Again at MyDD, commenter jwp26 brings up one of the obstacles to significant civic engagement in the legislative process:
First, to make legislative (and rule-making) activities more transparent, there must be a public deliberative process. For example, we should push for procedural rules requiring at least 2 weeks notice between publication of a finally, fully amended bill, and a final vote. This would permit time for public review, comment, and pressure on pols before a vote. Currently, there are numerous mechanisms that make the final bill (the nature of the “choice” imposed upon the pols) a matter of ambush. Forcing pols to make awkward choices is a means of control.
He’s talking about the US Congress, but it seems equally true in Massachusetts. As I said at the Civic Engagement Working Group meeting in Roxbury (not very eloquently), most legislation comes as a surprise to the public. Better legislation-tracking technology might help, but it’s the legislative rules that constrain the whims of the leadership that really need to be reformed. Two weeks notice before a vote on a bill is not too much lead time for either the lege or the public.
The legislature needs to set up the rules to encourage good, fully-informed decisions — not decision-by-panic.
There is a balance between the need to debate a bill and hammer out a compromise and time to look over the final bill. As long as the process is transparent and the public can see versions, two or three days works.
Really long bills probably could use more time than that.
And sometimes, no notice at all!
<
p>
See, for example, for profits were given the “green light” to provide foster care by dropping a word from a bill, in the “dead of August” without notice to or consultation with even the Foster Care Committee, or the chairs of the Public Service Committee – and with maybe a total of five legislators in attendance.
<
p>
The story is here: http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
I have been in the gallery, because I cared passionately about what I knew would be voted on – been the ONLY citizen surrounded by paid lobbyists – only to see the entire membership herded into “Room 348” and TOLD “you have five minutes and then we all vote yes on this” on entire sets of “amendments” costing millions of dollars to the House Budget.
<
p>
No transparency, no public debate at all. Further, the House Rules Committee makes its own rules, and changes its own rules.
<
p>
See: http://www.mass.gov/…
<
p>
These are the current House Rules. There are also “joint rules”, see:
<
p>
http://www.mass.gov/…
<
p>
So frankly ANY requirement for real public notice and open debate would be really major, an enormous change over current practice.