The Speaker’s Race: Solomons calls for Keel’s resignation as parliamentarian
This is the letter from Burt Solomons to Terry Keel, with copies to all members and members-elect. It is sent as a memo:
Date: December 5, 2008
To: Mr. Terry Keel, Parliamentarian, Texas House
From: Rep. Burt Solomons
cc: Members and Members-Elect of the 81st Texas Legislature
Re: Call for Parliamentarian to Resign Prior to First Day of 81st Session
It is clear to me that the House Rules should always empower the “body” (or what is often termed the “will of the House”) and those Rules reflect that whomever is the Speaker actually works for an on behalf of the membership. The membership are, and must be, the Speaker’s Board of Directors.
Furthermore, the House Rules should not ever become a complex set of protective measures for the Speaker, but rather should always remain simply as “our” Rules in how we conduct business and the process for passing legislation; and, not as an “us” versus “them” set of procedural nonsense. Even with what occurred at the end of the 80th Session, our current House Rules, along with most precedent, do not need a great deal of “clarification” or complex revision if a Speaker is subject to being elected by a secret ballot process at the beginning of each session. [emphasis added]
Also, as a 14-year member who has served under 4 priour parliamentarians, it is quite clear to me that the membership of the Texas House must have faith in their parliamentarian that the interpretations and application of our Rules are, and will be, made with neutrality and in the best interests of the membership as a body, and not with divided loyalties, perceived or otherwise.
Therefore, even though we have known each other a long time and have worked together on many pieces of legislation when you were a state representative, it is with regret that I must respectfully call for you to step down as Parliamentarian prior to the first day of the 81st Session and not [emphasis original] as a Temporary Officer in the capacity of Parliamentarian on the first day of the session. It is my conclusion that a majority of my House colleagues are not confident that your advice and parliamentary interpretations will be unbiased, and you will continue on a parth of tortured interpretations and rulings designed solely to protect the current Speaker and frustrate the House parliamentary process. From your statements and advice since the beginning of your service as parliamentarian at the end of the 80th Session, it has become apparent to my House colleagues and myself that you are working for the current Speaker and not the body.
* * * *
The most important thing in this letter, aside from the call for Keel’s resignation, is Solomons’ evident support for a secret ballot. Charlie Geren’s secret ballot amendment was the proxy vote for speaker in the 80th Legislature and the same issue is likely to be the pivotal vote in the 81st.
Two years ago, I agreed with those who favored an open ballot. In principle, I believe that all votes should be record votes. If I were writing the House Rules, I would not allow division votes. But the situation is different today than it was two years ago. Speaker Craddick has claimed absolute power. Under those circumstances, where the balance of power between speaker and members has shifted so dramatically to the former, a secret ballot is appropriate. The speaker has protected himself from retaliation by the body for his excesses. The members ought to be able to protect themselves from retaliation by the speaker.
Tagged: burt solomons, Charlie Geren, parliamentarian, secret ballot, terry keel.
Anon says:
Or they should cowboy up, vote, and live with the consequences of their decision.
Reply »
Will Hartnett says:
It is a dangerous thing to tailor House Rules according to personalities. On one hand, you agree that the House should not permit a speaker fight in the critical last week of a session. On the other hand, you now say that a House procedure should be changed because Craddick, rightly or wrongly, interpreted the Rules to avoid that terrible precedent. It is ironic to me that the media demanded that the House increase its record votes per session from the historic 500 to the 2000 seen last session, in order to achieve greater transparency (even though most of those additional record votes were unanimous or virtually unanimous), but now happily jettison the goal of transparency when Craddick is involved.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Re Will Hartnett –
I do not say that a House procedure should be changed. The House has chosen its speaker by secret ballot in the past, at least fifty times, and it has chosen its speaker by open ballot in the past. In 2007, Phil King raised a point of order against the Geren amendment proposing a secret ballot. Secretary of State Roger Williams overruled the point of order. Here is some language from his ruling; for the complete discussion, see the House Journal for the first day of the 80the Legislature.
[Williams referred to the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in In Re Texas Senate, concerning the that body's election of a lieutenant governor.] “The Supreme Court determined that the Senate could proceed by secret ballot” [citation omitted].
Examining the history of these Texas constitutional provisions and the special specific provision regarding Article III, Section 41, the practice of the house in actually conducting elections by secret ballot and other methods, and the unanimous Texas Supreme Court decision in In Re Texas Senate which included the court’s strong recognition of each legislative chamber’s authority under Article III, Section 41, of the Texas Constitution to elect it officers by means the chamber determines is best, the presiding officer is of the opinion that the Texas Constitution leaves solely to the members of this house the authority to determine the manner of election of the speaker of the house, including by a means other than a viva voce vote, including by a secret ballot.
