It is not unusual for a lawyer to do pro bono work for government. The classic example, lawyers representing poor defendants in the criminal system. Per US Constitution and our State Constitution, poor people have a right to a lawyer. Lawyers do so many hours of pro bono work as requirement for licensing or their law firm.
In the case of David Lillehaug, it's a calling as citizen and being asked by the Governor my impression is. I can understand that. I have given many hours free for voluntary public service, (not a lawyer) maybe not at the request of anyone, but just being a citizen. There is a difference though between myself and Mr. Lillehaug, he is a lawyer and he is formally serving the Governor as Special Counsel.
Being Special Counsel/lawyer on budget shutdown matters as described in the media and press release bring him into the arena of the public. His role then concerns the public and is of interest to the public.
I give credit to the Governor for issuing the press release announcing his appointment. It is a transparent thing to do. But the accountability issue needs to be addressed.
When a person or a private entity does something with or for government their is usually some type of agreement, contract, memo of understanding, or some documentation which outlines their role whether or not it is free or by pay. Is there one for Mr. Lillehaug?
When a government action such as a government shutdown takes place there is a lot of government data collected. A lot of this data is public. Will the data created by Mr. Lillehaug under the auspices of serving the Governor and his office be defined as government data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act?
Important questions, it gives the public insight as to what the Governor will do, it gives the public the opportunity to see how the Governor performs his job with the Special Counsel on the issue of the budget shutdown. It gives the public the ability to judge the performance of their Governor.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Transparency, Rahm Emmanuel, and the Web
I read in the Chicago Tribune that Mayor Emmanuel as part of a campaign promise has put all 34, 000 city employees names, salaries, and positions on the City of Chicago website. I have to applaud the mayor for doing it. What was done in Chicago can be an example for St. Paul, Minneapolis, and other government entities. But is not just salary data to be put on the web. For example, it is also reports, memos, position papers, and the government e-mail addresses and government phone numbers of directors/coordinators of divisions and units, along with other kinds of data.
Now do you believe that is all going to happen here in St. Paul or Minneapolis? From where I sit it is not all going to happen because of politics, wanting to keep the public in the dark, and a host of other reasons. Government institutions have a view that it is their information and they can decide how to give it out. Minneapolis and St. Paul have made great efforts to get public information on their web sites. Though it is what they select for the public to see.
It depends also who is doing the selection. A couple of years back at the beginning of our perennial state budget crunches, Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul decided to take the lead on budget impact on our city and set up various community meetings to meet with the public. It was reported in the news that the Mayor's office had a memo detailing what the various cuts he would do and recommend to the City Council for action. I was interested in getting a copy so that I could be an informed person to ask the Mayor some questions at the public meetings.
I got my copy from the Mayor's office I suggested to the appropriate people that they should place it on the web for the public to review and to be informed. This would be good for the public meetings that were coming up in the weeks ahead. Was the memo put on the web before the first community meeting? No, it was not.
At the first community meeting, I saw the Mayor's staff who I spoke with about the memo and putting it on the web. I asked the question why is not the budget memo up on the city website for the public to see. I could not get a direct answer as to why. My perspective was that they did not want broad dissemination of the memo to the public. I asked the Mayor at the public meeting would he be willing to put the memo on the Internet. Within a couple of days the public memo was available.
I use this an example to show how government can control the dissemination of public data. The public can get it if they go down to City Hall, but not on the web. There are reasons why government will do this kind of behavior.(Issue for another post)
On the other side of the coin though is the following example. I go to the Ramsey County Court House almost everyday. One day I was interested to review a report. I was told there was no copy for public review. I then said, Why is that? I was told for cost savings they placed it on the government website. I told them I do not have access to the web(true at the time). She then said I could go the Library to access the report. You mean I have to stand in line and wait to get access to the Internet at the library to review the report, I stated. Her response was there is no copy for the public to see.
This example illustrates when a department or a city may go into a whole other direction. Access to public data is denied and a barrier is placed in front of the citizen.
The Internet is a dynamic and effective means. Government can and will use it to interact and get information out to the public, but it should not be the only means. Many people do not have access or do not even own a computer It is the legal responsibility of government to provide access to public data to people who ask for it, not to suggest "stepping" to the library to use the Internet to read it.
By the way the report I wanted to review I did not go to the library to get access to the Internet to read it. I was able to review the report at the government office that issued it the next day.
