| Assemblyman David Gantt is facing criticism from fellow Democratic members of the Assembly today after being outed as the one who is standing in the way of a bill that would ban text messaging while driving.
Gantt, who serves as chairman of the Transportation Committee, also refused to meet with the mother of a teenager who died in a car accident because he was texting while driving.
From The Buffalo News:
In a rare scene for Albany, Gantt's fellow Democrats outed him Tuesday as the obstacle to what they call a common-sense measure after he refused to meet with Kelly Cline, a West Seneca mother whose son died while texting and driving near his home two years ago. Cline was at the Capitol to lobby for the bill's passage.
"It's amazing . . . to hear about a chairman who doesn't meet with people, since I am a chairman and I meet with everybody," said Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Bronx Democrat and sponsor of the bill, which has been stalled in Gantt's committee for several years.
A fuming Assemblyman Mark Schroeder, a Buffalo Democrat who also represents West Seneca, lashed out at Gantt for having his staff meet with Cline.
"If the chairman of the Transportation Committee in the Assembly would meet people who have been affected . . . then maybe that would change [the fact that] in five weeks, my sense is, nothing is going to happen in the Assembly on the texting bill," he said at an event to push the bill.
Gantt, after a meeting of the committee Tuesday afternoon, declined to comment.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, has long given Gantt veto power over key transportation matters. But Ortiz said Silver is "sensitive" to the text-messaging ban and is trying to get a bill passed before the 2009 session ends next month.
Obviously, Gantt is wrong here. There are a lot of flaws with a law that would ban texting while driving, but most agree that it is the right thing to do.
And yet, Gantt stands in the way of the legislation mainly because he is able to do so, thanks to power given to him by Silver.
This paragraph from Tom Precious' piece is also eye-opening:
Ortiz said the bill is backed by 92 percent of the members on Gantt's committee, and he said that, if necessary, an effort could be launched to force the bill onto the committee's agenda for a vote, "because we're getting tired of the same song and the same music" from the committee chairman."
Isn't it amazing that "an effort" would be required to "force" a bill onto a committee's agenda for a vote? Isn't this the kind of thing we were talking about needed to be reformed?
I don't condone what Gantt has done here, but I certainly don't condone the process that enables him to do this. Not meeting with Kelly Cline was a huge mistake on Gantt's part because it makes him look insensitive. But that's another issue.
When looking at this from a legislative perspective, you can only blame the process that enables Gantt to do this (a process that is endorsed and utilized by Silver) and allows him to block a bill that has the support of 92 percent of his committee members and arguably a similar percentage in the full Assembly.
Gantt shouldn't be blocking the bill. It has its flaws, but it is necessary legislation. But the process that allows Gantt to do this shouldn't be in place either. |
