Folks, I have been officially taken to task on my naughty insistence that Kentucky legislators condescend to show up to put their votes on the record! Shame on me. Who do I think I am?!"From: [possibly a home email address]@aol.com
Sent: Fri 1/5/2007 11:03pm
To: conservachick@gmail.com
Cc: [For all except the last, I've removed the names and left the domains] @rosenberglawky.com, lexingtonlegends.com, ohio.edu, @yahoo.com, marylou.marzian@lrc.ky.govSubject: Missed Votes
How funny that you have hung your hat on the number of votes I missed last session.
Surely you would expect folks who are concerned about that would examine the nature of the votes missed: like naming highways and bridges, official dances, agency requests for reorganization and other small issues that had already been studied in the committee process-- to which I pay close attention.
If you folks who have started blogs about state government, and how bad it is, and want to have any credibility at all you should either go back to school or re-read your old government books and/or perhaps the Constitution. Remember, of course that Kentucky also has a Constitution. I highly recommend its reading: it is even
better than our federal Constitution.
But the first thing you must surely do is check the votes members missed and how they affected the final vote. If you are going to criticize member's votes, you should be ready to explain how those votes harmed you or others. The missed votes of members had no effect on the outcome of any of the issues of the 2006 session. Do you reckon you can post that?
If you are going to concern yourself with whether your Representative is there day in and day out, then check the official record which is available each day on the LRC web-site. I have not noticed that there are many members who don't show up to vote-- and isn't that what your complaint is?
So give this missed vote stuff a rest.
You ought to be more concerned about how your folks vote.
Kathy W. Stein"
My response to Rep. Stein's email will be to reply with a link to this post. Why type it twice? After all, I think this is a discussion that ought to be shared with readers given the question of what citizens ought to expect from the officials they elect. And so, here is my response:
Dear Representative Stein,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my January 4th article on your "work ethic." I am pleased that you took time out to voice your opinion on the issue of missed votes.I must admit to some confusion after re-reading your message. I am not sure what you mean by "hung your hat on the number of votes I missed last session." I did nothing more than question the work ethic of a legislator who misses 131 votes in a session. Frankly, I find it appalling that any legislator thinks it's acceptable to miss any votes regardless of how "unimportant" they may seem.
We apparently differ in our definitions of "small issues." I believe that every bill introduced for a vote ought to be considered important. For example, I would define the following issues as something other than "small:" education accountability, regulations governing mortgage bankers, development of an energy policy, prohibiting the seizure of legal firearms in time of disaster or emergency... Certainly I don't need to list every vote you missed for you to understand that there should be no "small issues," do I? Seriously, Representative Stein, minimizing your missed votes by saying that they were all small issues is a bit disingenuous.
It was very thoughtful of you to remind me that Kentucky has a Constitution. I had forgotten all about that as it wasn't covered in Economics class in college. However, since you recommended it so highly, I spent some time today reading the Constitution of our great Commonwealth.
I found only one reference in our Constitution to a reason for a member of either house to miss a vote. Were you referring to Section 57? If so, then you must have had a "personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly." In that case, I realize that you were obligated to disclose your personal or private interest on those 131 bills and exclude yourself from the votes. Is that what you're telling me you did? If not, could you please point me to the specific section of the Constitution you had in mind with regard to missed votes?If you will take the time to re-read my original post, you will find that I did not criticize your votes. I criticized your lack of votes. Therefore, I certainly don't feel compelled to explain "how those votes harmed [me] or others." Maybe you can explain to me how I can criticize a vote that didn't happen?
As for caring about how "my folks vote," I am proud to inform you that my legislators rarely miss a vote. I can clearly, on the record, see that my voice is being heard in Frankfort because my representatives are leaving behind a record of votes on which we can gauge their performance. You see, I take great pride in knowing that my district's tax dollars are being well-earned by our representatives. I believe the point you are missing here is that the people of every district in this commonwealth expect their voices to be heard on the record as well. Shocking, I know.
It's apparent that you've completely missed the point of my article on your "work ethic." Let me make it easy: I show up at my office every day and chair meetings quite often. This alone is not enough for my employer; they rightfully expect to see visible and documented results for the salary they pay me. If we simple citizens conducted ourselves on the job as if showing up every day was the only requirement, we'd certainly be taken to task and likely find ourselves unemployed. I find it interesting that you consider yourself above the expected standards of the citizens you represent.In closing, thank you again for your response to my article on ConservaChick. I appreciate your readership; however, be advised that I will not "give this missed vote stuff a rest" until every legislator whose salary is paid by every citizen in this great commonwealth understands that missed votes should be the exception rather than the rule.
