PDA

View Full Version : Closed Door Committees in Legislation - a Democracy?



101Scout
02-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Just look at this bill voted down by NM's Senate late last night! NO OPEN LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC!

Resolutions and bills go into 'hidden' committees and comes out all re arranged without the observation or say by those who have direct concern of said bill or resolution. Is that a Democracy?



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

SANTA FE (AP) - The Senate on Thursday defeated by a single vote a bill that would open legislative conference committees to the public.

The closed-door committees are often the places where the final decisions on important bills, including the annual state budget, are made.

"I think the integrity of the Legislature is at stake," said Sen. Dede Feldman, D-Albuquerque, the bill's sponsor.

"I don't believe we have a lot to hide, but I think it looks like it when we oppose this sort of measure so vigorously," she said.

The bill failed when 19 members voted for it and 20 against it.

Made up of small groups of lawmakers from both parties, conference committees are appointed by legislative leaders to come up with a compromise when the House and Senate approve differing versions of the same bill.

Some lawmakers who favor opening conference committees complain that the closed-door meetings exclude them, as well.


"It's not just a secret from the people. ... It's a secret from the other 106" lawmakers, said Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell, who voted to open the meetings.

Sen. Cynthia Nava, D-Las Cruces, said citizens who advocate for issues spend weeks working on legislation, only to "have a bill go into a conference committee and come out 30 minutes later a whole new animal."

But Sen. Tim Jennings, D-Roswell, objected that the proposal amounted to "an invasion into our branch of government by the executive."

He said it would open conference committees to the governor, who could then retaliate against lawmakers for comments or decisions he didn't like.

Jennings also said it would drive decision-making further underground.

"Decisions are probably going to end up being made in other rooms, somewhere else," he said.

Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, also objected to opening the meetings, saying lawmakers are sometimes hesitant to say what they believe for fear of being misquoted or having their statements used against them by political enemies.

USA#1
02-16-2007, 11:38 AM
In general I would say No --- but I would say that there are special circumstances that would warrant closed doors. But most of those would be special cases. So I'm with you for the most part.

If you had a "More No than Yes" I would have voted ... it's not always black and white. There are greys in all things.

GymGeekAus
02-16-2007, 04:05 PM
I'm totally a transparency advocate. It's our country, our money, our government.

But there are some things you can't discuss in public. Like, for example, undercover CIA operations. For these kinds of things, there must be some closed-door legislating going on.

Icky
02-16-2007, 06:28 PM
Some things MUST be discussed behind closed doors... and for LEGITIMATE matters of National Security...

HOWEVER, I think certain things should ALWAYS be discussed out in the open... It would be nice to have a clearly defined list of what MUST be discussed openly. We The People have a right to know what's being done in our name... and how our HARD EARNED money is being spent.

webhead
02-21-2007, 02:47 PM
Some things MUST be discussed behind closed doors... and for LEGITIMATE matters of National Security...

HOWEVER, I think certain things should ALWAYS be discussed out in the open... It would be nice to have a clearly defined list of what MUST be discussed openly. We The People have a right to know what's being done in our name... and how our HARD EARNED money is being spent.
Icky speaks for me!

Mr.Dude
02-25-2007, 11:10 PM
Some representative came up with a bill a few years ago that would have required any new proposed law to have its author include an explanation of how the law was permissible under the Constitution. The law was defeated completely.

Our legislatures, Congress, President, city governments and Governors have all forgotten that they govern at the will of governed(that's us). Not the other way around.

They are just the g******** hired help.

Crazy Guggenheim
02-25-2007, 11:12 PM
:rofl:


Some representative came up with a bill a few years ago that would have required any new proposed law to have its author include an explanation of how the law was permissible under the Constitution.