VOTING "NO" TO "MONKEY BUSINESS"
House Bill 300, sponsored by another representative, was taken up today on reconsideration (it had failed March 6th on a vote of 20 "Yes" 15 "No" 4 "Excused" 1 "Absent" - I had voted "No." A ""Yes" vote of 21 was required to pass.
The three member Alaska Oil and Gas Commission consists of a petroleum engineer, and petroleum geologist, and a member of the public.
House Bill 300 proposed additional special qualifications for the public member over and above current law - as if some previous public member didn't have appropriate qualifications. Those who pay attention to this sort of thing may remember that some members of the Oil and Gas Commission left their office after allegations of political activities by a petroleum engineer member, and allegations of political motivations of the public member.
House Bill 300 appeared to me as a political potshot at a previous public member who left the commission.
Today, another representative presented an amendment to the bill prohibiting certain political activities of a commission member. The amendment appeared to me as a political potshot at a previous petroleum engineer member of the commission. To me, qualifications for membership on the commission didn't need fixing because it wasn't broken. Both the bill and the amendment seemed to be political "monkey business." The following is my floor speech opposing the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER
I’m going to vote against this amendment for the same reason I’m voting against the bill itself. The issue should be the qualifications of the public member of AOGC, and nothing more. This amendment takes a political potshot at a previous member of the commission. The bill itself takes a political potshot at another pervious member of the commission.
We don’t need this kind of monkey business. We have important business to do down here, and the commission has important business promoting oil and gas development. Again, I’m voting against this amendment for the same reason I’m voting against the bill. It’s time to move on, and do what’s right.
NOTE: The amendment failed 16 "Yes" to 24 "No." I voted "No." The bill itself passed 25 "Yes" 15 "No. I voted "No"
NOTE: As I said in my March 15th blog, "The real purpose of a bill isn't always obvious." I rest my case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three member Alaska Oil and Gas Commission consists of a petroleum engineer, and petroleum geologist, and a member of the public.
House Bill 300 proposed additional special qualifications for the public member over and above current law - as if some previous public member didn't have appropriate qualifications. Those who pay attention to this sort of thing may remember that some members of the Oil and Gas Commission left their office after allegations of political activities by a petroleum engineer member, and allegations of political motivations of the public member.
House Bill 300 appeared to me as a political potshot at a previous public member who left the commission.
Today, another representative presented an amendment to the bill prohibiting certain political activities of a commission member. The amendment appeared to me as a political potshot at a previous petroleum engineer member of the commission. To me, qualifications for membership on the commission didn't need fixing because it wasn't broken. Both the bill and the amendment seemed to be political "monkey business." The following is my floor speech opposing the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER
I’m going to vote against this amendment for the same reason I’m voting against the bill itself. The issue should be the qualifications of the public member of AOGC, and nothing more. This amendment takes a political potshot at a previous member of the commission. The bill itself takes a political potshot at another pervious member of the commission.
We don’t need this kind of monkey business. We have important business to do down here, and the commission has important business promoting oil and gas development. Again, I’m voting against this amendment for the same reason I’m voting against the bill. It’s time to move on, and do what’s right.
NOTE: The amendment failed 16 "Yes" to 24 "No." I voted "No." The bill itself passed 25 "Yes" 15 "No. I voted "No"
NOTE: As I said in my March 15th blog, "The real purpose of a bill isn't always obvious." I rest my case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by Blogs by Rep Bob Lynn | 9:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home