All the best,
Dawn
Comments
Did you really say that? Did you say the Kentucky's Commonwealth Constitution is "BETTER" than our Federal Constitution? Oh MY GOD! (Sorry, Ms. Stein, I know how you hate the word, "God")
In keeping with both the Federal and State Constitution, I shall issue my freedom of both religion and speech and use the phrases, "Oh My GOD" and the phrase, "God help our Commonwealth." Your email was deceitful and filled with partial truths.
Specifically and from Dawn's research on your "missed votes", they do NOT appear to be small issues. By the way, Ms. Stein, what is an insignificant (small bill) and WHO paid you to determine if a bill is small or big? That is NOT what WE pay YOU to do with our hard earned taxpayer money. To be blunt, you are not paid to ascertain the significance of a bill you are paid to find out what "we the people" want from each and every bill (big or small) that comes before the floor. That's it.
Additionally, if the issues you did NOT vote on are small, in your mind only, that they are negligible and hence you decide to take a free ride on your salary by not voting, then why don't you pass a bill or draft a bill that says, "No more small issues will be decided on the taxpayer dime?"
Ms. Stein, you also wrote, "you should be ready to explain how those votes harmed you or others." How dare you. Who do you think you are? We, the people you serve, should not have to explain how your NO VOTE harmed us. We, the people of this Commonwealth, should not have justify your showing up for work. We, the people of this Commonwealth owe you nothing of the sort. YOU OWE US. You owe us to show up and work toward the good of the entire Commonwealth and NOT just you and your friends. That means, SHOW UP AND WORK MS. STEIN.
To clarify. You are not paid by the taxpayer to decide what bill is small or big bill. You are not even paid decide how YOU, the individual, would like the vote to go. You are ONLY paid to find out from your CONSTITUENTS how THEY want the bill to be voted. Do you get that? Should I explain that in more elementary terms? I shall provide an example.
For example, we, the taxpayers of this Commonwealth, do NOT want a bill drafted that will waste taxpayer money so state employees can chat all day on the blog created Jonathan Miller and operated by your friend, Mark Nickolas who sits and slanders politicians, judges and public officials all day. While that may be what YOU and your friend(s) want, that is NOT what your CONSTITUENTS nor that taxpayers of this Commonwealth want. That is just one very simple example of how you are not PAID to pass and vote on only the bills YOU think are big or small. You are paid to represent the PEOPLE aka taxpayers and their families.
Ms. Stein, now you know what we the people of the Commonwealth expect and demand from all you members of the legislature.
You have some audacity to think it is OUR job to explain anything to you, except how WE want our voices heard via the votes you cast for YOUR CONSTITUENTS. It is not that complicated an idea. It's an idea that our founding fathers conceived along with the Federal United States Constitution, it goes like this, once you have been elected to do the "people's work" show up and do the job you were elected to do or get the heck out of that taxpayer paid position you are skipping around Lexington doing, or is that you are not doing.
I hope you are reading this. Let's get something Constitutionally straight. No where in the U. S. Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution is a blogger, alleged journalist, former beaten campaign manager granted the right to chat with State employees during working hours. NO WHERE.
There is evidence that on June 20, 2006 a poster named Revenue Girl, from the Revenue Cabinet, the same Cabinet that Jonathan Miller is in charge of, admitted on BGR that she and her colleagues, also tax-paid Cabinet employees had been chatting on the blog Miller conceived for Mark Nickolas all day long.
In fact in the thread, Revenue Girl apologized to the taxpayer and admitted, "the productivity of the entire Cabinet (at least those of us with computers) has been substantially diminished by this blog today." Key words, Ms. Stein, "DIMINISHED BY THIS BLOG" referring to the blog Jonathan Miller created and Nickolas manages.
The very next morning the blogs were banned from State computers. Three days later the Courier Journal wrote a piece, ""State treasurer fights blockage of Internet sites; Miller criticizes Fletcher's action," Miller criticized Fletcher? Treasurer Miller did not tell the reporter that the blog was his idea. Mr. Miller did not tell the reporter how he talked Nickolas into managing a blog FULL TIME. Mr. Miller did not tell the reporter that he wined and dined Nickolas until Nickolas agreed to do it full time.