Now do you believe that is all going to happen here in St. Paul or Minneapolis? From where I sit it is not all going to happen because of politics, wanting to keep the public in the dark, and a host of other reasons. Government institutions have a view that it is their information and they can decide how to give it out. Minneapolis and St. Paul have made great efforts to get public information on their web sites. Though it is what they select for the public to see.
It depends also who is doing the selection. A couple of years back at the beginning of our perennial state budget crunches, Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul decided to take the lead on budget impact on our city and set up various community meetings to meet with the public. It was reported in the news that the Mayor's office had a memo detailing what the various cuts he would do and recommend to the City Council for action. I was interested in getting a copy so that I could be an informed person to ask the Mayor some questions at the public meetings.
I got my copy from the Mayor's office I suggested to the appropriate people that they should place it on the web for the public to review and to be informed. This would be good for the public meetings that were coming up in the weeks ahead. Was the memo put on the web before the first community meeting? No, it was not.
At the first community meeting, I saw the Mayor's staff who I spoke with about the memo and putting it on the web. I asked the question why is not the budget memo up on the city website for the public to see. I could not get a direct answer as to why. My perspective was that they did not want broad dissemination of the memo to the public. I asked the Mayor at the public meeting would he be willing to put the memo on the Internet. Within a couple of days the public memo was available.
I use this an example to show how government can control the dissemination of public data. The public can get it if they go down to City Hall, but not on the web. There are reasons why government will do this kind of behavior.(Issue for another post)
On the other side of the coin though is the following example. I go to the Ramsey County Court House almost everyday. One day I was interested to review a report. I was told there was no copy for public review. I then said, Why is that? I was told for cost savings they placed it on the government website. I told them I do not have access to the web(true at the time). She then said I could go the Library to access the report. You mean I have to stand in line and wait to get access to the Internet at the library to review the report, I stated. Her response was there is no copy for the public to see.
This example illustrates when a department or a city may go into a whole other direction. Access to public data is denied and a barrier is placed in front of the citizen.
The Internet is a dynamic and effective means. Government can and will use it to interact and get information out to the public, but it should not be the only means. Many people do not have access or do not even own a computer It is the legal responsibility of government to provide access to public data to people who ask for it, not to suggest "stepping" to the library to use the Internet to read it.
By the way the report I wanted to review I did not go to the library to get access to the Internet to read it. I was able to review the report at the government office that issued it the next day.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Legacy bill and Open Meeting
The last few hours of debate on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives on its last night was unique and special for the public to see. It gave an opportunity for the public to view and hear what accountability and transparency means to the Legislature.
Debate surrounded on the Minnesota Legacy conference committee bill - SF1363. A great amount of discussion was on the proposal for the Lessard-Sams Heritage Council not to be under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law(OML)which it has been under the past two years since it was created. The proposal to change the law was a Senate position, the House did not have it in their bill. The Council is responsible for recommending to the Legislature on projects under the outdoor heritage portion of the Legacy Amendment. This current bill has about $180 million in projects and spending from this process.
Many Minnesotans would think it is a no brain er not to be under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The public is able to see how decisions are made as to how $180 million of their money may be spent. The public would be able to have access to the same information that the members of the Heritage Council has at their meetings. Also there would be thorough procedural notice as to when meetings are. These elements and others of the OML are guaranteed by law. It is important to note that all local city councils and county boards also come under this same law.
Well, the proposal on page 31 of the Conference Committee bill was to kill the current law to be under OML, only to be open to the public when decisions are to be made, which would eliminate the public's ability to see and hear discussions about the various projects if no decisions were to be made, known as informational meetings, and also eliminate the requirement to have at meetings of the Council all data available to the public which the Council members have at the same meeting.
Proponents of the proposed change said that the Lessard-Sams group can be under the Legislature Open Meeting rules. From my perspective, the Legislative Open Meeting process is general, ambiguous, and has a large amount of discretion.
A large number of House members disagreed, led by Representative's Holberg, Paymar, and Rep. Urdahl who was swayed by his peers by their arguments, who was the Chief Author of the House bill. The bill was overwhelmingly sent back by the House to reconvene the Conference Committee to get the proposed section out, but the Senate refused to do so.
The bill was brought back to the House of Representatives again for reconsideration which then led to more time to debate the open meeting issue and other parts of the Legacy bill until the clock ran out at midnight. The Legacy bill more than likely will be up in Special Session.
