08-17-2018, 08:47 AM
TK
In so far as the article your referenced to support your origianl statement;
"...I dislike Kahele for his completely unethical approach to trying to kill the TMT..."
Here's the relevant portion of the article that describes the transgression that led to the opposition;
After Sen. Kai Kahele, who is promoting the measure, proposed a minor floor amendment Tuesday, Kim pointed to Senate Rule 23 that says a committee must schedule a bill for a hearing if it contains significant or substantial amendments. She said she was not objecting to the bill’s contents.
You don't see a little ambiguity there ? Hmmm....and is so far as Part 2 of your concern:
"...it doesn't represent anything to do with the original bill
The use of an abandoned bills Title and the amending of the language to address a related area is a necessary function for efficient law making. You may not agree with the content but there is nothing unethical about this common practice, despite unappealing term 'gut and replace' .
Finally, from the same article you used to justify your assertion regarding Kahele's ethics';
"...Ruderman said he asked Kahele if he would remove the construction moratorium from the bill, but he declined.
Nonetheless, he commends Kahele, who is promoting this bill along with another controversial measure creating a new Maunakea management authority, for conducting community meetings throughout the state about issues affecting the mountain and trying to “think outside the box.”
“I like to support Kai whenever I can but I think this went a step too far,” Ruderman said.
The management bill also was done through gut and replace after the original measure died in the House.
Ruderman said he might vote in support of that bill with reservations since, in that case, notice the bill was being rewritten was given a few days ahead of time."
I bring this to your attention to provide context given your issue with "remit" between the two senators and their districts.
In so far as the article your referenced to support your origianl statement;
"...I dislike Kahele for his completely unethical approach to trying to kill the TMT..."
Here's the relevant portion of the article that describes the transgression that led to the opposition;
After Sen. Kai Kahele, who is promoting the measure, proposed a minor floor amendment Tuesday, Kim pointed to Senate Rule 23 that says a committee must schedule a bill for a hearing if it contains significant or substantial amendments. She said she was not objecting to the bill’s contents.
You don't see a little ambiguity there ? Hmmm....and is so far as Part 2 of your concern:
"...it doesn't represent anything to do with the original bill
The use of an abandoned bills Title and the amending of the language to address a related area is a necessary function for efficient law making. You may not agree with the content but there is nothing unethical about this common practice, despite unappealing term 'gut and replace' .
Finally, from the same article you used to justify your assertion regarding Kahele's ethics';
"...Ruderman said he asked Kahele if he would remove the construction moratorium from the bill, but he declined.
Nonetheless, he commends Kahele, who is promoting this bill along with another controversial measure creating a new Maunakea management authority, for conducting community meetings throughout the state about issues affecting the mountain and trying to “think outside the box.”
“I like to support Kai whenever I can but I think this went a step too far,” Ruderman said.
The management bill also was done through gut and replace after the original measure died in the House.
Ruderman said he might vote in support of that bill with reservations since, in that case, notice the bill was being rewritten was given a few days ahead of time."
I bring this to your attention to provide context given your issue with "remit" between the two senators and their districts.