(Well, I admit, “Amend Rule 1D!” doesn’t have a good ring to it, like “Fifty-four Forty or Fight!”, but I’m still thinking of alternative slogans. I do, however, already have a chant: “Hey, hey, ho, ho / Testimony’s public, No?”)
Over the past two days I have been arguing that although Representative O’Flaherty is not legally obligated to provide copies of testimony given before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which he chairs, his reasons for not doing so are plain wrong. They’re wrong as a matter of policy: why shouldn’t the public have access to testimony given to their legislative representatives? They’re wrong as a matter of politics: why should Republicans be the party of open government? I thought the request was pretty routine–I was just trying to get some material to write a post on my blog, Letters Blogatory–but I was astonished by the response of the committee staffer and then Rep. O’Flaherty himself.
Now, I may or may not end up getting access to the documents I asked to see, the no-doubt-explosive prepared remarks by witnesses at the hearing on the Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Recognition Act. But what I’ve really taken away from Representative O’Flaherty’s remarks is that the rules need to change. Specifically, Rule 1D.
Right now, Rule 1D provides:
A meeting of a committee may be recorded by a person in attendance by means of a recorder or any other means of audio/visual reproduction except when a meeting is held in executive session; provided, that a person seeking to record a meeting of a committee notifies the Chairs of the committee prior to commencing such recording; and provided further that during such recording there is no interference with the conduct of the meeting.
Representative O’Flaherty is concerned about particularly sensitive testimony and the possible chilling effect of forcing people to testify publicly. (Yes, I know, the hearings are public, rendering Representative O’Flaherty’s point incoherent). But the rules already have a provision for handling these situations. Rule 1D also provides:
All meetings of joint standing committees, and special joint committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall be open to the public, and any person shall be permitted to attend any such meeting unless such committee convenes in executive session, as provided herein. … No executive session shall be held except upon extraordinary circumstances and only after the committee has first convened in an open session for which notice has been given, the presiding officer has stated the purpose of the executive session, a majority of the committee members present has voted to go into executive session, the vote of each member has been recorded on a roll call vote, and the presiding officer has stated before the executive session if the committee will reconvene after the executive session. The records of all such roll calls shall be kept in the offices of the committee for the duration of the General Court during which said vote was recorded, and shall be available for public inspection upon reasonable notice and during regular office hours.
The rule ought to be amended to require the committees to make available to the public any transcripts of testimony, any written testimony or other documents submitted, and a list of witnesses at all public hearings. Ultimately, the rule should require all testimony to be transcribed. This amendment would leave room for committees to decide to take testimony in private, but it will force them to be accountable about the reasons for taking testimony privately.
What do you think?