Debate surrounded on the Minnesota Legacy conference committee bill - SF1363. A great amount of discussion was on the proposal for the Lessard-Sams Heritage Council not to be under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law(OML)which it has been under the past two years since it was created. The proposal to change the law was a Senate position, the House did not have it in their bill. The Council is responsible for recommending to the Legislature on projects under the outdoor heritage portion of the Legacy Amendment. This current bill has about $180 million in projects and spending from this process.
Many Minnesotans would think it is a no brain er not to be under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The public is able to see how decisions are made as to how $180 million of their money may be spent. The public would be able to have access to the same information that the members of the Heritage Council has at their meetings. Also there would be thorough procedural notice as to when meetings are. These elements and others of the OML are guaranteed by law. It is important to note that all local city councils and county boards also come under this same law.
Well, the proposal on page 31 of the Conference Committee bill was to kill the current law to be under OML, only to be open to the public when decisions are to be made, which would eliminate the public's ability to see and hear discussions about the various projects if no decisions were to be made, known as informational meetings, and also eliminate the requirement to have at meetings of the Council all data available to the public which the Council members have at the same meeting.
Proponents of the proposed change said that the Lessard-Sams group can be under the Legislature Open Meeting rules. From my perspective, the Legislative Open Meeting process is general, ambiguous, and has a large amount of discretion.
A large number of House members disagreed, led by Representative's Holberg, Paymar, and Rep. Urdahl who was swayed by his peers by their arguments, who was the Chief Author of the House bill. The bill was overwhelmingly sent back by the House to reconvene the Conference Committee to get the proposed section out, but the Senate refused to do so.
The bill was brought back to the House of Representatives again for reconsideration which then led to more time to debate the open meeting issue and other parts of the Legacy bill until the clock ran out at midnight. The Legacy bill more than likely will be up in Special Session.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
What is so "special" about a special session?
In the next few weeks there will be a call by the Governor for a "Special Session" of the Minnesota Legislature. The Governor is the only person that can call for a special session on "extraordinary occasions." But there is something that is "special" before and after the unusual session starts.
An exceptional experience which is not seen in the regular session. There will be either be no public input or testimony or very limited if at all up to and during the special session. There are generally no public hearings. The players from the Governor and his staff, including Commissioners will be interacting with the GOP Legislative Leader's and staff to try to work out differences between them on budget and policy matters. This process will be done through face to face meetings, e-mail, and through others forms of communication without any public meetings or notice, or access to the documents.
So you think that bill that was defeated during the past session is dead, be aware it may be in one of the bills that could be introduced during a special session. There are many special interests who up to and during this unique session try to get legislation passed that could have been stifled by public testimony or a Chairperson of a legislative committee. They will be knocking on the Governor and Legislative Leader's door.
It is far different from the public, open, and interactive legislative process where we can review and scrutinize bills, make public comment, and get people organized. Generally, there will be arrangements and agreements between the Governor and Legislative Leaders. The Governor will call for the special session. The bills will be introduced, go through a process on the floors of each body, send it to the Governor, and he signs it. This can be done in a matter of days.
Once the Legislature is called back in session they can do what they want to do and stay in session until next January. But, it is the Governor who can call the Legislator's back to St. Paul and he may not do it until there is general understanding between the parties.
Would it not be refreshing if the Legislative Leadership and Governor would give some time for the public to review the legislation which they agree on before the "Special Session." That act alone would be very "special" about a special session
An exceptional experience which is not seen in the regular session. There will be either be no public input or testimony or very limited if at all up to and during the special session. There are generally no public hearings. The players from the Governor and his staff, including Commissioners will be interacting with the GOP Legislative Leader's and staff to try to work out differences between them on budget and policy matters. This process will be done through face to face meetings, e-mail, and through others forms of communication without any public meetings or notice, or access to the documents.
So you think that bill that was defeated during the past session is dead, be aware it may be in one of the bills that could be introduced during a special session. There are many special interests who up to and during this unique session try to get legislation passed that could have been stifled by public testimony or a Chairperson of a legislative committee. They will be knocking on the Governor and Legislative Leader's door.
It is far different from the public, open, and interactive legislative process where we can review and scrutinize bills, make public comment, and get people organized. Generally, there will be arrangements and agreements between the Governor and Legislative Leaders. The Governor will call for the special session. The bills will be introduced, go through a process on the floors of each body, send it to the Governor, and he signs it. This can be done in a matter of days.
