Executive session may follow.

Our secret government n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 17:00:33 PM UTC

Notice--always a problem. (4.00 / 3)

In Judiciary, the problem was intitially even worse.  We were told initially that there would be one blanket notice to the effect that that executive sessions would be held on all bills as time allowed.  The implication was that executive sessions would be held on any day, at any time. There was significant bipartisan objection to this as a procedure, noting that in addition to being a disservice to our citizens, it also inconvenienced legislators from other committees, members of the other branches of government, and even lobbyists.

Which got us to the executive session may follow routine.    In practice, I do not know how this particular notice will play out--does it mean the exec can only occur directly after the bill has been heard, or sometime later that same day, or will it be even more expansive? Arguably, if it is limited to directly after the hearing, at least those who are interested in the bill know they had better hang around after the hearing, perhaps even until the end of the day.  Of course, there is also the argument that same day execing does not encourage thoughtful delibreration, particularly when a bill is complicated.

Here is how my committee is working now.  We have been divided up into two divisions.  Unlike the procedure in Finance, our bills are heard by the divisions, thus ensuring the possibility that half the committee ultimately voting on any given bill has not actually attended the hearing.  To their credit, many members of the committee are making an effort to attend sessions of both divisions, and to his credit, the Chair has encouraged full participation in the division hearings and work sessions by all those attending.  

Where the process gets squishy is that our division hearings are noticed with a note to the effect that work sessions may follow.  Here's the tricky part.  Say a bill is scheduled at 10:00.  The hearing takes up all the time scheduled for it, so no work session.  But if the 11:00 bill does not take up all the time allotted to it, the division might then take up the work session for the 10:00 bill.  Thus we are back to the problem of how does anyone know when the work sessions are coming up.  And the vote on the division recommendation to the full committee may come up at any time in the work session.  Not only is this inconvenient for the public, but it makes it difficult for legislators to leave to attend to bills in other committees.  And bathroom breaks are out of the question.

On the other hand, as to the hearings themselves, we are sticking more closely to the times published in the calendar, at least initially. In the past, if the 10:00 hearing took longer than expected, we plugged away til it was done, and started the nest hearing late.  By the afternoon hearings we were often hours late.  Now, if the hearing is not finished by the time the next one is scheduled to start, the people who are left still to testify are told they will have to come back in the afternoon, at the end of the last scheduled hearing, to resume where we left off.  How they know when that is, is beyond me.

As one who has done it, let me say that scheduling committee work is incredibly difficult, and no one is ever satisfied.  Hearings that run over are inconvenient for everyone, as is having to come back later for a continuation.  I think for the last four years, we did the best job we could of considering the convenience of the public rather more than the convenience of the legislators.

We still have to see how this term is going to play out.  We all need to watch carefully.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sun Feb 13, 2011 at 18:18:02 PM UTC

It's my understanding... (0.00 / 0)

That while 'executive session may follow' is listed on most committee hearings, that the following are the ONLY cases where an executive session is supposed to be called afterward for the bills heard:

1) The sponsor requests an ITL due to information gained that the bill is unneeded, redundant, etc.
(Not sure about retaining a bill...)

2) The bill is a 'rename the bridge' style bill where family/etc is present, and to prevent them having to return another day, the exec session is held since they are already there.

3) Non-controversial 'housekeeping' bills where nobody is speaking against the bill, such as a recent one I co-sponsored in involving transferring part of a road from the state to the town on the request of both.

Are you aware of any bills exec-ed that fast that didn't fall into one of these areas?

(and I agree, the original 'anytime' execing was bipartisanly unpopular. Which is why the above was made clear and publicized.)
 

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 05:11:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am aware of material with no public vote (4.00 / 3)

at all appearing in the House Calendar.  Significant portions of the Revenue Estimates Resolution, portions that made significant policy statements, were not voted on in public, and were not presented to the minority prior to publication.

I have seen departures from our written rules, all thoroughly publicised, which do not need to be rehashed here.

I have certainly heard about the guidelines you set forth.

Let me make a plug for critical reading skills here--go back and read my last two sentences.


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 12:53:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stay on topic... (0.00 / 0)

Please don't change from A to B.  Execing bills was the topic, not floor actions or other possibly broken rules.

I asked if you were aware of any bills quickly exec-ed that weren't one of the above 'acceptable' cases.  Yes or no?  Do you disagree with the above cases being reasonable to exec right away?  Do you think those cases are for the benefit of the public or the legislature, or both?  

And finally, I'm one of the people working towards even greater transparency, at all levels... I agree, watching the gears of government is always important, no matter who is in charge.  I'd like to see regular videoing of committee hearings, for example... putting the blue sheets online, and lot more similar transparency/access efforts.  Are you willing to help with those efforts?

