There has been justifiable criticism of some closed-door meetings held by House Republicans with lobbyists.
I’m not about to defend those meetings. However, Scott Mooneyham’s recent column on the closed government practices ignored the legislative process before the Republicans took over. He argues that this closed government undermines the committee system:
Turning those committee meetings into mostly pro forma functions,
similar to the floor sessions, is the opposite of open government.
I agree that closed government leads to pro forma functions, but this is nothing new at the state legislature. Many legislative committee meetings have been pro forma functions for a long time, with meetings taking place after closed-door deal making has already been completed.
Take for example, proposed committee substitute bills (PCS). The public can be aware of a specific version of a bill, but out of the blue, a new bill (PCS) will come into existence that can be radically different from the previous version of the bill. The public isn’t privy to how the bill got changed. All of the changes are made between legislators and lobbyists.
I have argued in the past against this practice–if bills are going to be “formally” changed, it should happen in public. A committee adopting the new PCS in its entirety is inadequate–the public doesn’t see how the specific changes have been made. Committees should have mark-up sessions just like in Congress.
Mr. Mooneyham’s primary point for the need of open government is correct. Let’s not pretend though that committee meetings were very informative to the public in the past.