On July 13, 2006 you and Mr. Miller addressed reporters on the steps of the Capital Annex discussing your tax wasting bill that would make it legal for KY. taxpayers to pay state employees to chat on Miller's blog with Nickolas. Again, Mr. Miller made no mention of his role at BGR.
Ms. Stein, the voters and taxpayers of this Commonwealth are not stupid and we can see political manipulation via a blog when it is blatantly before us.
Your attempt to write a bill to make it legal for Jonathan Miller's employees, that are paid by the taxpayers, is a devious and dishonest and borders on the possibility of political corruption. In fact, I wonder if both you and Jonathan Miller have violated Kentucky Constitution Section 150 and Section 151.
If you and Miller want to pay people to chat on Miller's blog, leave State government, open a business, pay taxes and pay them to chat with your pal on Miller's blog. Otherwise, your disingenuous bill will not be forgotten come election time for you.
Ms. Stein, listen and listen good. Not one single state employee has filed a first amendment lawsuit over the blog ban. State employees are paid to work, not chat. The taxpayers of this Commonwealth will not support a bill that will waste our tax dollars further. It is bad enough that Miller may have helped Nickolas provide false information to the Secretary of State to avoid paying sales tax, FICA, State & Federal income tax.
Again, I will be looking into whether or not you and/or Jonathan Miller have violated Kentucky Constitution Section 150 and Section 151.
Liberal or Conservative, I wouldn't want ANY tax-paid public servant assuming she is doing us a favor by showing up to do her job! It's simply outrageous.
The blogging issue is one that gets WAAAAY under my skin. I work for a large company that blocks all types of chat and blog sites because they are not pertinent to the jobs employees are paid to perform by the company. That is completely legal and EXPECTED.
I find it outrageous that ANY employer would find it acceptable, much less the taxpayers of this Commonwealth. Maybe Rep. Stein can "justify" the time spent on that legislation she's drafting to the people who pay her to do their work in Frankfort... I thought that was the taxpayers but "eyes wide open" raises an interesting question about who is actually paying for that particular "duty" that Rep. Stein has taken on.
Could it be that she was too busy drafting ridiculous legislation like that instead of showing up for votes?
Thanks for the suggestion on reading the Ky Constitution Rep. Stein.
State treasurer fights blockage of Internet sites
June 24, 2006 •• 462 words •• ID: lou31452477
"We face many difficult challenges in Frankfort," Miller said in a statement. "Censoring critical speech, however, will not assist us in moving the state forward."
Legislator Proposes Bill To Prevent 'Politically Motivated Censorship'
"FRANKFORT - Three days after a Kentucky political blogger sued Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration for blocking state workers' access to his Web site, state Rep. Kathy Stein said today she is drafting legislation to prevent what she said was "politically motivated censorship."
Joining Stein to support the legislation were Treasurer Jonathan Miller and David Sirota, co-chair of the non-partisan, non-profit Progressive States Network based in Washington, D.C."
State Lawmaker Wants Bloggers Protected
"Democratic state Rep. Kathy Stein of Lexington said Thursday she plans to file legislation to prohibit state government from banning state workers’ access to Web sites on the basis of a site’s viewpoint."
How in the world did she think it was a good idea to send out such a condescending email?
a) miss 131 votes.
b) send out a condesending email.
c) try to electronically engineer elections by means of reaching 30,000 taxpaid state employees via Miller's blog that Nickolas operates as a non-profit corporation.
… In an attempt to help out a struggling friend I, Jonathan Miller, did suggest and advise Mark Nichols to start/ form “The Bluegrass Report’. I further advised him to set up a non-profit corporation to run “The Bluegrass Report”.
