Eight days ago, on the day it was announced, I called for the inclusion of compensation for Arthur Whitfield in special session. I have been pleasantly surprised at the reaction: given the opportunity, our legislators will do the right thing, and legislator after legislator has come on board. The sticking point, though, seems to be that the leadership doesn’t want to open up the special session to just anything and prefer that they only take up the single topic – Melendez-Diaz – as per the governor’s proclamation.
But just how hard is it to limit the special session to just these two issues?
I keep hearing over and over that it is difficult. Obviously, the legislators – bless their souls – have short memories. Last year, the General Assembly had two separate special sessions. The first began in March, immediately after the close of the regular session, and the second began June 23. The primary purpose of the first was bonds and capital improvements while the second was transportation.
Note that I said primary. Because in each case, the resolutions took up other issues. See for yourself – HJ5002 and HJ6004. In both cases, in addition to the primary purpose, the General Assembly took up the issue of the judges, a hot topic last year, appointment confirmations and commending and memorial joint resolutions.
Wait – “commending and memorial joint resolutions?” Yep. They were so important that the General Assembly used time in both special sessions to pass a TON of them. Again, see for yourself – here’s the list of all bills that passed in Session I and Session II. There was so many of them that they don’t fit on a single page!
I’m calling BS on the claim that only one issue can be taken up in the special session. And right this minute, I’m angry that the so-called “leadership” in the General Assembly thinks it’s perfectly OK to include “commending and memorial joint resolutions” in both of last year’s special sessions and to resist including compensation to an innocent man.
What kind of government do we really have? Is it “for the people” or not?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian,
I think those other issues are introduced “by unanimous consent” meaning that if even one member of the House or Senate objects they can’t be taken up. Unanimous consent is frequently given for he introduction of memorial and commending resolutions precisely BECAUSE no one thinks they are important, so no one has any objection. If unanimous consent can be obtained for the Whitfield legislation, that would be great. But is suspect, because it involves an expenditure of money, there might be legislators who object. I’m not saying they are right, just trying to shed some light on the situation.
I’m aware of the unanimous consent – the resolutions say that. My point is that they HAVE taken up other issues in the special sessions in the past without opening up the session to everything. The Whitfield situation deserves consideration and not out of hand rejection.
Allow me to translate from the polite to the direct:
“given the opportunity” => “when beaten about the head and shoulders”
“the leadership doesn’t want to open up the special session” => “harder heads need more beating”