Let the Sunshine In....Or Not.

by: Lucy Weber

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 19:10:52 PM EST

First, some background.  Early last week, the Judiciary Committee held an executive session on HB 199, which had to do with medical screening panels.  The committee voted the bill Ought to Pass with Amendment by a very strong bipartisan vote of 14-3.  As the person who made the motion, I wrote the blurb, and was surprised to see that the bill was not included in the calendar for this week.

Late last week, in the discussion of another bill also on medical screening panels, our Chair stated that we had been asked to retain both screening panel bills in committee, and that a motion for reconsideration had been made on HB 199.  Despite this announcement, the division voted 6-3 to recommend OTP to the full committee on the second bill, as well.

This morning, the reconsideration of HB 199 came up in committee.  Our Chair told us that we had been asked "as a courtesy" to retain both of the screening panel bills.  One of our Republican members made a very eloquent speech, arguing against reconsideration.  He stated that this was exactly the kind of behind the scenes "business as usual" in Concord that he had run against, that the committee had considered the issue and had voted, and in the absence of new information, the committee should stand by its vote.   He deplored the playing of games with the division process set up by the Speaker.  Several other people on the committee, including myself, also objected to this "do-over."  The reconsideration vote was 10 in favor of reconsideration, and 5 against.

Remember that in every public hearing, each person who speaks must identify himself or herself, and states whether they are testifying for themselves or for some other organization or business entity.  This is how we know what interests we are dealing with, and allows us to evaluate their testimony accordingly.  I wonder how many of those people might be offended by the committee extending courtesies to the unnamed.

Just before the vote was taken, at 11:50 am, the Chair decided that we needed to adjourn for lunch.  

When we returned to the committee room at 1:00 pm, a vote was taken with no further discussion.  The motion to retain HB 199 passed by a vote of 12 to 2.  Every one of the Republicans now voted to retain, including the one who had spoken so eloquently against such an action.  This was swiftly followed by a successful motion to retain the second screening panel bill as well, despite the strong recommendation it had been given by the division.

And while we are talking about transparency, let me follow up on the current state of executive sessions in the Judiciary Committee.  We were told today that because there may be time available on Wednesday, executive sessions on eleven Judiciary bills will be announced from the House floor tomorrow, Tuesday.  This procedure is certainly allowable under the House Rules.  However, it was used sparingly in the last four years, as the former Speaker insisted that calendar notice be given if at all possible.  So on Wednesday, we will be deciding up to eleven bills with no calendar notice to the citizens who care about them, and perhaps less than 24 hours notice after the announcement from the floor of the House.  

I sure hope those folks are all tuned in to the House audio feed tomorrow afternoon.  

Note:  This diary is, in part, a follow-up to Mike Emm's diary entitled Executive Session May Follow, and my comments in that thread.  As I do not want to be accused again of hijacking, I thought it best to start a new conversation, but those wanting to see my earlier comments may find them here.