Once the Legislature is called back in session they can do what they want to do and stay in session until next January. But, it is the Governor who can call the Legislator's back to St. Paul and he may not do it until there is general understanding between the parties.
Would it not be refreshing if the Legislative Leadership and Governor would give some time for the public to review the legislation which they agree on before the "Special Session." That act alone would be very "special" about a special session
Monday, May 16, 2011
Democratic Process hijacked at Legislature.
As I stated in a previous posts, the last week or so at the Legislature the democratic process is compromised for sake of expediency, but sometimes it is done to keep discussion on a subject to a minimum. This happened today with an initiative by Senator Ortman.
The Omnibus Data Practices bill, SF 1143, was heard on the floor of the Senate today. As the bill goes through process, there are amendments. Sen Ortman offered an amendment that would have the State participate in the Department of Homeland Security, Secure Communities Program. The amendment was adopted. Some givens, the amendment was not introduced as a bill, sometimes a bill is introduced, but not given a hearing, therefore, legislators try to get the bill on a proposal that is on the passage of becoming law.
With the Ortman amendment not being introduced as a bill, people did not know about the possibility of this legislation. So today in the Senate, opportunity for her amendment. No public notice and no process for public input on the floor of the Senate.
When I found out that the amendment was adopted I was surprised. I know that there has been controversy on the Secure Communities program nationally. A number of national organizations have raised concerns and criticisms of the program. For example, the ACLU and American Immigration Council have position papers on the program. There papers are linked on the organizations names. Recently, there have been articles reporting criticism of the program in the media. Even the state of Illinois recently pulled out of the program.
I knew that the Secure Communities program has privacy and civil liberties issues. With it being on the Senate bill I knew more than likely the issue could have a full hearing when the bill got to a conference committee which may be in a day or so. This is done many times by legislators where an amendment is done in one body, but not in the other, and it is worked on in the conference committee. When the process is done this way, organizations and groups are given notice, and also made aware that in conference committee they will have an opportunity to be heard.
But, low and behold at approximately 9:30pm, I saw on tweets that there was going to be a surprise policy amendment on the Crime Conference bill. I said to myself, what could that be. I thought maybe the familial DNA, then it appeared on the twitter machine, the Secure Communities amendment.
The amendment was placed on the Crime conference bill without due diligence public notice, no opportunity for interested parties who oppose or critical to testify, and done in a way which the democratic ideals are made a mockery.
There should have been a proper opportunity for people who so wished to testify on this amendment to be heard.
Good legislation is made when both sides can be presented and be heard.
Update------Additional news reports about Secure Communities program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576321404203166580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/secure-communities-illegal-immigration-reform_n_852277.html
The Omnibus Data Practices bill, SF 1143, was heard on the floor of the Senate today. As the bill goes through process, there are amendments. Sen Ortman offered an amendment that would have the State participate in the Department of Homeland Security, Secure Communities Program. The amendment was adopted. Some givens, the amendment was not introduced as a bill, sometimes a bill is introduced, but not given a hearing, therefore, legislators try to get the bill on a proposal that is on the passage of becoming law.
With the Ortman amendment not being introduced as a bill, people did not know about the possibility of this legislation. So today in the Senate, opportunity for her amendment. No public notice and no process for public input on the floor of the Senate.
When I found out that the amendment was adopted I was surprised. I know that there has been controversy on the Secure Communities program nationally. A number of national organizations have raised concerns and criticisms of the program. For example, the ACLU and American Immigration Council have position papers on the program. There papers are linked on the organizations names. Recently, there have been articles reporting criticism of the program in the media. Even the state of Illinois recently pulled out of the program.
I knew that the Secure Communities program has privacy and civil liberties issues. With it being on the Senate bill I knew more than likely the issue could have a full hearing when the bill got to a conference committee which may be in a day or so. This is done many times by legislators where an amendment is done in one body, but not in the other, and it is worked on in the conference committee. When the process is done this way, organizations and groups are given notice, and also made aware that in conference committee they will have an opportunity to be heard.
But, low and behold at approximately 9:30pm, I saw on tweets that there was going to be a surprise policy amendment on the Crime Conference bill. I said to myself, what could that be. I thought maybe the familial DNA, then it appeared on the twitter machine, the Secure Communities amendment.
The amendment was placed on the Crime conference bill without due diligence public notice, no opportunity for interested parties who oppose or critical to testify, and done in a way which the democratic ideals are made a mockery.
