* Press release from yesterday…
The Illinois Freedom Caucus today is issuing the following statement on the adoption (largely along partisan lines) of the new House Rules that will determine how the Illinois House of Representatives will be governed in the 103rd General Assembly.
“Illinois Freedom Caucus member Adam Niemerg negotiated some rule changes to no longer allow votes to be cast via Zoom. Committees will be able to operate via Zoom if technology allows, but floor votes will have to be made in person, which is something the Freedom Caucus has been pushing for a long time.
Niemerg also negotiated the end of the consent calendar that allowed large number of bills to be voted on with one roll call. Consent Calendar bills often included ceremonial legislation such as measures to change the name of roads to honor members of the community, but the list also included substantive legislation. Substantive bills deserve individual roll calls so that members are completely aware of the full implication of their votes, and thanks to Freedom Caucus member Adam Niemerg we secured an important victory for the people of Illinois.
But unfortunately, the House rules as a whole give the majority party total control of the process. There is nothing in the rules to drop major pieces of legislation at the last minute without giving individual members adequate time to review what is in the legislation being considered. The new rules also give the House leadership and Committee chairs total power over what bills are voted on in House Committees. The rules essentially are the same rules that former disgraced House Speaker Michael Madigan used to exercise complete control of the process. While there are elements in the rules we can support, given the lack of transparency and lack of accountability built into these rules, we voted against them. The people we represent have a right to have their voice and their concerns heard. Under these rules, their voice is being silenced.”
* Here’s some of what Rep. Niemerg said during debate yesterday…
A lot of this is just going back to business as usual. I mean, there were 19 of you who stood against Mike Madigan and called for change. I expect 19 of you to vote ‘No’ on this because this goes back to the same Madigan-era politics. Our bills will be stuck in Rules, the’ll never see the light of day. We’re going to be passing bills again at 2, 3, 4, 5 in the morning. You’re going to move to motion for the previous question when a bill comes over from the Senate and it’s dropping 11:55, kill off debate from our side of the aisle, deprive so many thousands of folks in the state of Illinois of their right to have us represent them. So honestly, I don’t believe that you tell me that you believe in government transparency. I just don’t believe it. And to the bill, folks, we call for change in this legislature all so often. We call for bipartisanship, right? And Representative, Leader Keicher and Leader Davidsmeyer and I, we proposed an idea for rules. We propose changes. But we look at the rules now, folks are still going to be asleep, sound asleep at their homes are going to have the radical bills they’re going to be pushed through the important bills. are going to be pushed through. They’re not going to know anything about it and it’s business as usual. So if we want change, I think the 19 folks over there who wanted change and wanted Mike Madigan gone, vote ‘No.’ Thank you.
* Rep. Bob Morgan (D-Deerfield) rose later in response. Excerpt…
I also want to thank members of both sides of the aisle that made comments that I think reflect good ideas and ways in which we can always make this chamber operate better. I think a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle appropriately referenced, the proof is in the pudding. It’s about how committee chairs and how Speaker and how the Rules Committee and how we treat each other and how we demand greater respect from one another. So, I think the implementation of these rules are just as important as the the plain language of the rules. Specifically I want to point out now as we are in the endemic times, endemic. COVID-19 is leaving us and we’re returning to normal. It’s important that this chamber also returns to normal. So I think it’s very important that we go back to in-person voting. I think we all know the the unintended consequences of having remote voting, so I strongly support that.
And lastly, to those who want to reference the 19: As a member of the 19, I would encourage everyone to know that we’ve never been shy about speaking up when we feel strongly about an issue. We haven’t in the past, we will not in the future. So anybody who wants to invoke the 19, I would encourage you to keep our names out of your mouth. Because when we have something to say you’re going to know about it. I urge a ‘Yes’ vote.
- Franklin - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:35 am:
It was reminiscent of Will Smith yelling at Chris Rock to keep my wife’s name out of your mouth. Morgan could have easily made the same point without using a bullying tone and loaded words. Things get heated on the floor and today we are talking about how the rules were debated, not what was in the rules so I guess it was a successful approach.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:38 am:
=== without using a bullying tone and loaded words===
C’mon. Bullying? That’s a bit much.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:38 am:
Good for Morgan. Niemerg got some concessions, but still wanted to do a drive by because he doesn’t get to control the chamber. He deserved some flack for that, and if anything, Morgan went too easy on him.
