With the news that Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, will unilaterally reject appointments Gov. Jennifer Granholm made to six university boards for terms that begin the day she leaves office you get an idea of the unprecedented crap she has had to put up with from the Senate.
Granholm made the appointments on April 7, and she followed previous precedent set by former Republican Gov. John Engler in making the same type of appointments. Engler made a number of appointments for board positions, including a number of cronies – including current and former department directors and closest advisers such as Community Health Director James Haveman, former Corrections Director Bill Martin, Treasurer Doug Roberts and legal counsel Lucille Taylor - right before he left office.
But the Senate Republicans completely neglected their duty of advise and consent during the Engler administration, and any Engler appointment was automatic. Not so with Granholm appointees, and each appointee had to go before the appropriate committee and then the full Senate for a vote.
Bishop said back on April 7 that he did not “really like the idea of this governor making appointments for the next governor,” but on Wednesday he officially affirmed that ridiculous position, and he wrote Granholm a letter to inform her of the “Republican caucus' decision to reject those appointments,” according to subscription only Gongwer. It's unclear when a vote will be held. That’s a vote, not the normal advise and consent hearings.
Not only that, but Bishop took it even farther and said that the Senate would reject any gubernatorial appointments made after September 3, as well as any appointments made prior to that date for terms that begin after September 3. Her term does not end until noon on Jan. 1. They will be rejected without a hearing.
Many of the appointees are Republicans, including Roberts, who Engler appointed to the Northern Michigan University board in the same procedure Bishop is rejecting out of hand.
The hypocrisy is just overwhelming, and Granholm press secretary Liz Boyd called them out on it.
“The governor's appointees are qualified, they have bipartisan support and they are entitled to a fair hearing on the merits that the Senate Republicans have promised from the beginning of the Granholm administration," Boyd told Gongwer. "They have assured us that they would not reject qualified candidates. ... This is about Senator Bishop using qualified appointees as partisan political pawns."
7 comments:
I applaud the Republican Caucus on this. No Governor, from either party, should be permitted to name people to fill positions for a future Governor. It was wrong when Engler did it, if he did it. It's wrong for Granholm to do it and it will be wrong if the next guy tries to do it.
I'd even support legislation that says that any appointees nominated and seated have their positions ended at the conclusion of the current term. If a sitting Governor wants to reappoint them if and when they win their second term, so be it. But no Governor should be permitted to name appointees for a future Governor.
I suspect that if Engler were the Democrat and Granholm the Republican and the same situation presented itself, your argument would the same as mine.
Of course you do, anonymous, because you are just as hypocritical as the Senate Republicans. Well, one governor from one party was allowed fill positions for a future Governor. Many of these are reappointments and are Republicans.
I suspect that if Granholm were the Republican and Engler the Democrat and the same situation presented itself, your argument would the same as mine.
But you are, of course, ignoring the hypocrisy. Give them a hearing, and then tell these people to their face they are unqualified simply because the person who appointed them is a Democrat.
I don't care if appointments are Republican or Democrat. The idea of nominating people, forcing a future governor to have them rather than appointing their own is wrong.
The issue is the important thing, not the party. You want to say that ENgler did it, fine. Is he the first? Did Blanchard do it? Mulliken? Romney? If ANY of them did, it's the wrong way to go about it.
You want to make this a REpublican/Democrat thing when it's the policy of doing it that is wrong. It was wrong for Engler and it's wrong for Granholm and if it was done in previous terms by other governors, it was wrong then too. If you think it's wrong for Engler to have done it, then if you're going to be honest, you'd have to admit that it's wrong for Granholm to do it. If you don't, then you're more concerned about party than policy and it's you being hypocritical.
Of course you care if appointments are Republican or Democrat. So by your logic, the terms of members of all boards and commissions should expire at the same time the Governor’s term expires in order to not force “a future governor to have them rather than appointing their own.”
She is simply exercising a legal right enjoyed by governors like Engler and Blanchard and perhaps even Milliken and Romney. At no time did I say it was wrong. Once again, anonymous, it’s the hypocrisy.
Engler was allowed to do it without a single advise and consent heating or vote. In fact, the Senate shirked its duty of advise and consent during the Engler years. All of Granholm’s appointees had to go through a hearing and vote in the appropriate committee and then on the full Senate floor.
Now, the Senate Republicans tried to reject her appointees without a single hearing, yet they have required a hearing for every appointee for the past seven years.
That is the hypocrisy.
You don't get to dictate what I care about or don't care about. It makes no difference to me which party is doing it. The fact that they are doing it is wrong.
Engler was wrong for doing it and if you're right about the Senate in those days, they too were wrong in not having the hearings.
Two wrongs don't make it right. Neither do three wrongs or four wrongs or five wrongs.
So, since you think you can decide what I care about and don't care about, I guess we'll have to wait and see if the next governor does it because after all, he will be a Republican, then we can have this discussion again in four and eight years.
Actions are pretty clear, and you certainly do care which party is doing it. It’s not wrong, illegal or unusual.
Why anyone would vote for someone from the party that ran the country into the worst recession since the Great Depression is beyond me.
Not Anonymous has shown hypocrisy is no big thing for Republicans.. Not is part of a movement that screams about debt but didn't do anything when it was their party running up the debt.. Not is part of a group that screams about civil liberties yet didn't care when the person who was shredding the constitution had a (R)after his name..
As for the governor not you guys better hope things stop improving because as I see it you guys have nothing to run on.
Post a Comment