There should have been a proper opportunity for people who so wished to testify on this amendment to be heard.
Good legislation is made when both sides can be presented and be heard.
Update------Additional news reports about Secure Communities program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576321404203166580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/secure-communities-illegal-immigration-reform_n_852277.html
Saturday, May 14, 2011
A Day at the People's House
Today was not like any other Saturday for me. The Minnesota Legislature was in session, a double feature with the Senate in the AM, and House in PM. The Legacy bill was up. I had input on that bill for transparency and accountability standards. The castle defense/gun bill was up in the House also. Senate had several civil law bills that can have impact on consumer rights. Finally, there was the conference committee on Voter I.D.
I was thinking of spending the day at home watching the debate and tweet with others who follow the Legislature. I saw the Senate session on Legislative TV. The civil law bills dealing with statute of limitations and class action suits came up. As the bills are being debated, the tweets all of a sudden are appearing this is bad for consumers, no, it is good for the business climate. I watch the tweets on the twitter machine.
I decide to engage. I stated that business has opportunity to get legal reform because of GOP Legislature. The bills being discussed have significant impact on our consumer rights. I decide to make judgement on the two bills, I say the "consumer is neutered" by taking away their legal tools. I leave with the question, Will Governor Dayton be our consumer interest protector? Other words, veto the bills.
The Senate passed both bills. The tweets start again. With bi-partisan support both bills pass, the tweet said. Again I engage. How do you define bi-partisan I said. Some response. I left with one more "view" tweet, bi-partisan does not necessarily mean just a few votes from the other side.
By this time the adrenaline is following, I am getting itchy, I make a decision to go to the People's House.
The second feature on the double bill, the Minnesota House. I enter the Capitol, hardly any lobbyists there. The Minnesota Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association lobbyist as well as the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights is there among others. I decide to plug in with the lap top.
The Legacy bill debate starts. Again the twitter starts, the tweets describing the urban/rural split on funding. Comments about how the Legacy bill acquires property, shameful the tweet says. I engage, asking questions. Get some response. Bottom line, I left with a tweet stating what will be the Governor's role in the Legacy drama.
Being in person at the Capitol makes all the difference in the world for communication and impact on legislation. Spoke with several legislators, one indicated to me that language dealing with an issue I have been following will be stripped out of a bill, interacted with Co-Chair of a Conference Committee to see if a bill was still open to hear from Governor Dayton. Talked with a lobbyist about an alternative way to get language passed before end of session. Even set up an opportunity to talk with a lobbyist who wants input on an initiative for 2012.
I even interacted with young people and their hosts on prom dates from Central High School and St. Croix Lutheran who decided to use the inside of the Capitol for picture taking. I said to one group of young people, my prom theme was "Color My World" by Chicago, half the group knew the song and group. Their theme was "Arabian Nights". Of course I said what was going on at the Capitol, what I did, and how they can make a difference. A woman even shook my hand and said thanks.
The trailer was a short stop in the Voter I.D. Conference Committee. If the bill becomes law I want to make sure that certain data that is collected for one purpose not be used for other purposes. The position what I wanted was adopted.
The day at the People's House was productive. It is important for the people of Minnesota to understand that you can make a difference, there are 9 days left til end of session. No matter what your views are I encourage you to become engaged either through the phone, the "electronic" way, or as I still do the "face to face" way, or a combination of, on the issues you are concerned about.
Accountability, Openness, and Transparency of the Legislative process begins with you.
I was thinking of spending the day at home watching the debate and tweet with others who follow the Legislature. I saw the Senate session on Legislative TV. The civil law bills dealing with statute of limitations and class action suits came up. As the bills are being debated, the tweets all of a sudden are appearing this is bad for consumers, no, it is good for the business climate. I watch the tweets on the twitter machine.
I decide to engage. I stated that business has opportunity to get legal reform because of GOP Legislature. The bills being discussed have significant impact on our consumer rights. I decide to make judgement on the two bills, I say the "consumer is neutered" by taking away their legal tools. I leave with the question, Will Governor Dayton be our consumer interest protector? Other words, veto the bills.
The Senate passed both bills. The tweets start again. With bi-partisan support both bills pass, the tweet said. Again I engage. How do you define bi-partisan I said. Some response. I left with one more "view" tweet, bi-partisan does not necessarily mean just a few votes from the other side.
By this time the adrenaline is following, I am getting itchy, I make a decision to go to the People's House.