- Rabid - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:38 am:
Niemerg having a 19th nervous breakdown
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:45 am:
Bob - thanks for saying what you said, and not allowing yourself to be manipulated. Perhaps the Eastern Bloc can take a moment to learn from you… it’s best to preach after you accomplish something meaningful. I haven’t seen them do that. Constructive I mean…
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:46 am:
Absolutely love the hypocrisy of Democrats defending these rules that allow bills no one but leadership has seen to be dropped at Midnight and voted on.
The House rules sound like a threat to democracy, tranparency and accountability but that’s ok if Democrats write them
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:46 am:
–Substantive bills deserve individual roll calls so that members are completely aware of the full implication of their votes–
I still fail to see how the incompetence of an individual legislator is a problem for anyone other than that individual legislator.
If you don’t know or aren’t aware of what you are doing, then don’t vote on that bill.
Eventually, your constituents may take note of your inability to get the job done.
Complaining that you didn’t read a bill isn’t a problem with a bill, or the process. It’s a problem with your priorities. Especially given that even hundred page bills dropped ‘at the last minute’ are 90% formatting and existing laws with only minor changes added. The important parts are even *underlined for you*. If that’s too much ‘work’, then that’s on you. A thousand rule changes won’t change that.
- Give Me A Break - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:49 am:
” bullying tone”? You must be new around here if you think that was a bullying tone.
You ever heard the Eastern Block members on the floor when they fire up the downtrodden, picked on, world is going to hell, white males are repressed, come get my guns, we are the real Americans, I won’t wear a mask speechs?
- Former ILSIP - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:49 am:
Politician uses dated pop-culture reference in a trite zinger towards opposite House member. Perhaps Rep. Morgan just needs to “Shake it Off”?
- CornAl DoGooder - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:54 am:
It took bravery for those 19 to do what they did. But opposing Madigan does not mean supporting the GOP, and Morgan is totally right to call Niemerg out on that bad faith equivalency.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:54 am:
==I expect 19 of you to vote ‘No’ on this because this goes back to the same Madigan-era politics.==
Madigan wasn’t ousted because of the way he ran the House Floor, he was ousted because he was corrupt.
== Our bills will be stuck in Rules, the’ll never see the light of day.==
Anything else would a be a waste of time. “Your” bills can’t even get your entire caucus on board.
== We’re going to be passing bills again at 2, 3, 4, 5 in the morning.==
Who cares?
==And Representative, Leader Keicher and Leader Davidsmeyer and I, we proposed an idea for rules.==
A bad idea.
==We propose changes.==
Bad changes.
==But we look at the rules now, folks are still going to be asleep, sound asleep at their homes==
Who cares?
==They’re not going to know anything about it and it’s business as usual.==
Yes, that’s your job. This is a representative democracy. Your job is to sweat the details so I don’t have to. That is what I pay you for. Sorry someone else won’t do your job for you, I guess?
==So if we want change, I think the 19 folks over there who wanted change and wanted Mike Madigan gone, vote ‘No.’==
Rather depends on what we want changed, doesn’t it?
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:56 am:
“folks are still going to be asleep, sound asleep at their homes are going to have the radical bills they’re going to be pushed through the important bills. are going to be pushed through”
Right? It’s really crazy radical left wing weirdo stuff to regulate war tools. But it’s not radical at all to put right wing culture war freaks like Shannon Adcock in charge of what books your kids can read or what can be taught in public schools. That’s just salt of the earth real American stuff, good solid Republican values.
- vern - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:57 am:
=== (largely along partisan lines) ===
Looks like the only member to have crossed the aisle either way on the vote was McCombie. Any idea what that’s about?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 9:59 am:
What they want is for the super minority party (well, in his case the super super super minority) to have some control over how the business of the chamber is conducted. An idea or two of theirs was accepted but he’s whining because he didn’t get everything he wanted. And I also get so sick and tired of them whining about not being able to represent their people. They are representing their people. But he confuses representation with getting his ideas passed.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:05 am:
“The rules essentially are the same rules that former disgraced House Speaker Michael Madigan used to exercise complete control of the process.”
Who leads the Illinois Freedom Caucus research staff? Winston Smith? /s
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:05 am:
There is nothing in the rules to drop major pieces of legislation at the last minute…the new rules also give the House leadership and Committee chairs total power over what bills are voted”
Buried in the Morgan/Niemerg drama - is the fact that Rep. Niemerg successfully negotiated some concessions. And there is more work to be done - The gun-banning bill highlights the ridiculous way that very impactful bills can be passed with literally no time for real debate/input.
