Author:

This week in the legislature has been disappointing for me. HB20, the transparency bill that I am convinced could be a huge deterrent of public corruption, is dead for all practical purposes this session.

The bill passed out of committee on February 21 and the House has passed a boatload of bills since

The answer is simple, the powerful Chairman of the Rules Committee Ken Guin has chosen to delay the bill until it has no chance for passage. It’s supposed to come up for debate next Tuesday, the last day

Since the controversial passage of HB274, there has been much discussion about House members casting votes for one another. While the legislature is in session, there are many legitimate reasons for an active House member to ask another member to vote their machine: Drafting legislation, answering constituent calls, having discussions with other members across the room, following up on legislation in the Senate, and even answering nature’s call (Former Lt Governor Windom’s method of answering nature’s call was not very well-received in ’99). There’s a lot more to being a legislator than pushing buttons.

While covering another member’s machine is a generally-accepted practice, voting another member’s machine without their permission is neither acceptable nor commonly practiced. For years, Rep. Johnny Mack Morrow, a long-time Democrat who sits near me in the legislature, has been completely surrounded by Republicans. On partisan issues, he often votes different than most of us, but I have not heard of an instance where his machine was intentionally voted against his wishes.

During my first two years in the legislature, I sat between two long-time Democrats. Occasionally, we covered one another’s machines, but only as directed by the member assigned to the machine. I believe that most members, Republican and Democrat, would agree that it is unethical to vote another member’s machine without their permission.

So what happened with HB274? As the beginning of the day, Rep. Mike Hubbard requested several machines of members who were not present be locked out. For as long as I have been in the legislature, this has meant that those machines were locked for the day, unless the member whose machine was locked showed up. In addition, Rep. Jack Williams requested that Rule 32, requiring members to vote their own machines be enforced. Although Rep. Williams rescinded his request for the enforcement of Rule 32 it should not have affected the machines that Rep. Hubbard had requested to be locked out.

So were the machines mistakenly unlocked or was this some sort of sinister manipulation to get this bill passed? We can discuss that forever and never know for sure. But whether a machine is locked or not and whether or not Rule 32 is being enforced, it is wrong to steal another member’s vote.

Alabama’s Congressional District 5 is a swing district, if there ever was one. It consists of the solidly Democratic Lawrence, Colbert, and Jackson Counties and the solidly Republican Limestone and Madison counties. I believe that Lauderdale and the CD5 portion of Morgan County are straight up divided.

The county rankings according to number of voters during the 2006 election cycle are Madison (47%), Lauderdale (13%), Limestone (11%), Colbert (9%), Morgan (8%), Jackson (7%), and Lawrence (5%).

There will naturally be those who disagree with my analysis, maybe those who say because I’m a Republican, I’m trying to spin this. If there’s bias here, it is unintentional. I believe the most objective indicator of party strength is down ballot statewide races, where neither candidate is locally known and little or no money was spent on advertising.

Rep. Cramer has been safe in this seat since the mid-’90’s, but it was growing into a solid Republican seat until the post 2000 census apportionment, which made it a swing or maybe even a slightly Democratic district. During every election since the apportionment, the Republican numbers have crept up in CD5, particulary in the fastest growing county in the district, Limestone and the 2nd fastest growing county, Madison.

As of 2006, all other factors aside, I would say that the district leans slightly Republican and if current growth patterns continue, it will continue to trend toward Republican during the next two cycles.

Of course, there are many other factors that will come into play during the 08′ race for CD5, including what happens at the top of the ticket, the candidates, and the campaigns. Raising a large amount of money in a hurry will be a huge factor, particularly in the primary.

This race will be a political junkie’s dream of observe. I believe both parties will have active primaries with good candidates (although all of them have unique political strengths and weaknesses) but in the end it will be the best campaign and candidate that will win the respective primaries and the general election.

Last week Rep. Bud Cramer surprised us all with his sudden announcement that he has had enough of Washingon and is ready to come home. A lot of folks are wondering why an effective congressman would give up a safe seat. He could have easily kept his seat indefinitely as a Democrat or a Republican because he crossed lines so easily.

I read in the newspaper that he mentioned his distaste of the recent surge of partisanship in Washington. He did well under the Democrat leadership when he was first elected and surprisingly, I think he fared even better during the years of Republican control. I did notice a gradual change in his demeanor since the Dems regained control. Of course, it’s speculaton on my part, but knowing Rep. Cramer and having a little experience myself in partisan legislative politics, I’d suspect a major factor was that the current leadership wanted him to tow the party line more, but Rep. Cramer was at his best and most comfortable operating in the middle ground.

If done right, legislative politics is hard work and being effective requires “fire in the belly”. Bud Cramer worked for North Alabama with passion and chose to leave at the top of his game before the fire went out. He is a class act.

Over the next several months, the effort to fill the void created by Rep. Cramer’s departure will lead to one of the most interesting electoral contests that I have seen. More about the race and scouting reports on the players later.

Yesterday, a bill was improperly gaveled out of the House Education Policy Committee by Acting Chairman Rep. Terry Spicer, in clear violation of the House Rules. The instrument before the committee was a bill to ensure the post-secondary education system, which employs Rep. Spicer, would be placed under the oversight of the Legislative Council, (Rep. Spicer is also a member of the Legislative Council).

During the meeting, Rep. Joseph Mitchell made a motion to commit the bill to a subcommittee. As Ranking Minority Member on the Committee, I was sitting beside Rep. Spicer and calmly asked him for a recorded vote on Rep. Mitchell’s motion. He calmly ignored my request and gaveled through the vote to deny’s Rep. Mitchell’s motion.

For the remainder of the meeting the Chairman did not recognize me for anything. As the bill was rushed to final passage, I arose from my seat and stood directly in front of him, waving my arms, asking for a recorded vote, as several other members joined me in the request for a recorded vote. Rep. Spicer gaveled the bill through. Needless to say, I was outraged.

Rule 75 clearly states: “The chair of a standing committee shall take a recorded vote on any motion if requested by a committee member and sustained by one additional committee member.”

I understand that I am a member of the minority party and as such, will often be out-voted in committees and on the floor. In this instance, I believe I had the votes to block this bill and Rep. Spicer’s actions would lead me to believe that he also thought I had the votes.

It would be an understatement to say that I am frustrated by the shameless abuse of power by the Chairman of the Committee, in clear violation of the House Rules. I don’t know whether the Chairman was motivated by ignorance of the rules, arrogance, greed, revenge, or some other factor. I’m just trying to figure out why I should even attend committee meetings if I my vote only counts if the Chairman wants it to.

I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot more about this issue.

HB20, the bill to require state, county, and municipal elected officials and candidates to disclose details of employment and contracts seems to be making steady progress in the House. Last week, it came through the House Government Operations Committee unscathed. Rep. Lee Fite put an amendment on the bill to include children of elected officials and candidates to the bill. I don’t mind the amendment, as long as it doesn’t lessen its chances for the bill to pass.

During the committee meeting, Rep. Merika Coleman had an excellent idea to include disclosure of employment or contracts with a business that has over 50% of its reciepts from state, county, or city contracts. I am working with her to draft an amendment she can offer on the floor that would incorporate this into the legislation. I am hopeful that it will show up the Special Order Calendar next week and pass out of the House.

Sen. Orr made an attempt to move the companion bill, SB210 in the Senate, today. Although I believe the bill got a fair hearing, there were some questions that needed to be cleared up with members of the committee. Because there was a large number of bills on the committee calendar, the bill was carried over, with assurances from the Chairman Sen. Wendell Mitchell that the bill would be brought up again. Before the bill was carried over, Sen. Penn added an amendment similar to Rep. Fite’s House amendment to require elected officials and candidates to include similar employment and contracts of their children in the bill.

I know I’m probably being overly optimistic, but I think there’s a slim chance this bill could pass this year or next year or the next year or someday, if I survive long enough.

The Alabama Department of Public Safety currently gives driver’s license examinations in about 10 different languages. Recent litigation to limit the examination to English-only has failed, primarily based on interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbidding discrimination based upon national origin.

As the debate over immigration rages on, a major concern of many is that by being too accommodating to the use of foreign languages, we are contributing to the balkanization of our country. I share that concern.

I believe some legislation will be introduced this session to require all driver’s license exams to be given in English only. This legislation will be met with strong opposition from those who will argue that it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also those who will oppose it based on the notion that it is a hindrance to our efforts to draw foreign investments to enhance our economic development.

The Redstone Arsenal is near the center of my district, and much of the economic success can be attributed to the space and rocket programs led by immigrants several decades ago. Alabama has provided economic incentives to entice foreign companies to build automobile plants and steel plants in Alabama, with the knowledge that increased economic activity leads to prosperity for more of our citizens, as well as increased state revenue, without raising tax rates.

With all this in mind, I have an idea: Why not continue to give the driver’s license exam in the foreign languages to those who are in this country legally with proper documentation; but instead of giving them a permanent driver’s license, give them a two-year license that can only be renewed to a permanent driver’s license with an examination in English?

I believe the effect of this would be to provide an additional incentive for properly-documented, legal immigrants to learn the language and would enhance their assimilation into our society. I also think it makes the discrimination argument more difficult.

I’m getting ready to introduce a bill to this effect, so how ’bout some feedback? Maybe we should give the test in Alabamian: Y’all make sure and stop your pickup at them red signs.

During the 2007 session of the legislature, I introduced HB510, which required state elected officials to report details of any state contracts and employment to the Secretary of State, who would then post the information online. I was motivated to propose this legislation after learning of some of the questionable employment practices and contracts within the 2-year college system. My intention was not political one-upsmanship or to pour salt in the wounds of those who have received negative publicity. I proposed this legislation in the spirit of Justice Louis Brandeis’ comment, “Sunshine is the best antiseptic”. Political one-upsmanship creates wounds, but an antiseptic enables healing.

With that thought in mind, I have pre-filed the new and improved version for 2008, HB20. This bill requires all state, county, and municipal elected officials, candidates and their spouses to report all state, county, and municipal employment and contracts to the Ethics Commission. The report would include details of compensation, job description, and dates of the employment/contract. Being required to report a government contract or employment does not imply one is doing anything wrong, it just puts it out in the open where it belongs. Government service is not a shameful thing. I’ve had the honor of serving in the Marine Corps, the State Troopers, and the Alabama Bureau of Investigation. When I ran for the legislature, I put it in my campaign material.

The tranparency debate is a separate issue from a “double-dipping”ban. Those who oppose efforts to ban double-dipping in the two-year college system have used the argument, “Let the voters decide” and I believe in the sovereignty of the voters in our political system. But are they really deciding anything if this information is not available and easily accessible? I believe the greatest value of this bill is potential for deterrence of improper personal gain by those empowered by the electorate to oversee their state, county, and local governments.

I am convinced this bill will receive bi-partisan support, including support from legislators who would be required to file a report under the provisions of the bill. If the leadership of the House and the Senate support this bill, it will pass and it’s antiseptic properties will work.

One thing for sure: it ain’t going away. If it dies this year, I expect that I will behave like the north end of a southbound mule. I’ll introduce it every session and yap about it until it passes or my constituents send me home.

A few weeks ago, my son Chris took a week off from our family business and travelled with me to Montgomery to watch the legislature in action (or inaction). It was his first time to be an eyewitness to inner workings of the sausage factory. As we headed home at the end of the week, I asked him what he thought about the process in Montgomery. His reply really grabbed my attention: “It’s like being in a video game with an alternate reality.” I have to agree that most of the time things in Montgomery during the session are a bit surreal, more like an elementary school playground than the Alabama our constituents inhabit.

The alternate reality was never more evident than on the last day of the session, with “the punch” serving as an exclamation point to end the session. Of course, punching a colleague is inexcusable and inappropriate, it seemed to me to be a culmination of the childish playground behavior that has been going on all session, especially the petty back-and-forth digs at one another. I think all of us should do a bit of self-examination at the evolution of our legislative process in Alabama.

In a previous post, “Bills Killed in the Middle of the Night“, Cam Ward gives an excellent example of the playground behavior of a bully, the old “I didn’t get my way, so I’ll punish everyone who opposed me”. It happens all the time in both the House and the Senate. For those who wonder why excellent, non-controversial legislation often goes down in flames, it is often nothing more than this “I’ll make ‘em pay” sucker punch. Fear of retaliation can make legislators reluctant to heed the dictates of their conscience.

Another practice that has occured is the old “we’ve got some money for your district, if you’ll vote with us”. An example of this legal form of bribery occurred during the House debate over the Governor’s line-item veto on the last day of the session as the Democrat leadership offered pork projects from the bond money as they desperately tried to peel off Republican votes to enable them to deliver the million dollars to the district of the Senator who switched sides at the last minute during the organizational session. Another example is during the battle over discretionary money during the bond issue debate. Greed can also make legislators reluctant to follow the dictates of their conscience.

Still another form of childish behavior in this alternate reality is changing or ignoring the rules in the middle of the game, when the outcome doen’t suit you, in order to win at all costs. An excellent example of this is when the leadership avoids roll call votes by pretending to not see very well. Even another example was the Lt. Governor’s questionable ruling on the Sunset bills in the Senate. Nobody likes to always be on the losing side, and having the knowledge that the fix is in, in addition to a natural desire to be on the winning side can also make legislators reluctant to follow the dictates of their conscience.

During my first year in the legislature, my friend the late Rep. Albert Hall (who probably would not have hesitated to throw a punch, under certain circumstances) told me, “Ball, your problem is that you’ve came down here trying to be a statesman. We’ve had them down here before, but they don’t last too long.” The longer I’m in Montgomery, the more I understand why. Albert Hall was a wise man.

A few weeks ago, I expressed my displeasure that HB510 requiring state elected officials, their spouses, or their children to post any state employment or contracts on the internet was buried by the Rules Chairman.

When this was brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Special Order Calendar Subcommittee Chairman, Neal Morrison he located the bill and called a special meeting of his subcommittee to get the bill on the calendar.  Unfortunately, it was placed on the ten-minute calendar, which meant that any member could stop the bill.  

When the bill was called, the BIR vote passed by a margin of 80-1.  After BIR vote, Rep. Demetrius Newton went to the microphone and expressed his opposition to HB-510, referring to it as being “absurd”.  Obviously, my definition of absurd is different than Rep. Newton’s.   I thought Rep. Newton’s resolution to raise legislative pay 62%, indexed to inflation, was absurd.  At least he killed my bill in public.

Requiring elected officials to report income obtained from the government they are elected to regulate is a concept whose time has come.  In opposing Gov. Riley’s double-dipping ban, I have heard repeatedly, “Let the voters decide”.  I agree with that statement, especially if they have the opportunity to make an informed decision.  

It will be back.

Anyone who enjoys watching the TV game show “Deal or No Deal” would have surely enjoyed the activity on the 5th floor of the statehouse last Thursday. At stake is control of about 100 million in school construction money from the proposed state bond issue. There is general agreement about the distribution of most of the remaining 1 billion dollars.

Under previous bond issues, the funds that are the center of attention have been placed under the control of the “Public School Construction Authority”. The PSCA consists of the Governor, the Finance Director, and the Superintendent of Education. As far as I can tell this has been the arrangement for decades. It was the mechanism that was in place during the last major bond issue, Gov. Siegleman’s move to eliminate portable classrooms. I don’t remember hearing about the legislative leadership having a problem with the Governor controlling those funds back then.

The new proposal is to give control of those funds to a council which adds the Sen. Hank Sanders, Rep. Richard Lindsey, and Lt.Gov. Folsom to the members of the PSCA. You can rest assured the Superintendent will be reluctant to cross those who control his budget. The legislative leadership will have control over the funds and Gov. Riley will have virtually none.

Last Thursday, there was a scramble by the House leadership to get the 3/5 majority to get the bond issue to the floor. The “Deal or No Deal” game was played like this: Every member has a vote. Some members committed a “yes” vote with no promise for anything for their district. Some members committed a “no” vote with no promise for anything for their district. It doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t get anything for their district, it just means they didn’t trade their vote for it.

During the scramble to get votes, undecided legislators were able to privately receive substantial (in the 6 and 7-digit range) committments for their district in exchange for a “yes” vote. The BIR passed by 2 votes. Immediately after the BIR vote in the House, Governor Riley called a press conference with the minority senators and dug in.

The bond issue then became bogged down and debate will continue Tuesday. Hopefully, an agreement can be reached and the funds can be equitably distributed. If not, it’s gonna be a long, hot summer of special sessions. Deal or No Deal?

When Rep. Jack Venable, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, passed away a few months before the 2006 session of the legislature, it was obvious to all that there would be a tremendous leadership void in the House. A true statesman and a public servant, his easy manner had a soothing effect on his peers. I believe the current Rules Chairman, Rep. Ken Guin has proven to be his polar opposite.

Rep. Guin has been instrumental in creating interesting material for the Pulitzer Prize winning Birmingham News Reporter Brett Blackledge, by receiving an annual $100,000 part-time payoff from the two year college system. I’m sure his prior failure to report the $100,000 on his ethics form was merely an oversight. Since it’s been widely reported, he has since filed an amended form.

He is also one of the most partisan pit-bull attack dogs in the Democrat party. He is a smart, cunning, and ruthless politcal operative. In addition to being the Rules Chairman (controlling the flow of legislation in the House), he is also the Majority (Democrat) leader in the House.

Last week, he pushed me too far and now I’m pushing back. Last Wednesday in the Constitution and Elections Committee, I had a bill (HB647) that would require anyone spending raising money in an election to disclose it before that election. This was a companion bill to a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Orr to address the confusion that resulted in dueling lawsuits after the 2006 election. After Rep. Guin was outvoted three time in his attempt block the bill in committee, he let me know in no uncertain terms that the bill would not come to the floor. That was aggravating, but that’s not why I’m ready to go to war.

A few weeks ago, I introduced HB510, a simple bill that would merely require all state elected officials or their spouses to report any state employment or state contracts to the secretary of state to be posted on the internet. The State Government Committee made the bill better by including children and step-children. It breezed out of the committee.

My friend Rep. Cam Ward, who is a member of the Rules Committee, agreed to give this bill priority in getting on the Special Order Calender for debate and a vote on the House floor. Rep. Guin has arbitrarily chosen to remove this bill from consideration. I am outraged that that he would have the gall to block HB510.

I did not draft or introduce HB510 with the intention of penalizing or punishing anyone. I did it in a non-partisan manner with the intent of bring some light where there had been confusion. I know there are many Democrats and Republicans who support this bill, as well as many who would be required to report under the bill’s provisions. They are not ashamed of their state employment.

This is the last straw, I’m fed up. I hope that I’m not the only legislator that’s fed up.

• Capstone Report links to this post with Ethics Problem
• Doc’s Political Parlor links to this post with Rep. Ball: “This is the last straw, I’m fed up
• The Alabama Moderate links to this post with The image I will never get out of my head
• This post is featured in the Alabama Bloggers Carnival #6

Today, we are in the process of passing the Education Budget out of the House.  I must admit there is much in the budgeting process that is a mystery to me, primarily because I am not privy to all of the behind-the-scene budgeting process, being a member of the minority party.  It’s a bit disappointing.

As I look down the line items in the budgets, I can see what appears to be some shots at the Governor, as evidenced by cuts to some of the projects he holds dear.  The most glaring evidence of this is the cut to workforce development, a major factor in our success in economic development.    When pointed out that much of this money is honoring committments previously made while recruiting well-paid jobs to Alabama.

One thing for sure, everything that happens in legislative politics happens for a reason.  Governor Riley has done three things to draw legislative retaliation: 

1.  He has opposed the community service grants, money distributed by legislators, to their district.

2.  He vetoed the pay raise, forcing supporters of the pay raise to go on record with their vote.

3.  He is attempting to eliminate the employment of the two-year colleges of legislators.

It isn’t over, there will be more retaliation.  You will soon see cuts in the Governor’s discretionary and emergency funds. For every action, there is a reaction; but those who want to spank should be careful that they don’t spank themeselves (or the people of Alabama) the process.    

This morning the Constitution and Elections Committee passed my initiative bill (HB263) and a bill to require campaign finance reports whether or not a candidate has an opponent (HB647).

Also, the State Government Committee passed my transparency bill (HB510). This bill would require all state elected officials and their spouses to report any state employment or state contract to the Secretary of State to be posted on the internet. Details to be posted would include an exact job description, any compensation, and the beginning and ending date of the state employment or contract. We added an amendment to the bill we added in committee to include state employment of children and step-children of the state elected officials.

I think there is truly genuine support for HB510 (in contrast with counterfeit support, in which lawmakers publicly support and privately oppose).

• Degree of Madness links to this post with Our Representatives in Montgomery Need Our Help

In an earlier post, Dan listed the many resolutions passed by the legislature this year. At first glance many of them seem like a waste of time, but I really don’t think they are. We seldom spend much time on them and it’s nice for folks to occasionally receive official recoginition or condolences. The resolutions are often important to those who are affected by them and sometimes they actually do something good.

One example is HJR51 that established the official Alabama State Fiddle Championship at Panoply in Huntsville this year. I just got home from the event and it was GREAT! The participants included some of the most talented folks that I’ve ever seen from all over the country. I especially love to see the children cultivating the passion for music. I believe that it was well worth the less than 5 seconds of legislative time that it took to pass it.

Fiddlin’ around isn’t always a bad thing.

HB527 is a very difficult issue for me. I will tell you up front that I am an absolute opponent of gambling in any form. I’ll also tell you this: I am solidly undecided and uncommited on this bill.

Of course, gambling exists in Alabama in several forms. And what is being refered to as “bingo” is actually “one-armed bandits”. They already exist in Alabama in several limited locations: Greene County, Macon County, and at locations operated by Poarch Creek Indians. In this bill, it would allow those same machines to operate at the Birmingham racetrack and the Mobile racetrack, two venues where gambling in other forms already exists. The operators at those locations are willing to accept a tax to be able to compete with the other locations where the machines exist. If that were all the bill did, I would firmly oppose it.

But the bill does something else: It has what appears to be an absolute ban on the sweepstakes machines that have been located on many unregulated sites at convenience stores and parlors scattered throughout the state. For the moment, many are shut down, but they’ll be back in a slightly altered form under the current law with a new round of court challenges to come, a continuing cat-and-mouse game with the fly-by-night gaming industry.

Even with that I was still unlikely to support this bill until lobbyists representing the Poarch Creek Indians and Green Track began stating their case to me. As I listened to their side, it has become obvious to me that this bill is not about gambling vs. not gambling, but it is a fight among competitors. I believe the entire gambling industry is a blight on our society and if it were in my power, I would shut them all down. But since I can’t, let them compete.

There is one other key point that I believe is important about this bill: It will require a statewide vote for approval. If that happens, there will be a great deal of public discussion about it and points will be brought out that I and others have overlooked. I enjoy it when the conversation is about issues, rather than personalities (I wonder if the media will EVER let poor Anna Nicole Smith rest in peace).

I am convinced that when the people really have their attention on an issue, they are far more perceptive than many political hacks believe. Maybe the public debate on this one would be a good thing. I like to hear some of it before next Tuedsay.

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk on the House floor lately about transparency. There are many members of the House from both parties who genuinely desire more transparency within our state government. I believe they include Rep. Jeff McLaughlin (sponsor of the pac-to-pac ban) and Rep. Oliver Robinson (sponsor of the pass through pork ban).

It is in the spirit of transparency that I am introducing a simple little bill that would require any state elected official who has another state income (or spouse) the simply report it to the Secretary of State along with the compensation and an exact description of the work performed.

I was fortunate to be able to retire with 25 years as a Trooper when elected, but I certainly would have had not objection to posting my employment on the internet had I not retired. I would have been proud of it.

I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose such a measure. There will be opposition to it, but I’m still naive enough to think this simple bill might stand a chance.

Today, a bill was butchered on the House floor. Rep. Jim McClendon, an able legislator with a genuine concern for the number of young lives being lost on our highways, had a bill that would prohibit 15, 16, and 17 year old drivers from using cell phones while driving. Rep. McClendon presented excellent arguments for the bill, citing the high incidence of fatalities among this age group among his reasons for the bill. This bill probably would have saved some young lives.

For about 3 hours, legislators criticized, offered amendments, and generally gutted the bill. Amendments to make it stronger and amendments to make it weaker, any thing to make it impossible to pass. I wouldn’t characterize it as a feeding frenzy as much as a methodical dismemberment by a team of skilled surgeons. I think it was the first bill fatality of the session, and it was cold-blooded.

While there are sometimes genuine disagreements in the House on issues, as well as some political posturing, there is usually very little personal animosity among the members. Many years ago when I was a young State Trooper, one of the first lessons that I had to learn was how to fight as hard as you can when it’s time to fight, but when the fight is over, forget about it and move on. It’s just not productive to carry around a bunch of grudges.

This speaks to what I perceive as a major difference between the House and the Senate. While we have our disagreements and occasional political fights, personal grudges are uncommon in the House. It seems that in the Senate the disagreements get a bit more personal and long-lasting. It’s probably gonna get worse before it gets better.

Being a former hostage negotiator, I’ve thought about offering my services to the gentlemen on the 7th floor of the State House, but I think any effort on my part would be futile. A man’s got to know his limitations.