Committee Restructure
Session 11
2008
Sandra-
Thank you for your inquiry. I agree that the written stated purpose of the Session "to distribute the members more evenly that sit on the committees" was a failure, which leads me to believe that was not a real purpose of the Session, particularly since
Deb was prohibited from participating, and there were judgment calls made that caused further imbalance and mistrust.
I am copying some of the other members with this e-mail information and I'm sure you can contact them about their goals for the special session, and what happened to some responsibilities, because I really don't know. I was not opposed to some consolidation among standing committees at the beginning of the next regular session, and made written suggestions to that effect, but they were obviously dismissed. I thought the five member Committee on Committees was necessary to help "distribute members evenly" and with those that worked best together, and to address personal and professional conflicts within committees. After yesterday, I believe that more strongly, because there are simply people that don't work well together, and the fact that someone "signs up" for a (or all) committees should not require other members to choose between their health (mental and physical) and from serving on any committees for a year. Per yesterday, the responsibility for setting the slate for committees now falls on the Speaker. I guess conflicts go unaddressed.
As for the statistics you have asked for, the new committees are posted on the website, and from the information I have available, the numerical breakdown of committee membership old vs. new is this:
2007 Hun-Kah, Tzi-zho and interim / 2008 Hun-Kah, Tzi-zho, interim and 2009 Hun-kah
Anderson
- 2007 4 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Branstetter- 2007 5 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Edwards- 2007 5 committees 2008-2009 1 committee
Freeman- 5 committees 2008-2009 1 committee
Littleton-
4 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Mason- 5 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Redcorn- 6 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Red Eagle- 6 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Revard- 3 committees 2008-2009 2 committees
Shackleford- 4 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Simms- 4 committees 2008-2009 2 committees
Supernaw- 6 committees 2008-2009 5 committees
There is one more "election" to Appropriations Committee, so those nummbers will change upward in some instances.
I will ask if there is information about the specific travel funds spent and the committee monthly meetings that the Speaker requested the Committees have last September. I don't have that now.
Yes, I did say yesterday that the Committee "restructure" will result in one Committee being responsible for 65% of all anticipated committee work, and I still believe that to be true, unless the Speaker assigns bills and budgets outside of the stated jurisdiction, which then makes the rule "descriptions of jursidiction" wrong. I proposed an amendment to remove those descriptions, which I don't think make sense, particularly when they include non-government entities which the Congress clearly has no jurisdiction over, but the amendment was defeated. I was told the Legislative writer was not asked and did not help with this latest Rules drafting effort, and perhaps there is confusion over the meaning of the term "jurisdiction".
I have less committee and oversight responsibilities now, so I view this as a chance to work on legislation that benefits all elders, education, those with health care needs, and better organization and reduction in waste. The success or failure of your suggested spending issues lies mainly with the Congressional Affairs Committee for the Legislature, and the standing committees. I will continue to try to represent you fairly and I appreciate your call and support.
Regards,
Shannon
L.
Edwards
Committee Restructure
Session 11
2008
Sandra-
Thank you for your inquiry. I agree that the written stated purpose of the Session "to distribute the members more evenly that sit on the committees" was a failure, which leads me to believe that was not a real purpose of the Session, particularly since
Deb was prohibited from participating, and there were judgment calls made that caused further imbalance and mistrust.
I am copying some of the other members with this e-mail information and I'm sure you can contact them about their goals for the special session, and what happened to some responsibilities, because I really don't know. I was not opposed to some consolidation among standing committees at the beginning of the next regular session, and made written suggestions to that effect, but they were obviously dismissed. I thought the five member Committee on Committees was necessary to help "distribute members evenly" and with those that worked best together, and to address personal and professional conflicts within committees. After yesterday, I believe that more strongly, because there are simply people that don't work well together, and the fact that someone "signs up" for a (or all) committees should not require other members to choose between their health (mental and physical) and from serving on any committees for a year. Per yesterday, the responsibility for setting the slate for committees now falls on the Speaker. I guess conflicts go unaddressed.
As for the statistics you have asked for, the new committees are posted on the website, and from the information I have available, the numerical breakdown of committee membership old vs. new is this:
2007 Hun-Kah, Tzi-zho and interim / 2008 Hun-Kah, Tzi-zho, interim and 2009 Hun-kah
Anderson
- 2007 4 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Branstetter- 2007 5 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Edwards- 2007 5 committees 2008-2009 1 committee
Freeman- 5 committees 2008-2009 1 committee
Littleton-
4 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Mason- 5 committees 2008-2009 3 committees
Redcorn- 6 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Red Eagle- 6 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Revard- 3 committees 2008-2009 2 committees
Shackleford- 4 committees 2008-2009 4 committees
Simms- 4 committees 2008-2009 2 committees
Supernaw- 6 committees 2008-2009 5 committees
There is one more "election" to Appropriations Committee, so those nummbers will change upward in some instances.
I will ask if there is information about the specific travel funds spent and the committee monthly meetings that the Speaker requested the Committees have last September. I don't have that now.
Yes, I did say yesterday that the Committee "restructure" will result in one Committee being responsible for 65% of all anticipated committee work, and I still believe that to be true, unless the Speaker assigns bills and budgets outside of the stated jurisdiction, which then makes the rule "descriptions of jursidiction" wrong. I proposed an amendment to remove those descriptions, which I don't think make sense, particularly when they include non-government entities which the Congress clearly has no jurisdiction over, but the amendment was defeated. I was told the Legislative writer was not asked and did not help with this latest Rules drafting effort, and perhaps there is confusion over the meaning of the term "jurisdiction".
I have less committee and oversight responsibilities now, so I view this as a chance to work on legislation that benefits all elders, education, those with health care needs, and better organization and reduction in waste. The success or failure of your suggested spending issues lies mainly with the Congressional Affairs Committee for the Legislature, and the standing committees. I will continue to try to represent you fairly and I appreciate your call and support.
Regards,
Shannon
L.
Edwards
|