- SaulGoodman - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:13 am:
Wait. People actually think that Niemerg is at all the reason they rolled back remote voting and consent calendars?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:19 am:
==The House rules sound like a threat to democracy==
Oh please. Stop being such a victim. You want to write the rules then win elections. It’s that simple. Instead all you want to do is constantly whine about things. Deal with your minority status, change it by winning elections, and get over yourself. Because I’m sick and tired of the constant whining and victimhood of Republicans in this state. You are probably the least constructive people out there.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:25 am:
==allow bills no one but leadership has seen to be dropped at Midnight and voted on==
This is so dishonest. Everyone knows what’s going to be in those bills for weeks, if not months. Whatever last minute compromises are needed to get to 60/30 are confined to a few lines on a few pages that can easily be read, understood, and absorbed in the few hours between when the language is introduced and when the vote actually occurs.
The problem is, a legislator actually has to want to do the work, and the guys you root for don’t. They just want to be dishonest hacks.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:30 am:
- oswego-billy -
===Pretty disingenuous to vote against rule changes you ask for===
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
:)
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:32 am:
==The gun-banning bill highlights the ridiculous way that very impactful bills can be passed with literally no time for real debate/input.==
What do you hope that you can trick us into thinking that “literally” means?
Because the way that humans use that word, there literally was a long, public, important debate on the assault weapons ban. Leaders said they were going to pursue it over the summer. Multiple bills were introduced. The differences between the bills were debated and criticized, with Dems even turning off the rah-rah kumbaya atmosphere of Inauguration Day to say the Senate’s bill wasn’t good enough. And eventually, a compromise was reached.
Your problem is that they process didn’t get dragged out long enough for someone to find some way to kill the bill. But lies don’t become true just because you use the word “literally”.
- Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:44 am:
As one who used to work graveyards, you’ll get no tears from me if you have to work 2,3,4 A.M.
How many months are you not in session?
- DTownResident - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:44 am:
Does the gun bill really highlight how bills can be passed or does it show how entrenched on side of the issue was. They dug in their position and brought speakers that said that any restrictions at all for firearms period would eventually result in all being banned totally. So they declined to give input except “No! No restrictions at all!” yet it is everyone else’s fault they did not have more input?
- Trap - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:44 am:
Is the minority party supposed to roll over and take it, or fight like heck for their side? Won’t happen in our lifetime but if the Dems were in the minority this comments section would demand they stand up and fight…not lay down and die.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:50 am:
“As one who used to work graveyards, you’ll get no tears from me if you have to work 2,3,4 A.M”
It is not about the hours the reps/senators have to work - it is about the fact that these last-minute bills that impact millions, allow little input from the governed.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:54 am:
The super minority of the GOP only becomes even more of a super super minority if you continue to support positions and ideas the voters don’t agree with. You’ve done it to yourselves, and many of you continue to do so. Act the fool… we won’t vote for you.
- Nagidam - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 10:58 am:
A bit odd Rep. Morgan would get snippy like this. How many times has he invoked the name “Eastern Bloc”? Heck the Eastern Block is named at least 500 times a day on this blog, but I don’t think they ever asked for people to “Keep our names out of your mouth.”
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:05 am:
===on this blog, but I don’t think they ever asked===
This isn’t the House floor.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:05 am:
=(well, in his case the super super super minority) =
You forgot “duper”.
=An idea or two of theirs was accepted but he’s whining because he didn’t get everything he wanted.=
That is really it in a nutshell.
“I am angry the the 70 or so members of the majority will not bend to the will of my tantrum” or something like that.
=the ridiculous way that very impactful bills can be passed with literally no time for real debate/input.=
Except for the months of discussion and the allotted floor debate that was allowed. But facts right?
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:15 am:
==it is about the fact==
It’s not a fact. Even in the example you used (the assault weapons ban) there was months of public debate, multiple bills introduced and amended, various interest groups voicing their preference for one bill over another, and eventually a compromise. Heck, there was a whole election in there were the Dems were crystal clear that they were going to pursue an assault weapons ban and “the governed” said “sign me up”. “The governed” absolutely had their say.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:25 am:
Your problem is that they process didn’t get dragged out long enough for someone to find some way to kill the bill…Except for the months of discussion…
The final Gun banning bill took a “shell” bill dealing with innocuous insurance adjuster stuff - and dropped in the last-minute gun banning amendment. Less than 48 hours were left to pass before the end of session. It may happen all the time - but it doesn’t make it right. When bills impact a fundament right of millions you’re gonna hear about it.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:25 am:
==allow little input from the governed==
That’s what your representatives do. They represent you. They are your voice.
