Political pressure forced Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse course on Monday and now he intends to support a non-binding GOP ban on earmarks championed by Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).
Only time will tell how much strength this ban will really have. Because it is non-binding and only affects the GOP, quite a bit of wiggle room still exists. What would stop a Democrat -- assuming the Democrats don't adopt a similar ban -- from earmarking the money for their Republican colleague in exchange for that colleague's support elsewhere?
Rep. Dean Heller and Sen. John Ensign support the ban and Rep.-elect Joe Heck has declared his opposition to earmarks in the past. Sen. Harry Reid believes the ban would be harmful to Nevada.
November 18, 2010
November 17, 2010
Rangel found guilty on 11 of 13 ethics charges
Judging by his actions thus far, the only person likely to be surprised by this verdict will be Rangel himself:
The panel will meet again to decide the appropriate punishment for Rangel. That recommendation will then be voted on by the entire House. Insiders believe he will face either a reprimand or censure.
A more interesting question is what happens next for Rangel. He easily won re-election just two weeks ago, he probably won't face expulsion from the House and he represents one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the United States. Given that his constituents easily re-elected him despite the ethics cloud hanging over his head, does anybody believe this development will cause them to look for someone new next election? As long as Charlie Rangel keeps running, he will probably keep winning.
Keeping reading and we'll let you know what the panel recommends.
A House panel on Tuesday found Representative Charles B. Rangel guilty of 11 counts of ethical violations, ruling that his failure to pay taxes, improper solicitation of fund-raising donations and failure to accurately report his personal income had brought dishonor on the House.
After a public hearing Monday that was truncated by Mr. Rangel walking out in protest, an adjudicatory subcommittee of the House ethics committee deliberated for four hours before finding him guilty of all but one of the 13 counts against him.
(Two other counts, involving Mr. Rangel’s misuse of House franking privileges, were merged into one.)
The panel will meet again to decide the appropriate punishment for Rangel. That recommendation will then be voted on by the entire House. Insiders believe he will face either a reprimand or censure.
A more interesting question is what happens next for Rangel. He easily won re-election just two weeks ago, he probably won't face expulsion from the House and he represents one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the United States. Given that his constituents easily re-elected him despite the ethics cloud hanging over his head, does anybody believe this development will cause them to look for someone new next election? As long as Charlie Rangel keeps running, he will probably keep winning.
Keeping reading and we'll let you know what the panel recommends.
November 16, 2010
Major changes to inquest process leave some unsettled
Despite spearheading the panel to reform the coroner's inquest process, County Commissioner Steve Sisolak is uneasy about one of its recommendations. At issue? The ombudsman:
The ombudsman idea -- proposed by Sheriff Doug Gillespie -- was originally conceived as a position that would represent both the public and the police officers at the inquest process. However, potential conflicts of interest scaled that idea down, and the ombudsman would now only represent the family and the public while the police officers would maintain their own representatives.
Panel members Christopher Blakesley, a UNLV law professor, and Margaret McLetchie, an ACLU of Nevada attorney, both support the ombudsman position. Two of their panel colleagues, Police Protective Association executive director Chris Collins and District Attorney David Roger, both oppose it, feeling that the inquest process is merely a fact-finding venture and police officers should not have to endure a cross-examination on the stand.
Sisolak said he agrees with most of the changes, but one in particular is a game-changer: the inclusion of an ombudsman to represent the family and the public during inquest proceedings.
“The ombudsman is changing the whole tenure of the situation,” Sisolak said. “That became a major issue and it didn’t get brought up until the third meeting. It’s such a major change that needed to be vetted a lot further.”
The ombudsman idea -- proposed by Sheriff Doug Gillespie -- was originally conceived as a position that would represent both the public and the police officers at the inquest process. However, potential conflicts of interest scaled that idea down, and the ombudsman would now only represent the family and the public while the police officers would maintain their own representatives.
