Friday, July 02, 2010
CONGRESSIONAL ARROGANCE
The ubiquitous arrogance in Congress has never been more apparent than in the conduct of some republican senators in the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nominee this past week. For anyone presumably qualified for such a high post of dignity and responsibility in our government to have to endure such personal, political, off-the-wall tirades from senators is embarrassing to the citizens of this nation -- at least to those who still have sensitivity to such.
Rather than ask sensible questions, these republican senators have spent their time grandstanding for a particular political constituency back home – a constituency that makes one wonder what kind of voters they must have out there. Of course, there is that other constituency, donors and lobbyists, to which all congresspersons play to some extent. What that lady has had to endure from those senators is way over the line of decorum, courtesy, and decency.
To what extent should any public servant have to endure the accusations, taunts, and lectures from a member of any legislative body? True, these folk have been elected by somebody, although one may often wonder how and why. Those in public service leadership positions must in some ways be responsive to them, the law and the Constitution says so. But we have seen nothing in the Constitution or the law which compels a public servant to endure unjustified abuse from members of a legislative body.
On a different level and scale, the history of Oklahoma higher education is replete with instances of the attempted browbeating of college and university presidents at the hands of some arrogant legislators in committee hearings on appropriations. No president dared not go and answer legislators’ questions as respectfully as their temperament would allow. Some of these were good, even penetrating, questions. Most were superficial, often based upon complaints heard. Many were “gotcha” questions based upon a legislator’s superficial perusal of a few financial or purchasing documents in the state finance office.
The late and legendary Dr. George L. Cross, president of the University of Oklahoma, used to tell a story of such hearings to remind the rest of us of the benign frivolity of it all. He told of encountering a legislator’s question, “What about this expensive brassiere the university paid for?” The legislator cited the cost of several hundred dollars and wanted to know who it was for, and why such an expensive brassiere. Dr. Cross said, “I pondered and pondered, trying to figure out what this man was asking. Finally, it came to me that he was referring to an ancient Egyptian brazier which had been bought for the university’s museum collection.”
We recall an instance when a legislator, armed with copies of claims paid through the finance office, inquired pointedly of the late, great president of Tulsa Community College, “What is this I see here where you signed a claim for a suit of clothes? Would you explain to me why the State of Oklahoma is buying a suit of clothes for somebody?” Dr. Al Philips, in a calm and dignified manner, explained that the claim was for a security guard’s uniform.
Usually, by the time they got down the line from the major universities on to me, the questions were short and perfunctory. I liked to think that was because we had few glaring, publicly noticed faults. One year during a time when state finances were bad and the appropriations committee was particularly tough, I observed the cross-examinations of those before me and became more and more angry.
At my turn I mistakenly undertook to lecture the committee. “You are asking all the wrong questions,” I said. “Instead of grilling us, you should be asking what you can do to help us serve the higher education needs of the young people of Oklahoma. You should be concerned with assisting us do a good job, rather than with trivia.”
When I paused for breath, four or five legislators immediately started to attack me, while several others jumped vocally to my defense. The late legislative leader of some renown, John Miskelly, the committee chairman, came up from the back of the room and restored order with words that went like this: “Leave this man alone. He’s a friend of mine. He’s telling you the truth. You need to listen to him.”
And, thus I escaped the wrath of some arrogant legislators who were accepting of nothing but subservience from agency heads dependent upon them for budget finances.
Returning to the hearings of this past week for Elena Kagan, nominee for the Supreme Court, she is enduring what might be thought of as some sort of initiatory verbal hazing which one must experience before admission to that holy sanctum. It should not be so.
Democrats are ordinarily more civil to nominees of a republican president, not totally so but much more so. Only in the Robert Bork case, for good cause, has there been any such rough treatment of a republican nominee as experienced by each of the democrat nominees. Only in that instance has there been any serious threat made of filibuster. With the current republicans in the senate, every matter is one for a potential filibuster stalemate threat. This is the most obstructive senate in modern history.