Current rulings provide that House members may choose the speaker by secret ballot. I think that the members should determine the rules, as the Constitution envisions. That is not a change from current procedure, nor is it an attempt to “tailor House rules according to personalities.” Rather, I tried to distinguish the circumstances in 2009 from those in 2007. I think there is a sound policy argument for a secret ballot, based on the speaker’s claim of absolute power. However, if the members should determine otherwise by a fair method (and a ruling by Terry Keel would not count as a fair method), I will respect the will of the House.
Readers who wish to read Williams’ entire opinion should refer to the House Journal, 80th Legislature, January 9, 2007, pages 11-13.
Reply »
PS2 says:
Is it really a “secret” ballot when the votes are revealed at some point in the future? We need to come up with a more accurate name for the method of electing the speaker that is being proposed. A “delayed reporting” ballot?
Reply »
Politico says:
Your article, “The First Battle,” got the ball rolling on this critical issue. Congrats on spurring discussion and a possible legal and constitutional clash on the first day of the session!
Reply »
Mercy Me says:
Mr. Solomons letter, although cute, is irrelevant. House matters will be decided by the majority of the house during the session not by individual disgruntled members. But such letters are good at identifying certain character traits, for example arrogance, that are inherent to such individuals.
Reply »
Nachtwarheight says:
There was nothing wrong with Solomons letter. He simply stated that Mr. Keel was not viewed as impartial and, given his rulings during the last session, shouldnt serve as a temporary officer. If Craddick is selected by the body as Speaker, I’m sure Keel can / will come back. Recusing oneself where bias and a conflict exists is only prudent and correct. Solomons shouldn’t even have to call for it.
To quote Burke, “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” Now, i’m not saying Craddick’s management of the House and his actions of ABSOLUTE POWER are evil…..but you can see it from there. The retaliation promised, and demonstrated by Speaker Craddick and his cadre of worshipers is cruel, but not quite evil. Therefore I can see the desire for a delayed reporting on the Speaker’s race ballot. However, I also would be very proud of the Republican members of the house that are willing to lay it on the line and publicly call for new leadership. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of Republicans (The good men identified by Edmund above) who we can be proud of these days. On the afternoon of January 13th, I will be proud of the members of the house who stand against tyranny and vote for new leadership.
Merriam Webster: Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
What else can we call a Craddick speakership? He has claimed absolute power and used it.
Reply »
PS2 says:
I’ve got it! How about “embargoed ballot”?
Reply »
texun says:
Craddick: If the Speaker does it, it’s legal.
Nixon: If the President does it, it’s legal.
W: A Presidential decree overrides international law. A Presidential signing declaration determines implementation of laws that pass Congress.
Anybody see a pattern here?
Reply »
Bat in the belfry says:
The pertinent aspect of Rep. Solomons letter is that it totally refutes the empty rhetoric which had been espoused in recent days by some of the Speaker’s lieutenents and his Chief of Staff in which they try to imply that Solomon’s candidacy for Speaker isn’t for real and that he, in fact, maintains his support for Craddick and has enjoined his candidacy for Speaker simply so that he can become one of the fall back choicees for Craddcik acolytes should the “unthinkable” occur and Craddick not achieve victory. Through his letter asking for Terry Keel’s resignation, and most importantly, his call for a sectret ballot, Mr. Solomons sends the very loud and clear message that he is truly “off the team”, that he no longer supports Craddick in any way, shape or form, and that his campaign for Speaker is very much for real. It’s intent was to stop Terral Smith and others from their ridiculous attempts to convince the remaining Craddick loyalists to stop worrying because Solomons entering the Speaker’s race is really a “good thing” for Craddick. Thank you Burt for helping put to bed their meritless arguement.
Reply »
Mercy Me says:
Let me see if I got this right…”Recusing oneself where bias and a conflict exists is only prudent and correct.” Nothing against you Nachtwarheight, but your arbitrary conclusion is less than persuasive. There is no absolute power in politics, that’s why we have what’s called a democracy. But that also means that when there is a majority there will be change. Thus, until there is a majority that see’s fit to change the way things are, things will inevitably stay the same. And those that are in power always have some sort of bias, republican or democrat, and thinking anything otherwise would simply be puerile. It’s a very simple concept, and all the propaganda spewing and speaker politics are a byproduct of who’s in the majority. In light of all this Solomons letter seems not only counter productive but desperate and pathetic. This leads me to believe he must feel backed into a corner due to the decisions he’s made thus far that can only blamed on himself.
