Latin Women Forum
Home Search FAQ
Register or...  
Upcoming Events
Sponsored Ads
 
You Are Not Registered Or Not Logged In
If you are not registered or logged in, you may still view these forums but with limited features. You can register by clicking here. If you have any questions, please check the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

Printable Version | Send to Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
Author: michaelparrotte Subject: Maryland Delegate Jeannie Haddaway arrogant to voters
admin
Senior Member


Posts: 90
Registered: 08-03-2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA.

posted on 03-25-2010 at 15:31 Reply With Quote Report Post to Moderator
Maryland Delegate Jeannie Haddaway arrogant to voters

Senator Alex Mooney

Delegate Charles Jenkins

Mr. Joe Dacey

Ms. Lisa Baugher



Dear Alex, Charles, Lisa and Joe,

First we would both like to thank all of your for the time and effort you have tying to answer all of our questions and providing information we needed.

This issue has taken up far too much time for everyone considering the major problems facing the State of Maryland currently.

After yesterday it became clear why all these problems could not have been resolved early on.

This is the experience that we had when we made a brief visit to Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio’s office yesterday.

· We arrived at Ms. Haddaway’s office about 10 am on Wednesday March 24.

· We politely introduced ourselves to the woman sitting at the desk to the right. We assume she was her aid but she did not introduce herself even after I gave her my business card.

· We asked her if we could get a clarification on one specific point of HB 65 and were very clear we that we knew how busy everyone was and did not want an explanation of the entire bill.

· She told us that only Ms. Haddaway knows the answer.

· We asked if we could speak to Ms. Haddaway and she said NO she was in a “meeting”.

· We asked who else could answer our question on this one point in the Bill and she replied “no one only Ms. Haddaway”

· We politely but persistently asked if she really meant to say that Ms. Haddaway was the only person in the world that understood what was in the bill and she replied “yes, that is correct”.

· Then she paused and mentioned that the basis for the bill had been received from a “group in Washington”.

· We asked how we could contact that group and what their name was and she replied “I don’t remember”

· We then asked “are you stating that you received information from a group that you based this entire legislation on and now today you can’t even recall who they are?

· From the moment we entered the office her aide was rude to hostile even though we were very polite, articulate, and considerate of everyone’s time.

· At that point Ms. Haddaway magically appeared from her “meeting” and asked us “what do you need?”

· Very politely we asked her to please take a moment and explain to us the wording used in the bill about billing and gender which she contends exempts major online companies like Match.com, eHarmony, etc. (see below)

· She responded by telling us that she had private meetings (or teleconferences) with a number of these companies last week and that if I wanted any further clarification that I should call their attorneys to find out such details!

This statement is really both arrogant and ignorant and is right up there with Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” remark. In some ways Ms. Haddaway’s remarks are even worse.

Of course any knowledgeable person would know that no attorney is going to speak to anyone about their client’s business- period, end of story! But even leaving that important fact aside it is really outrageous for an elected official to tell a taxpayer to check with the attorney of a major corporation to find out the meaning of what her own proposed legislation is!



We don’t pay taxes to Match.com or eHarmony.com but we pay a lot to the State of Maryland and should not have to ask corporate legal departments to explain to use the meaning of legislation writing by our elected officials.



In a State that is so heavily Democratic and we were very surprised that a Republican Delegate would have such an attitude towards two constituents that traveled to Annapolis from a district that is represented by two Republicans in the Senate and House.



Yesterday morning we had one question. After our conversation with Ms. Haddaway we have three.


HB 65

(2) “INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER” DOES NOT INCLUDE:

(I) A TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER THAT OPERATES ON A NONPROFIT BASIS AND OTHERWISE OPERATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT OPERATES, INCLUDING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; OR

(II) AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE 11 BASED ON GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO ANY PARTY FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED; OR PROVIDED.

(III) AN ONLINE DATING SERVICE.




Question #1. (my original question) As worded in this Bill any organization that ever charged a fee based on gender, even once a year for a promotion would be covered by this legislation. I would like a legal explanation how US companies that bill even occasional by gender are NOT subject to this law.



Question #2. What is the legal definition of what the State of Maryland considers a “Traditional Marriage Broker that operates on a nonprofit basis” and please indentify one of these brokers in Maryland if now any actually exist.



Question #3. Please identify the group in Washington that Ms. Haddaway’s aide told us would be knowledgeable about the meaning of the legislation and provided information for this legislation.





Sincerely,



Michael Parrotte

Frederick, Maryland

michael@agvsport.com
View User's Profile E-Mail User User's Site View All Replies By admin (only searches replies by default, for topics please run another search) U2U Member
michaelparrotte
Newbie


Posts: 3
Registered: 04-08-2010
Location: Frederick, Maryland

posted on 04-08-2010 at 17:10 Reply With Quote Report Post to Moderator
Maryland Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio

The Senate Finance Committee has still not acted on HB 65 which is necessary to move this legislation forward.
So there may still be some time and thoughtful, articulate, polite letters or phone calls to the members of the Senate Finance Committee might make a difference.

CALL - WRITE - CALL - WRITE - CALL -WRITE - CALL

Chairman,

· THOMAS McLAIN (MAC) MIDDLETON - Democrat, District 28, Charles County
e-mail: thomas.mclain.middleton@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3616

Vice Chair,

· JOHN ASTLE. - Democrat, District 30, Anne Arundel County
e-mail: john.astle@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3578

· GEORGE W. DELLA, JR. - Democrat, District 46, Baltimore City
e-mail: george.della@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3600

· NATHANIEL EXUM - Democrat, District 24, Prince George's County
e-mail: nathaniel.exum@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3148

· ROBERT J. GARAGIOLA - Democrat, District 15, Montgomery County
e-mail: rob.garagiola@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3169

· BARRY GLASSMAN - Republican, District 35, Harford County
e-mail: barry.glassman@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3603

· DELORES GOODWIN KELLEY - Democrat, District 10, Baltimore County
e-mail: delores.kelley@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3606

· ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN - Republican, District 9, Carroll & Howard Counties
e-mail: allan.kittleman@senate.state.md.us phone: (410) 841-3671, (301) 858-3671

· KATHERINE A. KLAUSMEIER - Democrat, District 8, Baltimore County
e-mail: katherine.klausmeier@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3620

· E. J. PIPKIN - Republican, District 36, Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne's Counties
e-mail: ej.pipkin@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3639

· CATHERINE E. PUGH - Democrat, District 40, Baltimore City
e-mail: catherine.pugh@senate.state.md.us phone: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3656
View User's Profile E-Mail User User's Site View All Replies By michaelparrotte (only searches replies by default, for topics please run another search) U2U Member
Printable Version | Send to Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites

Processed in 0.012 seconds, 9 queries

Latin Women reserves the right to block, delete, or edit any and all posts. The Moderator has sole discretion on the content of this site. Anyone who posts accepts these terms, and waives any and all rights to bring any legal action against Latin Women. If you disapprove of any of the above, do not use, read, or post in Latin Women

501 & 490