After the big guns had their say about Speaker Tom Craddick and his push for power, out come all the individual member letters to Attorney General Greg Abbott, some for Craddick, some against.
Jodie Laubenberg, R-Rockwall, comes out for Tom so enthusiastically that the speaker forwarded her letter to the media like a press release. In it, she argues that Keffer and Cook were trying to subvert rules when their motion to vacate the chair was rightly ignored by the speaker (just like she ignores the fact that it was Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, that tried to make the motion to vacate that Craddick ignored.) She seemed maddest that Keffer and Cook would “have undoubtedly forced the House into a special session … costing our taxpayers thousands of wasted dollars.” (Is she going to send a strongly-worded letter to Gov. Rick Perry that he better not call his threatened special session over Iran divestment?)
Bill Callegari, R-Houston, swept in with his own letter, which was basically edited highlights of the Laubenberg and Berman advisories: Cook and Keffer were just playing politics and it’s not the AG’s job.
Dan Flynn then decided that getting to sign the big kids’ letter wasn’t enough, and then sent his own. In a legal advisory that has nothing legal or advisory about it, he just throws around terms like “power grab” and “unscrupulous” and “disgraceful” in a manner that suggests he better not leave his lunch tray unguarded around any of the rebels in the next session.
But just when you thought it was all going Tom’s way, here comes Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. Unlike the shrillness and finger-pointing of his pro-Craddick party pals, Pitts is much more about legal references. Much of his argument reads like a ten-page summation of the Geren text, but he also goes directly after Craddick’s claim of absolute authority and his dismissal of the idea that there is such a thing as a motion to vacate. To boil down Pitt’s argument, it’s basically “you’re wrong,” and basically accuses Craddick of trying to be unaccountable. “I simply do not believe,” he concludes, “that the people of Texas sent their representatives to the Texas House to represent their districts and conduct the state’s business while having their interests subjected to the ‘caprice or passion’ of the Speaker.”
This article appears in August 3 • 2007.