- Lakefront - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:29 am:
== Madigan wasn’t ousted because of the way he ran the House Floor, he was ousted because he was corrupt ==
His corruption and the burden he placed on the party near the end was part of it but that’s not the whole story. Enough Dems had also seen enough of the way he ran the Floor and treated parts of his own caucus. You think the 102nd GA allowed all bills out of Rules for the sake of the GOP? Think again.
- Pundent - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:46 am:
=Less than 48 hours were left to pass before the end of session.=
Oh please. This is equivalent of a slow moving train that starts blowing it’s horn a mile away and then complaining that you didn’t have enough time to get out of the way when it finally hits you.
And what about the rights of millions who’ve sat by for decades wanting for something, anything, to happen on assault weapons? I’m not nearly as outraged about how this ultimately came together as I am about the tragic events that occurred that prompted it and how long we had to wait.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:48 am:
==Your problem is that they process didn’t get dragged out long enough for someone to find some way to kill the bill…Except for the months of discussion…==
Those two things were said by two different people. Do try to keep up with who is absolutely bodying your arguments.
==The final Gun banning bill==
This is exactly my point. There were multiple bills introduced, debated, amended, etc. It was an iterative process where plenty of people got to have input. The basic idea was introduced last summer. The Dems all ran on an assault weapons ban. “The governed” voted for enough of them to make it happen. The House and Senate introduced bills. Interest groups criticized the Senate bill. Eventually, a compromise was worked out.
“The governed” had input, and the result of that input was “the final bill”.
took a “shell” bill dealing with innocuous insurance adjuster stuff==
“Shell bills” are just a procedural work-around to the Third Reading requirement. This gives the game away. “Shell bills” are purely an under-the-dome concern. They do not, and did not, stymie public input.
==Less than 48 hours==
Which was plenty of time to read and understand and come to a conclusion on the bill. I know because I did it, and unlike legislators, I don’t have access to staff or interest groups or agencies. But I did follow the many months of public debates, introduced bills, amendments, etc. leading up to the final bill. Perhaps some legislators did not, and thus were a little more lost than I was (though I find it hard to believe that you can find many people more lost than I generally am). But that’s on them. All the work was out there.
==but it doesn’t make it right==
The problem is, you haven’t stated anything that “makes it wrong” that is true. All you’ve done is falsely indicate that “the governed” didn’t get input. But they did. They even got a chance to fire the people promising to pass an assault weapons ban. They declined.
==When bills impact a fundament right of millions you’re gonna hear about it.==
And indeed we did. Months of public debate. An election. Multiple bills introduced, debated, amended. And indeed we still are, with plenty of post-passage litigation.
You claim that your concern is that “the governed” didn’t get input, but that stated concern rests on pretending that a lot of things that happened didn’t happen.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:49 am:
===Absolutely love the hypocrisy of Democrats defending these rules that allow bills no one but leadership has seen to be dropped at Midnight and voted on.
The House rules sound like a threat to democracy, tranparency and accountability but that’s ok if Democrats write them===
I’ll save this.
If the Bears get a “last minute deal” where, like any deal, like the White Sox dealing(s), I will expect you to be fully opposed to such a deal, and further ask the GA to reject the deal because…
… so I have this right…
“…these rules that allow bills no one but leadership has seen to be dropped at Midnight and voted on.
The House rules sound like a threat to democracy, tranparency and accountability but that’s ok if Democrats write them”
I’ll save it. Thanks, - LP -
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 11:52 am:
==You think the 102nd GA allowed all bills out of Rules for the sake of the GOP?==
I think the 102nd was a very weird GA buffeted by a lot of cross-currents (new leadership, the pandemic, the election) such that trying to derive the majority’s general attitude from procedural moves is going to give you a lot of false positives.
But the proof will be in the pudding. If the GA didn’t like how MJM bottled everything up in rules, then they will continue what they started in the 102nd. Let’s see what happens.
- Consider This - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:17 pm:
Here’s your hat, Adam. I imagine your floor speech will play better at Yoders.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:19 pm:
Anonymous @12:07 was me.
- Payback - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:22 pm:
“So anybody who wants to invoke the 19, I would encourage you to keep our names out of your mouth.” Morgan’s arrogant remarks are typical snobby orders from people who live on the North Shore of Chicago and are used to giving orders to waiters and landscapers when they are 14 years old. These people grow up in private country clubs, caddy for their summer jobs, then join a frat in college. It’s all about condescension and talking down to people you disagree with.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:26 pm:
==Morgan’s arrogant remarks==
When you’re dealing with a petulant child . . .
