” The Joint Committee determined that the position of the House Parliamentarian is informal and strictly advisory. The actual decision on a procedural ruling is made by the Speaker, subject to challenge by the membership of the House. essentially, the Speaker himself is the de facto Parliamentarian.”

” The Joint Committee found no conflict of interest in the Speaker’s action is designating a sitting Delegate of the majority party as his advisor on procedural rulings. The issues you have raised are the jurisdiction of the membership of the House of Delegates, rather than the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics.”

I have been asked about the status of my inquiry into the ethics question regarding the House Parliamentarian being a voting member of the Legislative body, as well as being a member of the ruling majority Party. Below I have posted excerpts from the  letter that I sent to the Joint  Committee on Legislative Ethics ( Co-Chaired by Senator Norman Stone and Delegate Brian McHale) as well as their reply.

“ In researching my Constitutional, House Rules and Parliamentary options to challenge such a ruling, I have come across a most interesting situation and one that I come to ask your assistance in challenging since there is a blatant conflict of interest. It is clear that neither the State Constitution nor the House Rules provide for a Parliamentarian yet the House Speaker appointed a Democrat member of the House to serve as the ruling House Parliamentarian.

In all governing bodies that I have researched including the U.S. House of Representatives, there is but one Parliamentarian and that person is not a voting member of either Party.  In order for the Parliamentarian to rule fairly and objectively on a question, a legitimate Parliamentarian is never a voting member of the organization or governing body.

 I will most definitely be challenged by the Speaker and he will most definitely call on the Democrat Parliamentarian to rule on my challenge. It is somewhat obvious that there is a predictable outcome to every question of procedure raised by a Republican member of the minority Party. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the ruling will be political in nature (since the Parliamentarian is a voting Democrat) and will not involve any legitimate outcome based on the rules of Parliamentary procedure. I find this a blatant injustice and clearly a conflict of interest.

I would respectfully request that the House Speaker be instructed to appoint a non member to preside as Parliamentarian who is legitimately trained in Parliamentarian process and ethics or that he appoint the Chief Clerk as Parliamentarian as it is done in the Georgia Legislature. “

The following is from their response:

” The Joint Committee has determined that the matters you describe in your letter do not constitute a conflict of interest. The Joint Committee voted to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to sec. 15-517(a)(3) of the State Government Article because the matters alleged are not within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee”

 Does it seem odd to anyone else that they claim to have no jurisdiction over this matter but yet they still voted to dismiss?

While researching in preparation of my impeachment of Maryland’s Attorney General, I came across an interesting situation. One that has led me to  file an ethics complaint against House Speaker Michael Busch, regarding the appointment of the House Parliamentarian.

 At issue are concerns regarding the House Parliamentarian and the fact the she is a voting member of the majority Party who, when asked questions of procedure, has always ruled in favor of the Speaker and the Democrat Party.

In fact, Maryland is the only legislature in the Nation whose Parliamentarian is a voting member of the body.

In order for the parliamentarian to rule fairly and objectively on a question of procedure, a legitimate parliamentarian is never a voting member of the organization or governing body. House Speaker Busch’s practice of appointing a voting member of the majority Party is a blatent disregard for the minotity Party. 

I have and will continue to pursue a change of the Parliamentarian prior to the impeachment of March 31st.