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 14:54:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

case in point: HB 498-FN (0.00 / 0)

I saw a case just today where a bill was execked immediately after the hearing.  HB 498-FN was a rather dumb bill which would have used DRED's capital funds to pay for mowing the sides of Route 101 and Route 1A in Hampton Beach.  (This would normally be paid for out of the Department of Transportation's operating budget.)

The prime sponsor testified strongly in favor of the bill, as did a spokesperson of a beachfront property owners' group.  Even though there was a widespread bipartisan consensus on the committee that this was  a bad bill, there was obviously still some support for it.  It was controversial and the sponsor was still in favor of it.  And yet, it was disposed of on the spot.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 19:33:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Say What? (4.00 / 2)

Stay on topic... (0.00 / 0)
Please don't change from A to B.  Execing bills was the topic, not floor actions or other possibly broken rules.

Who died and made you king of Blue Hampshire?

Lucy gave specific examples of things happening at the legislature which did not follow either a committee vote or a committee discussion, which make her feel it is important to see how things play out and to watch carefully. That wasn't changing the topic, and in no way a hijacking of the diary. It was giving examples of why it is important for legislators and the public to pay attention. An apology to Lucy might be in order.

In my opinion.

Also, Rep. Horrigan gives an example of what you say is not happening. Are you going to bring this up with leadership? Are you going to take steps to make sure it does not happen again? Yes or no?  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 20:51:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I asked a question... (0.00 / 0)

And instead of an answer, other stuff unrelated to my question was brought up instead, and no answer was given.  I can't do anything more than point that out, and ask again, which is what I did.  That doesn't make me 'king' anymore than your response to me makes you 'queen'.

In fact, I even offered to work together with her on transparency efforts, so I'm not sure what I need to apologize for, since clearly I was polite (I said please), I re-asked my question, and expanded on it, in case it wasn't clear, and agreed with her premise.  If you'd like me to apologize, please clarify exactly what I'm to apologize for, Kathy, and I'll be happy to do so.

And yes, I would be glad to find out more details on HB498.  I am going to ask the sponsor about it.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 22:40:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So as not to be accused again of hijacking, (0.00 / 0)

what I want to say on the subject, as opposed to what others want me to say, is continued here.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 00:35:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My apology if you felt I was accusing you of hijacking (0.00 / 0)

My question went not only unanswered, but you changed the subject to something completely unrelated to my question, as if you didn't want to answer it, but it was put as a reply to my question, not a new comment.  If you felt I'd accused you of hijacking, my apology for that impression.  I merely wanted an example if you had one, given your complaint.  Rep. Horrigan has given me an example, which I'm following up on.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:44:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I perhaps should not have paraphrased. (4.00 / 2)

Seth, you demanded that I stay on the topic as you defined it.  You further demanded that I speak only to your questions, from which I infer that anything else I had to say was irrelevant.  (The demand itself seems odd coming  from someone who professes himself to be of libertarian bent, but that is only my opinion.)  I do not feel you owe me an apology, but I certainly do not owe you an answer on your terms, either.

I do not owe you or anyone else on this site a direct response to your every posting.  Sometimes I give a direct answer.  Sometimes a comment takes my mind in a slightly different direction and I reply from that point of view.  Sometimes I choose not to answer.  Sometimes I go for days without looking at this site. Sometimes it is just not about you at all.

I, having decided that the topic was the broader issue of transparency, simply posted what I had to say on that general subject.

With respect to the niceties of posting a comment versus posting a reply, I have neither the technical skills nor the knowledge of blog etiquette to make the distinction.  Where a post decides to locate itself after I have pushed the button remains a bewilderment.  I am just glad when I manage to get a post to appear, without duplication and without vanishing forever into the ether.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 03:03:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And again, I apologize (0.00 / 0)

If I came across as demanding, that wasn't my tone in real life.  I asked a question, got a response that didn't answer it, and say "Wait, please don't change the subject, can you answer the question? Do you have examples of things outside the bounds of what was promised?"

You certainly don't have to answer me, or anyone.  But when you did, but didn't reply to the question, I responded trying to get an answer.

Mike's original posting was on execs, you replied on execs with a lot of detail, and I asked about execs, so going to the HR11 situation, I felt not just you weren't answering me, but avoiding answering and trying to deflect.  It sounds like that wasn't your intention, you just went to a different set of thoughts about it.

I'd still like to discuss transparency sometime in person, and see if we can find some areas to work together on that... perhaps just via efforts to encourage our colleagues to do the right thing.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 06:03:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Retaining a bill (0.00 / 0)

As the quote at the top says, retaining is also acceptable.  Just to clarify my 'not sure' into 'That includes the committee wishing to retain a bill.'  I didn't recall exactly, and didn't notice it in the quote above when I first posted.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 15:06:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]