Kath stein is a personal friend and I appreciate the fact she has also tried to help our mutual friend Mark Nichols with legislation to promote the readership of the non-profit blog “The Bluegrass Report”. It is the right of ever citizens to free speech. A blog is a exercise of that free speech and any attempt to stop this free speech should have legislation to protect it. I thank Kath Stein for providing that the dialogue to facilitate that legislation…
While we all know Kath Stein, Mark Nichols and Jonathan Miller are in bed together so to speak. It is an absolute travesty when a legislator feels it is their right to decide when to show up for work and to promote legislation contrary to the majority opinion of their constituents believe. We have known for some time just how liberal and out of the main stream Kath Stein is. Any reading of the political hack of a blog put forth by Mark Nichols also reveals just how far out in left field he is also. With adviser such as Nichols advising him Jonathan Miller has ruined what appeared to be a fast track political carrer.
If Jonathan Miller donated personal income to the Foundation For Kentucky's Future Inc., aka BGR (the blog he created) wouldn't that be in violation of Kentucky Constitution Sections 151 & 150? After all, BGR is a political blog who admits in court documents that ""A major purpose of Plantiff's website is to influence state policy, and a critical part of his audience is therefore state government employees." - 30,000 taxpaid state employees are also admits in same court document that state employees are Nickolas' "target audience."
Secondly, if Stein donated $$ to the Foundation and then tried to pass legislation that would allow 30,000 state employees to channel into the Miller created political blog wouldn't she also be in violation of Kentucky Constitution Section 151 & 150?
Thirdly, if Miller tried to influence the taxpayer, via the CJ article, "Treasure fights blockage and criticizes governor" june 23, 2006, and leaves out the critical information that he created the blog and possibly donated his own money or taxpayer money, wouldn't he again be in violation of KY. Constitution Sections 150 & 151?
Nickolas Response to Motion - page 6
"A MAJOR PURPOSE of Plaintiff's website is to INFLUENCE STATE POLICY, and a critical part of his audience is therefore state government employees."
Nickolas Response to Motion - page 8.
"It is an obvious inference from these allegations that at least some individual state employees -- the MOST IMPORTANT TARGET audience for Plaintiff's website -- no longer read the site because they LACK THE TIME or ability to read it from home."
Nickolas Response to Motion - page 9
"The state has cut off the most convenient method for Plaintiff to reach his audience of state employees, who make up a CORE PART OF HIS READERSHIP"
Nickolas Response to Motion - page 9
"Because the state has chosen to burden the ability of Plaintiff's KEY AUDIENCE to read his site."
1. MAJOR PURPOSE of the blog is to INFLUENCE state policy....
(Nickolas left that out of the Articles of Incorporation.)
thus from inference:
In Nickolas Response to Motion - repeatedly describes state (taxpaid) employees as:
1. MOST IMPORTANT TARGET AUDIENCE - page 8 (key word, MOST IMPORTANT)
key audience - page 9
state employees - core part of readership - page
thus from inference and the admitted major purpose and target audience of the blog that Jonathan Miller created is to "manipulate" voters and "influence" elections with a 30,000 person "most important target audience."
Therefore: Is Jonathan Miller in violation of Ky. Constitution Sections 151 & 150?
I would like to ask the same question anonymous 9:11 did except worded a wee bit differently:
The admitted major purpose of the blog is to influence state police and the target audience of the blog that Jonathan Miller created is 30,000 state employees. Hence we CAN infer that Jonathan Miller's objective with creating the blog was a means to "manipulate" voters and "influence elections" by saturating the state employees with ONLY MILLER'S views at the expense of the taxpayer.
Therefore, if Jonathan Miller and/or Kathy Stein donated PERSONAL income for the success of the blog, could Miller and possibly Kathy Stein be in violation of Constitution Sections 151 & 150?
Would that make the support and drafting of the legislative bill another example of Miller's & Stein's violation of Ky. Constitution Sections 151 & 150?
"raise their taxes and let them eat cake."
I have serious concerns about it now after reading through so much of the detail surrounding the connection with Miller and Nickolas. Throw Stein into the mix and you've got an even bigger issue to investigate.
I work for a large private company which bans a huge number of websites based on non-work-related content. Not only are some sites banned but not every employee has internet access to browse the web. It's nothing new in the private sector where productivity is so important. I was surprised that state government hadn't implemented a policy like this before the governor finally decided to do something about it.
I'll guarantee you that not only are blogs on the list of banned sites but gaming websites, streaming media, joke sites, and others are banned as well. It simply makes sense. If I cannot goof off on the internet all day at work, why should I be paying others to do it??
"With adviser such as Nichols advising him Jonathan Miller has ruined what appeared to be a fast track political carrer"
I agree completely.