Parliamentary procedures abused

Representing Whitefish over the past 70 days has been a wonderful experience in many ways. I’ve learned a tremendous amount about how our government functions and met some great people that are intelligent, unselfish and devoted to what they think is best for Montana.

At the beginning of the 63rd Session, there was talk of putting aside partisan politics. A few weeks ago the House of Representatives voted unanimously on House Bill 2, the first bill in the legislature that appropriates funds for the biennium. To everyone’s surprise, HB 2 passed with no amendments unanimously in less than an hour.

This is a bill that historically has required days of debate over contentious amendments before passing. We all agreed it was not perfect, but it had many good provisions. There was hope the Senate would be able to include important federal funding from Title 10, which is family planning and preventive health services.

Despite the early positive rhetoric, it has become clear that there are very clear differences on certain issues about what is best for Montana. Never was that more evident than April 6, when parliamentary procedures were used and abused in an attempt to prevent legislation from passing.

The controversy began with the Republican party proposing referendums to the voters that would change election laws. Knowing the Governor would likely veto these laws, the Republicans were using a tactic that would circumvent the normal process for passing laws. The bills that would have authorized these referenda were scheduled for a vote in the Senate.

Due to the absence of a Democratic member of the Senate, the minority leader attempted to suspend the proceedings of the Senate, which would have had the effect of killing the referendum bills. The request to suspend proceedings (a legal rule agreed to by both parties described as Rule S50-220 “Call of the Senate”) was ignored by the Republican President of the Senate and voting on the bills commenced.

At this point, all Democratic members of the Senate rose in protest to the Senate President’s refusal to acknowledge their motion. When the Senate President continued to ignore the pleas of the minority party, and having no other recourse, they raised their voices, loudly pleading for their Constitutional right to be heard. All bills were voted on with no participation by a Democrat. Every bill voted on during that session is now being questioned.

Certainly many have seen video footage of the chaotic scene that took place. What occurred that day will be a lasting blemish on the 63rd Session of the legislature. What effect this will have on bipartisanship in days ahead remains to be seen.

There is important work to be completed, such as balancing the budget. At this point in time, if all the bills that have been heard were implemented we would have a $178 million deficit. My hope is that we can rise above these differences, proceed in a mature and civil manner, and get back to work for betterment of the constituents that sent us here.