...want to see what's in it?
I'll only have time to read one tonight, so let's do H. Res. 724
#ReadtheBill #mepolitics #ME02 #Bond2018 #TWPSBhttps://twitter.com/RepPoliquin/status/960941090198249472 …
Show this thread
-
P. 3 - talks about who is covered by incompletely referencing a 40 page document. Establishes oversight capacities like the ability to force testimony and establishes that there will be representation for the "covered employees"pic.twitter.com/BIkpmbOcGG
Show this thread
P. 4 - more types of proceedings covered. There is supposed to be a hotline, we'll presume the regulations will cover that. There is a clause that might create bar issues, but that's not going to matter to most of you reading.pic.twitter.com/o6Rzv9ZEcI
-
-
P. 5 - creates attorney/client privilege relationship, states that attorneys fees cannot be sought (which actually might have been a great way to at least partially fund this office without controversy), carve out for civil actions. I have *NOT* read the CAA 1995.pic.twitter.com/3SOIWZbCgL
Show this thread -
It's 40 pages and the version I grabbed doesn't reference section 408. I tried to find a different version, but got 2 corrupted PDFs from different government websites.
I'm not playing go fish for another version tonight.Show this thread -
It appears that if you flip over to civil court for recourse you are on your own. I don't know the reason for that, it's probably buried in some regulations somewhere or one of the corrupted PDFs. My gut says I would want there to be an option for representation in civil court.
Show this thread -
Government employees are not that well-paid for the costs of living in DC and that type of attorney is $$$. However, I freely acknowledge there may be a structural barrier of some sort to thoroughly obliterate my gut reasoning. Again, not an employment law junkie.
Show this thread -
P. 6-8 set up the staff, compensation, office space, job functions, no representation for actions in progress (which sucks, wouldn't you want to protect those claims - it shouldn't be that many, right? RIGHT?), and info on hiring...not a thing on how this is paid for.pic.twitter.com/6jByzSpEfs
Show this thread -
P. 9 - adds sexual harassment as a protection against firing, then leads into sexual relationships with staff members...which is probably a good idea, but you all have seen political dramas/comedies, right? I feel like this isn't a super practical stance.pic.twitter.com/9NIdpNBvWe
Show this thread -
P. 10/11 - you can still have sexual relations if you are married to your staffer. So nepotism = yes, sex in general = no. I feel like there is something interesting in Sec. 7, but I don't know employment law well enough to put my finger on it. This would be a phone a friend.pic.twitter.com/Mpz49Dn7hu
Show this thread -
Overall, I would probably vote FOR this bill contingent on the following: 1. Answering outstanding questions 2. WAY better references 3. Some idea how it would be paid for and that it isn't merely symbolic 4. It should give legal counsel to pending actions...& how many are there?
Show this thread -
When you are voting for your federal delegation, no matter where you are, make sure that the person you cast your vote for can provide analysis of bills. It's probably not needed on each one, but they should be able to explain on request if not published.
#mepolitics#ME02Show this thread -
You should be able to get the following information: 1. How did you/will you vote 2. Why will you vote that way 3. What compromises did you make and why 4. Did you have any unanswered questions
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.