Reply »
Chess Player says:
Craddick’s attempts to minimize the erosion from within his own team is getting pathetic. At one time he might have been able to downplay the candidacy of a Solomons, or the exploratory activities of a Dan Gattis, or the very public comments against his leadership by a Joe Straus or the less public, yet still spot on, criticisms of a Rob Eissler or a Gary Elkins, but the Speaker cannot deny the cumulative impact of these defections no matter how hard he tries. But try he will. No doubt the Speaker will continue to spout off about all of the money Straus has raised for ‘Stars over Texas’ and how close he and Nadine are to Straus’ parents and why that means, despite his comments to the contrary, Straus is really still on board. He will continue to claim that he has met with Eissler for well over an hour and that he is now “back on the team.” Unfortunately, Craddick just can’t seem to understand that many of his members have become adept at telling him what he wants to hear, then going off to continue their efforts to dethrone him–as cowardly and spineless as that may be. Even worse, Craddick has surrounded himself with yes men. In denial themselves, just as they were in the days leading to the November 4th election about Republican gains in the Texas House, they continue to tell Craddick what he wants to hear in much the same way his defectors do. Sadly, the Speaker is beimg insulated from the truth from both those who wish to save him and those who wich for him to go away. Tom Craddick’s Speakership is slowly dying a death of a thousand cuts. None individually will end his rule of the House, but the combined effect will be fatal. There is blood upon the water–a small pool now that in the coming days and weeks, will grow to engulf much of the House.
Reply »
ears1foru says:
Here’s what I know about Keel, when he was running statewide he was at an event for Pat Haggerty in El Paso. Haggarty introduced him, bragged on him and had him speak. Two years later, Keel is ruling against Haggerty and working for a Speaker who worked hard to defeat Haggerty. Not the kind of guy you want in a foxhole with you is it.
Reply »
old politico says:
Dear Chess Player:
Great writing and lots of inside information. A member who tells both parties what they want to hear obviously can’t be trusted by either side.
The mistake that the ABC’s have made in the past was to believe those folks when they told them what they wanted to hear. I am not sure Craddick makes that same mistake. He may but it would be out of character for him.
Reply »
Checkmate says:
Chess player – I think you have just named the thousandth cut. If the Democrats have 64 votes against Craddick, and the ABC’s number 7 (B. Cook, Geren, D. Jones, Keffer, McCall, Merritt, Pitts) plus Solomons totals 72. Then you add Eissler, Elkins, Gattis, and Straus….by my count that’s 76 votes against Craddick, and those are only the ones we know about. If an outsider can count the votes against Craddick, surely the Craddick R’s and D’s have long known the math. Perhaps that’s why they are desperately spreading rumors to undermine and attack Solomons.
Reply »
middleclassR says:
About the “yes men” aspect of it — Craddick’s new consultants are Perry’s old consultants which is odd considering the on and off history. At this point the consultants, the same ones that led R’s to believe we were going to have a net gain of 4 seats in the Texas House, are just sucking the rest of the tit dry before it’s time to pack up and head back north-east.
If Craddick had the votes, he’d share them with us. I don’t believe anyone has the votes at this time, and the anti’s need to display a little bit more organization and discipline as a group if they want to pull this off — maybe form a committee instead of rogue members with lame press releases. If they do this, they can hold on to some of the momenteum they are acquiring. Meanwhile I don’t think someone like Tommy Merritt has such discipline, or any other quality one might need. I really don’t see any of these folks that have announced thus far with these qualities. So, the next person that announces with common sense, the anti’s need to get behind him/her and then hold the group together. If Craddick’s team is allowed to divide the group, or if ego’s (Merritt, Solomons, etc…), divide the group, it won’t work. With all of the stupid ideas Craddick and Perry’s guys have come up with(hpv shots for 9 yr olds and a massive highway heading toward Oklahoma with Spanish-text exit signs), you have to remember they still are disciplined as a team and know how to divide and conquer.
Why do I care? If our party is going to live on we have to prove that Craddick is not bigger than the party. The movement has to be principle-based, but not ideoligically or ego driven. Speaking of principles, no more bills that screw over our base — tuition deregulation, tuition discounts for illegals, over reaching eminent domain laws, etc…
Next we have to box out those that have screwed this party up by striking fear in the hearts of their own clients or that taint the system with conflicts of interest — folks similar to Brian Eppstein. They are yesterday’s news and it’s time for us to leave them behind. Someone that’s working both sides, Democrat and Republican races, has no business being the guest speaker at Tarrant County Republican meetings to give advice. (Yes, we know you have a team of young D’s that work against R’s you can’t beat in the primary.)
We need to start a farm team. Go into the colleges and organize the young conservatives. Host campaign schools and fund their day to day operations. Even if 90% of these students don’t go into politics, they will go into business and be apart of the contributor base.
Craddick and his people shouldn’t take this personally. Hell, many of us has chipped in some way or another to help them stay in power this long, it’s just that their ride is over. A true leader doesn’t over reach and doesn’t over stay his welcome. And when they do, it’s the people’s job to remove them.
Reply »