to be funded by the citizens.
Maybe there would not be enough checks and balances, but I think the size and number of elected officials ought to be greatly decreased. No more than a couple or three from each county. The session lengths drastically reduced, etc. The same ought to be done with Federal/County/City government. Too many requirements are placed on the business people and the general public at this juncture. Many, yes many, are not enforced. One example is the "halfway homes" set up to handle released prisoners or mental patients, a law of dictating the duties of the owner/operator to abide. Some news agency should do an expose` on these receiving our tax money and then shortchanging those placed in such a home. The one on Old Ringgold road would be an excellent place to start.
It is my further opinion that Gov. Bredesen, truly a Republican by his actions, should be ousted, but that's another subject.
George Carpenter
Gscgwc2@aol.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |
