Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 19, 1995 TAG: 9501190080
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: C. RICHARD CRANWELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
To understand the situation, I think a little history is necessary. The Virginia General Assembly, by state constitution, has 60-day sessions in even years and 30-day sessions in odd years such as 1995. This year, because of the many initiatives the governor is suggesting, Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that 45 days was needed to get the work done. Major initiatives normally are reserved by governors for 60-day sessions. To extend the session 15 days beyond the constitutional 30-day limit, a two-thirds vote is required by the General Assembly. Thus, any resolution extending this year's session beyond 30 days would take 67 votes in the House and 27 votes in the Senate.
Traditionally, the legislature sets out a resolution that establishes procedures as to how and when bills are introduced and acted upon. This resolution is prepared by the Joint Rules Committee composed of House and Senate members, Republicans and Democrats. This committee traditionally meets in early December of each year to formulate a procedural resolution.
The resolution for the 1995 session was agreed to at a meeting on Dec. 6, 1994. At that meeting, all elements of the proposed resolution were debated, discussed and unanimously adopted. Thereafter, a resolution was drafted reflecting the agreement.
On Dec. 12, 1994, all members of the Joint Rules Committee from the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, signed the procedural resolution as sponsors. I want it to be absolutely clear that the resolution was signed by the minority leaders (leaders of the Republican Party) in both the House and Senate.
The resolution was then mailed to each member of the House and Senate to allow at least 30 days prior to the convening of the General Assembly for review. During this time, not one objection to the resolution was voiced by any member of the House or Senate.
When the General Assembly convened on Jan. 11, the procedural resolution, by tradition, was introduced in the House, and passed by a unanimous vote of 99-0. The resolution was then communicated to the Senate for its vote. There, a strange thing happened: The resolution was found to be so offensive that all 18 Republican members of the Senate, including the minority leader who was a sponsor on the bill, voted against it. The resolution died by a vote of 22-18. Remember, because the resolution also extended the session 15 days, it required a two-thirds vote, thus the 18 Republicans prevailed.
The defeat of the procedural resolution meant there was no resolution authorizing a joint session of the House and the Senate to receive the governor at 7 p.m. on Jan. 11 to hear the state-of-the-commonwealth message. The governor had asked several weeks previously to address a joint session.
The Democrats, at this point, were at a loss as to what to do. There was no way to convene a joint session, because the Senate Republicans wouldn't agree to the procedural resolution. I suggested to the Democratic Caucus that we pass a resolution in the House inviting the governor to address the House, and that we invite the Senate, members of the Supreme Court and the State Corporation Commission, as is tradition, to be our guests. This resolution was approved unanimously by the House, and was accepted by the Senate. Then I, along with the House minority leader and one other member of the House, went to the governor's office and communicated that invitation to him. This was at approximately 6 p.m. on Jan. 11.
The governor declined our invitation, saying that he couldn't get the television cameras moved into the House chamber with only one hour's notice. This is political hyperbole because the House can be set up for television coverage in less than 15 minutes.
Let's ask ourselves some questions: Why would the Senate minority leader be a patron on a resolution, engage in debate on it on Dec. 6, and then flip-flop his position and vote against it on the Senate floor? Why would all 18 Senate Republicans sit silently for more than 30 days if they found the resolution so offensive that they were compelled to vote, in a bloc, against it on the floor? Why would the governor decline the unanimous invitation of the House of Delegates to speak at 7 p.m., knowing full well that the Senate had accepted our invitation and was going to be there to hear him along with distinguished guests who are normally invited?
The only conclusion I can reach was that the entire affair was politically calculated to make Democrats look bad and make Republicans seem to exercise power and influence in the legislature. For example, why was this year chosen to oppose a procedural resolution? The answer: Because we were extending the session 15 days, it took a two-thirds vote and not a simple majority. If this were a normal 60-day session, a vote of 22-18 would have passed the procedural resolution in the Senate, and Republicans would not have been able to be obstructionists .
It turned out to be an excellent ploy for Republicans. By delivering his speech to a television audience from his office, and not from the chamber of the House of Delegates, the governor was able to have families and local elected officials sitting behind him as props for the cameras to pan on his cue to reinforce his political rhetoric. He was also able to suggest that the legislature was at fault, when, in fact, it was apparent the governor himself had instructed Republicans to oppose the procedural resolution. This was all good politics for a governor whose governing style has been under severe attack in recent weeks.
It came as no surprise when, on Jan. 15, the matter was resolved relatively easily. When the Senate minority leader and majority leader came to me with a suggested compromise of the procedural resolution, I rejected it out of hand and offered a substitute, strongly suspecting that it would be accepted by the Republicans. I wasn't disappointed. Within five minutes, the minority leader reported back to me that the compromise I'd suggested was agreeable to the Senate's Republican Caucus.
Why did I reject the first compromise that came to me? Because I was confident that this was all politics and that Republicans were prepared on Friday to accept just about anything, so I offered some resistance just to test my theory. As Paul Harvey says, "now you know the rest of the story."
It concerns me that the editorial staff of this newspaper - the local newspaper in my district - didn't acquire all the facts before publishing the scathing attack on Democrats. I do, however, commend the newspaper for affording me this space to set the record straight.
C. Richard Cranwell of Vinton is majority leader in the House of Delegates.
by CNB