Panel members Christopher Blakesley, a UNLV law professor, and Margaret McLetchie, an ACLU of Nevada attorney, both support the ombudsman position. Two of their panel colleagues, Police Protective Association executive director Chris Collins and District Attorney David Roger, both oppose it, feeling that the inquest process is merely a fact-finding venture and police officers should not have to endure a cross-examination on the stand.
C-SPAN wants more cameras in the House
Speakers Gingrich and Pelosi said no, but C-SPAN is hoping that Speaker-to-be Boehner will sing a different tune:
Rep. Boehner has previously made statements in support of more transparency in the House. This move by C-SPAN would be a small but meaningful step towards that goal. If Rep. Boehner is serious about increasing transparency in government, he would agree to C-SPAN's request.
The all-things-Congress cable network has asked Mr. Boehner’s approval to install its own television cameras in the chamber to capture members’ reactions during debate or show any other developments that occur away from the fixed lecterns where lawmakers speak, like a rank-and-file House member getting worked over by party leaders to switch his or her vote.
Rep. Boehner has previously made statements in support of more transparency in the House. This move by C-SPAN would be a small but meaningful step towards that goal. If Rep. Boehner is serious about increasing transparency in government, he would agree to C-SPAN's request.
November 11, 2010
Speaker-to-be Oceguera makes the liberal case for government transparency
Image from AdamZyglis.com
As a proponent of open and transparent government, the Nevada Policy Research Institute has often said that transparency should have broad, bi-partisan support. Why?
While both sides should embrace transparency, because citizens have a right to know how the government is spending their money, each side of the political spectrum has its own reasons to promote transparency.
For conservatives, it's a way to expose and eliminate wasteful government spending.
For liberals, it's a way to show that government is spending money efficiently and deserves more money.
While conservatives in Nevada have been working on transparency issues for years (albeit not as quickly as citizens deserve), it's great to finally see a liberal Democrat, Nevada's next Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, making the case for putting Nevada's checkbook online. (At the two-minute mark)
Now while Oceguera is making the liberal case for transparency and I don't agree with many of his reasons, his conclusion is correct — Nevada's citizens deserve to have Nevada's checkbook online. The point is that liberals and conservatives can and should support transparency reforms — even if their reasons for supporting it differ.
Given that 13 Republican legislators have already supported putting Nevada's checkbook online, this should be a bipartisan effort.
(Cross-posted from Write On Nevada)
November 9, 2010
Changes proposed to coroner's inquest process
Following a spate of officer-involved shootings this year, a panel has recommended a series of changes to the coroner's inquest process that includes allowing family members to submit questions to witnesses and police officers on the stand.
In addition, the jury would be referred to as the "inquest panel" and it would continue to determine facts rather than render verdicts.
Also, encouragingly, the panel recommended that video and transcripts of the inquest be available online as soon as possible.
These changes are designed to assure the public that the inquest process isn't biased in favor of the police, which is necessary to maintain faith in the police department.
To take effect, the Clark County Commission has to approve the recommendations. The changes will be presented to the county commission on November 16th and the commission will vote on December 7th.
We will let you know how it turns out.
It took more than five hours Monday night, but members of the Coroner’s Inquest Review Panel voted on recommendations for changes to the coroner’s inquest process.
The suggestions came after four meetings that saw plenty of debate about juries, verdicts and the possible merits and disadvantages of an adversarial process – letting attorneys cross-examine witnesses and police officers.
Perhaps the biggest change came with the panel’s recommendation that attorneys for both police officers and the decedent’s family participate in the process by submitting questions to an ombudsman, an independent party that would question witnesses and police officers on the stand.
In addition, the jury would be referred to as the "inquest panel" and it would continue to determine facts rather than render verdicts.
Also, encouragingly, the panel recommended that video and transcripts of the inquest be available online as soon as possible.
These changes are designed to assure the public that the inquest process isn't biased in favor of the police, which is necessary to maintain faith in the police department.