- Pundent - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:35 pm:
=Morgan’s arrogant remarks are typical snobby orders from people who live on the North Shore of Chicago and are used to giving orders to waiters and landscapers when they are 14 years old.=
Funny, that doesn’t sound at all like the H$llh*le the Eastern Bloc makes it out to be. Of course once they fulfill their destiny and secede that won’t have to deal with the likes of Morgan.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:43 pm:
===These people===
Maybe the arrogance is that you see “these people” not as ones who see *you* as unequal… but knowing you are not their equal in the honesty or righteous way the 19 changed things… it’s that the 19 saw no need for the ignorant and biased to help.
“We’ll take it from here”… the Eastern Bloc were merely bystanders, and had no hand in taking Madigan down.
That truth eats at the phony tough… the Eastern Bloc
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:43 pm:
This is so dishonest. Everyone knows what’s going to be in those bills for weeks, if not months.
what is actually dishonest is pretending everyone knows what is in these bills dropped at the last minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t487xXg2Ubc
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:51 pm:
Note to Eastern Bloc - attempting to whine your way to relevance will never make you successful. That only works in very small groups, never in anything significant. You actually make yourself look weak while confirming your own irrelevance outside that small group.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 12:55 pm:
- oswego-billy -
Gotta be honest, I dunno if you know what you’re even giving snark to, or why you think it’s adding.
Your own snark contradicts itself, not in an ironic way but in a way that even makes the Eastern Bloc seem smart.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 1:04 pm:
@Payback, sir, this is an Arby’s.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 1:17 pm:
===Not trying to disgrace my namesake, thanks for calling me dumber than the eastern bloc tho===
The fact you have a ridiculous need to be namesake of an anonymous commenter likely makes you “less than smarter” then the Eastern Bloc
Your comments only reinforce that choice.
To the post, “namesakes or not”,
When talking rules, the thoughts to “iron fist” rule and Pate, and Lee, and Madigan taking back the gavel…
The want to be so ill-informed but to only think that folks not paying attention will see the 19 as anything but who they are… 19 individuals that concurred on one thing that united them, and after allowed the 19 to be, again, who they are outside that 19… only the deeply foolish or uneducated to that history could see “arrogance” or “ignorance” no matter the side one supports.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 1:39 pm:
===The fact you have a ridiculous need===
Won’t see him no more.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 2:18 pm:
===what is actually dishonest is pretending everyone knows what is in these bills dropped at the last minute===
- Lucky Pierre -
If there is any “last second” deal this session for the Bears, will you be against that dropping of a plan, agreed to by the Leaders and and Governor, with NO input from the “Mushrooms”?
(Psst, this is your chance to not look ridiculous when you cheer such a move in May… if it even happens, or as Maisch warns, the Bears move)
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 3:21 pm:
==what is actually dishonest is pretending everyone knows what is in these bills dropped at the last minute==
Good thing I’m not pretending, then. They do know what’s in these bills. DE, despite himself, brought up a really good example in the assault weapons ban and even gave the game away when we used the phrase “final bill”. These issues are talked about for months on end. Bills are introduced, debated, and amended. Everyone gets to put their two cents in, which is why the bills take until the last minute. The final compromise is then put to a vote.
You don’t understand the process, and as a result, it was very easy for Mike Bost to trick you. But you’re wrong. People know what’s in these bills long before LRB releases the final draft.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 3:28 pm:
==If there is any “last second” deal this session for the Bears, will you be against that dropping of a plan, agreed to by the Leaders and and Governor, with NO input from the “Mushrooms”?==
The very fact that you can ask this question proves how vacuous LP’s position is. We are debating a deal for the Bears *right now*. Interest groups (Maisch) are weighing in. Legislators (Buckner, the Arilington Heights crowd) are weighing in. The public’s even gonna get to vote for a bunch of city-level officials who may be for or against a deal. It’s already impossible for someone to claim this is a “last second” thing. Well, not impossible, because LP is happy to lie about such things, but it’s not honest.
I know you already know this, LP.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 3:33 pm:
That last “LP” should’ve been “OW”.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 4:10 pm:
===I know you already know this===
The goal of my exercise for - LP - was to indeed untie all the knots you described (and known) by having - LP - find his own way… unprompted to his own hypocrisy.
So, that’s done… lol
- Juice - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 5:37 pm:
Lucky, I worked on that bill that Bost through his temper tantrum on. And I can assure you that all four caucuses and the Governor’s office knew what was in that bill.