Person #2821: 103 Posts

Recommended: 56 times

Posts   |   Comments

Joint Committee on the Judiciary Fiasco Gets Sadder

Chairman Nassour More Or Less Endorses Our Effort

Nassour's comment is hilariously self-serving and goes wildly off-topic at times ("In a system dominated by one party the battle of ideas and priorities is already settled" - neither true nor relevant), but her basic point is correct: more transparency generally leads to better government. It is (or should be) embarrassing that a perfectly sensible proposal like Ted's is being embraced by more establishment Republicans than establishment Democrats. - promoted by david

Arthur Dent meets the Joint Committee on the Judiciary

*trying to find the appropriate Kafka analogue* - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

New Website On the Legislative Committee Rules Fiasco

Note to state legislators: the Internet has revolutionized public scrutiny of government -- and it is just getting started. All committee hearings should be streamed live, transcribed, and permanently archived online for anyone to review at any time without charge. It is as basic a responsibility of modern government as answering the office telephone. With respect to Rep. O'Flaherty, I suppose Tedf's announcement of a primary challenge followed by a quick $100,000 online fundraiser is the next step. - promoted by Bob_Neer

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary Hasn’t Filed Its Rules [UPDATED]

Tough decision as to whether to laugh or cry about these shenanigans. Thanks also to Michael Jonas at Commonwealth Magazine for picking up the story. [David] Bumped. Feel the blood of the serfs boiling out here in the fields. - promoted by Bob_Neer

My Open Letters to Chairman Walsh and Chairwoman Nassour [Updated]

Amend Rule 1D!

Rep. O’Flaherty Digs Himself a Deeper Hole

Sadly, Rep. O'Flaherty's position makes little sense. I am sure what he says about some witnesses requesting anonymity is entirely true, and it is entirely appropriate for him, and for the Committee, to honor those requests. But what about the many witnesses who make no such request, and who instead testify in public, with the full expectation that spectators and news media may be present when they do? What possible justification is there for applying Rep. O'Flaherty's policy in those instances? Disappointing. - promoted by david

Representative O’Flaherty: Are You Kidding Me?

Foiled! Letters Blogatory Turned Away At The Statehouse [updated]

Bumped in light of the following response from Rep. O'Flaherty, which I received by email this morning:
Dear David: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary handles the most controversial proposals on Beacon Hill. As a result, testimony received, oral & written, is often very personal and is submitted because the hope is it will influence policy decisions. We receive testimony from rape victims, child rape victims, sexual assault victims, from businesses in pending issues like intellectual property and patent rights. My point is there would be a chilling effect on the submission of such testimony if the proffers knew it was for public consumption and the issues they raise would be scrutinized by individuals other than committee members. Your "disturbing" report is accurate and is the policy of the House Judiciary Committee. Our hearings are open to the public and any information conveyed at such is for all to hear. If individuals want to attend and contact witnesses and request their testimony or information, that is their job to do, not our committee's policy given the considerations I've previously mentioned. I hope this offers some rationale for our policy and although, being presumptuous, I anticipate it will not satisfy your question or concern, the balancing of the need to receive testimony versus disclosure weighs in favor of our current policy. Gene
- promoted by david