To take effect, the Clark County Commission has to approve the recommendations. The changes will be presented to the county commission on November 16th and the commission will vote on December 7th.
We will let you know how it turns out.
November 5, 2010
How our survey respondents fared
With the dust beginning to settle on the election, I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at TransparentNevada's transparency survey and see how those who responded did.
Here's how it broke down:
Prior to this election, we sent surveys to all 159 candidates running for a legislative or constitutional office in Nevada.
Of those 159 surveys, we received 66 replies.
Of the 66 candidates who replied, 16 won and 51 lost.
The winners were John Hambrick, Scott Hammond, Cresent Hardy, Mark Sherwood, Melissa Woodbury, Pat Hickey, Ira Hansen, Tom Grady, Pete Livermore, Michael Roberson, Barbara Cegavske, Elizabeth Halseth, Don Gustavson, Kim Wallin, Kate Marshall and Brian Krolicki.
Of the 16 candidates who won, seven were incumbents, seven were running for open seats and two defeated incumbents.
Interestingly, in both cases where an incumbent was defeated in the Legislature (Mark Sherwood over Ellen Spiegel and Michael Roberson over Joyce Woodhouse), the winners replied to our survey while the losers didn't. While many factors affect the outcome of a race, both races were relatively close (the Sherwood-Spiegel race was decided by 407 votes) and every vote made a difference. Who knows what would have happened electorally if Woodhouse and Spiegel had chosen to reply?
Many thanks to every candidate who took the time to let the voters know their position on transparency issues.
Now voters will get to see if these elected officials stick to the positions they expressed on the survey.
Here's how it broke down:
Prior to this election, we sent surveys to all 159 candidates running for a legislative or constitutional office in Nevada.
Of those 159 surveys, we received 66 replies.
Of the 66 candidates who replied, 16 won and 51 lost.
The winners were John Hambrick, Scott Hammond, Cresent Hardy, Mark Sherwood, Melissa Woodbury, Pat Hickey, Ira Hansen, Tom Grady, Pete Livermore, Michael Roberson, Barbara Cegavske, Elizabeth Halseth, Don Gustavson, Kim Wallin, Kate Marshall and Brian Krolicki.
Of the 16 candidates who won, seven were incumbents, seven were running for open seats and two defeated incumbents.
Interestingly, in both cases where an incumbent was defeated in the Legislature (Mark Sherwood over Ellen Spiegel and Michael Roberson over Joyce Woodhouse), the winners replied to our survey while the losers didn't. While many factors affect the outcome of a race, both races were relatively close (the Sherwood-Spiegel race was decided by 407 votes) and every vote made a difference. Who knows what would have happened electorally if Woodhouse and Spiegel had chosen to reply?
Many thanks to every candidate who took the time to let the voters know their position on transparency issues.
Now voters will get to see if these elected officials stick to the positions they expressed on the survey.
November 1, 2010
Reminder: Check out our transparency survey
Alright everybody, tomorrow is the big day. By this time Wednesday, the various campaigns will be reviewing what went wrong or celebrating what went right. The TV ads will cease, the phone calls will stop and our mailboxes will return to being full of regular junk mail instead of political junk mail.
But first, we have to get through tomorrow. Election Day.
With that in mind, I to bring TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey to your attention once again.
The survey has responses from over 60 candidates who shared their opinions on a range of transparency issues. Issues included putting the government checkbook online, expanding the open meeting law for public union negotiations and the Legislature, requiring 72 hours for the public to review bills before they're voted on and opening up campaign finance reports.
To see how the candidates responded head on over to TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.
But first, we have to get through tomorrow. Election Day.
With that in mind, I to bring TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey to your attention once again.
The survey has responses from over 60 candidates who shared their opinions on a range of transparency issues. Issues included putting the government checkbook online, expanding the open meeting law for public union negotiations and the Legislature, requiring 72 hours for the public to review bills before they're voted on and opening up campaign finance reports.
To see how the candidates responded head on over to TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