The second feature on the double bill, the Minnesota House. I enter the Capitol, hardly any lobbyists there. The Minnesota Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association lobbyist as well as the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights is there among others. I decide to plug in with the lap top.
The Legacy bill debate starts. Again the twitter starts, the tweets describing the urban/rural split on funding. Comments about how the Legacy bill acquires property, shameful the tweet says. I engage, asking questions. Get some response. Bottom line, I left with a tweet stating what will be the Governor's role in the Legacy drama.
Being in person at the Capitol makes all the difference in the world for communication and impact on legislation. Spoke with several legislators, one indicated to me that language dealing with an issue I have been following will be stripped out of a bill, interacted with Co-Chair of a Conference Committee to see if a bill was still open to hear from Governor Dayton. Talked with a lobbyist about an alternative way to get language passed before end of session. Even set up an opportunity to talk with a lobbyist who wants input on an initiative for 2012.
I even interacted with young people and their hosts on prom dates from Central High School and St. Croix Lutheran who decided to use the inside of the Capitol for picture taking. I said to one group of young people, my prom theme was "Color My World" by Chicago, half the group knew the song and group. Their theme was "Arabian Nights". Of course I said what was going on at the Capitol, what I did, and how they can make a difference. A woman even shook my hand and said thanks.
The trailer was a short stop in the Voter I.D. Conference Committee. If the bill becomes law I want to make sure that certain data that is collected for one purpose not be used for other purposes. The position what I wanted was adopted.
The day at the People's House was productive. It is important for the people of Minnesota to understand that you can make a difference, there are 9 days left til end of session. No matter what your views are I encourage you to become engaged either through the phone, the "electronic" way, or as I still do the "face to face" way, or a combination of, on the issues you are concerned about.
Accountability, Openness, and Transparency of the Legislative process begins with you.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
End of Session, Minnesota Legislature makes significant/critical decisons in secret
Between now and the 23rd of May as the Minnesota Legislature aims for the end, there will be a number of meetings in secret the public may not know about, and will not able to participate in or observe. The meetings are known as Caucus meetings and the Governor/Leadership meetings.
The Caucus meeting is when the political parties of both bodies break into a gathering to discuss the bills and issues that will come up for votes on the floor. In these meetings, members let their hair down and talk directly and bluntly to each other on what their own and caucus position will be. It is also where members may have problems with the position taken by the majority of the caucus and try to change it. It also may be where pressure and influence is applied for members to vote a certain way.
In reality, at the end of session, it is these meetings, the Caucus and Governor/Legislative Leadership get together, where the most important legislative decisions are made. The public are not able to hear the arguments and deliberations, or know the reasoning to the conclusion or resolution of these secret meetings.
Historically, the Legislative leaders and the Governor negotiate budget deals in secret. The meetings are pretty exclusive in which the public and even members of the legislative bodies are forbidden from the process. There are yielding of positions or trade offs that happen between the leaders and the Governor. The special interest groups who may have that special relationship can get their views heard over others in these kind of meetings. The compromise or agreement is sometimes done to the last minute, and then is spit out to only get a passing, or even a haphazard analysis by the public and the legislators before they vote.
The public wants to know and participate in the making of the sausage, not to get the "rolled up" sausage and not know what's in it.
The Caucus meeting is when the political parties of both bodies break into a gathering to discuss the bills and issues that will come up for votes on the floor. In these meetings, members let their hair down and talk directly and bluntly to each other on what their own and caucus position will be. It is also where members may have problems with the position taken by the majority of the caucus and try to change it. It also may be where pressure and influence is applied for members to vote a certain way.
In reality, at the end of session, it is these meetings, the Caucus and Governor/Legislative Leadership get together, where the most important legislative decisions are made. The public are not able to hear the arguments and deliberations, or know the reasoning to the conclusion or resolution of these secret meetings.
Historically, the Legislative leaders and the Governor negotiate budget deals in secret. The meetings are pretty exclusive in which the public and even members of the legislative bodies are forbidden from the process. There are yielding of positions or trade offs that happen between the leaders and the Governor. The special interest groups who may have that special relationship can get their views heard over others in these kind of meetings. The compromise or agreement is sometimes done to the last minute, and then is spit out to only get a passing, or even a haphazard analysis by the public and the legislators before they vote.
The public wants to know and participate in the making of the sausage, not to get the "rolled up" sausage and not know what's in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)