Thanks to those of you who have gotten in touch with me about my quest to obtain copies of the testimony given at the recent Joint Judiciary Committee hearing on the Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Act, and thanks to those (I’m looking at you, AmberPaw!) who tweeted about it. I am preparing to gather my mob of peasants with pitchforks to march up to Beacon Hill, arm in arm, singing “We Shall Overcome” while simultaneously chanting “Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Testimony’s public, no?” Or something like that.
Representative Eugene O’Flaherty was kind enough to respond to David Kravitz’s inquiry. Here was his response, with my editorial comments on Rep. O’Flaherty’s particularly foolish points interspersed:
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. [TedF: Exactly! Testimony is submitted to influence policy. Precisely why it should be available to the public]. We receive testimony from rape victims, child rape victims, sexual assault victims, from businesses in pending issues like intellectual property and patent rights. [TedF: I have no way of knowing, given the Commitee’s ridiculous position, but my strong hunch is that no rape victims, child rape victims, sexual assault victims, etc. showed up at the hearing on the Uniform Foreign-Court Money Judgment Act]. 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. [TedF:But the testimony IS for public consumption. The hearings are public. If the testimony is too sensitive to be public for some reason, than hold a closed hearing!] 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 [TedF: See previous comment]. 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
This is pretty laughable. I am sure Representative O’Flaherty is a fine legislator, but can we all please hold him up to ridicule and scorn on this issue in the hopes of getting him to rethink this foolish and undemocratic policy? Yes We Can.