Some pundits are saying that republicans fear appearing to be compromising or being seen as bi-partisan on anything. Tea party assaults on colleague republicans in recent elections have produced an aura of fear in incumbents of their own voters. They are afraid to be senatorial and statesmen. What a shame!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
AKA The Militant Moderate
Rather than ask sensible questions, these republican senators have spent their time grandstanding for a particular political constituency back home – a constituency that makes one wonder what kind of voters they must have out there. Of course, there is that other constituency, donors and lobbyists, to which all congresspersons play to some extent. What that lady has had to endure from those senators is way over the line of decorum, courtesy, and decency.
To what extent should any public servant have to endure the accusations, taunts, and lectures from a member of any legislative body? True, these folk have been elected by somebody, although one may often wonder how and why. Those in public service leadership positions must in some ways be responsive to them, the law and the Constitution says so. But we have seen nothing in the Constitution or the law which compels a public servant to endure unjustified abuse from members of a legislative body.
On a different level and scale, the history of Oklahoma higher education is replete with instances of the attempted browbeating of college and university presidents at the hands of some arrogant legislators in committee hearings on appropriations. No president dared not go and answer legislators’ questions as respectfully as their temperament would allow. Some of these were good, even penetrating, questions. Most were superficial, often based upon complaints heard. Many were “gotcha” questions based upon a legislator’s superficial perusal of a few financial or purchasing documents in the state finance office.
The late and legendary Dr. George L. Cross, president of the University of Oklahoma, used to tell a story of such hearings to remind the rest of us of the benign frivolity of it all. He told of encountering a legislator’s question, “What about this expensive brassiere the university paid for?” The legislator cited the cost of several hundred dollars and wanted to know who it was for, and why such an expensive brassiere. Dr. Cross said, “I pondered and pondered, trying to figure out what this man was asking. Finally, it came to me that he was referring to an ancient Egyptian brazier which had been bought for the university’s museum collection.”
We recall an instance when a legislator, armed with copies of claims paid through the finance office, inquired pointedly of the late, great president of Tulsa Community College, “What is this I see here where you signed a claim for a suit of clothes? Would you explain to me why the State of Oklahoma is buying a suit of clothes for somebody?” Dr. Al Philips, in a calm and dignified manner, explained that the claim was for a security guard’s uniform.
Usually, by the time they got down the line from the major universities on to me, the questions were short and perfunctory. I liked to think that was because we had few glaring, publicly noticed faults. One year during a time when state finances were bad and the appropriations committee was particularly tough, I observed the cross-examinations of those before me and became more and more angry.
At my turn I mistakenly undertook to lecture the committee. “You are asking all the wrong questions,” I said. “Instead of grilling us, you should be asking what you can do to help us serve the higher education needs of the young people of Oklahoma. You should be concerned with assisting us do a good job, rather than with trivia.”
When I paused for breath, four or five legislators immediately started to attack me, while several others jumped vocally to my defense. The late legislative leader of some renown, John Miskelly, the committee chairman, came up from the back of the room and restored order with words that went like this: “Leave this man alone. He’s a friend of mine. He’s telling you the truth. You need to listen to him.”
And, thus I escaped the wrath of some arrogant legislators who were accepting of nothing but subservience from agency heads dependent upon them for budget finances.
Returning to the hearings of this past week for Elena Kagan, nominee for the Supreme Court, she is enduring what might be thought of as some sort of initiatory verbal hazing which one must experience before admission to that holy sanctum. It should not be so.
Democrats are ordinarily more civil to nominees of a republican president, not totally so but much more so. Only in the Robert Bork case, for good cause, has there been any such rough treatment of a republican nominee as experienced by each of the democrat nominees. Only in that instance has there been any serious threat made of filibuster. With the current republicans in the senate, every matter is one for a potential filibuster stalemate threat. This is the most obstructive senate in modern history.
Some pundits are saying that republicans fear appearing to be compromising or being seen as bi-partisan on anything. Tea party assaults on colleague republicans in recent elections have produced an aura of fear in incumbents of their own voters. They are afraid to be senatorial and statesmen. What a shame!
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
AKA The Militant Moderate
