Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH.
 |
Some quotes have been cleaned up for readability.
The people of each state are vested with sovereign authority, expressed by their elected representatives serving in a legislature. Thus, legislative power is absolute and unlimited except as restrained by constitution.
—Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure (2020 ed.). Chapter 7, § 73, subsec. 1.
According to the January 3rd House Calendar, the Speaker said the House will be taking up amendments to the House rules today.
The Rules Committee recommends five rules changes, all of which can be found in the January 3rd House Calendar:
Amend House Rule 66: House Deadlines, moving 17 “last day” dates later. The committee recommended the rule change with a vote of 9 to 0.
Amend House Rule 28: Subpoena Power, containing two changes. The committee recommended the rule change with a vote of 5 to 4, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. Here are the two changes:
If a Committee Chair wishes to issue a subpoena, they must first seek approval from the Rules Committee, which will make a recommendation to the full House.
If a person fails to comply with a subpoena, the House floor will vote on whether the person should be found in contempt of the House. Upon majority vote of the entire House membership—as opposed to the majority present when the vote occurs—the Speaker will take action to sanction the person and enforce compliance with the subpoena.
Amend House Rule 2: Decorum, order, and appeal, requiring that all members, when in the House chamber and when in committee proceedings, “be dressed in proper business attire.” The committee recommended the rule change with a vote of 5 to 4, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed.
Amend House Rule 43: Clerk to provide Chairman’s copies, bill copies for distribution, removing references to the Chairman of the committee. The committee recommended the rule change with a vote of 9 to 0.
Amend three House Rules to add a “Table Calendar” and a new recommendation committees can make for a bill: Refer to Table. A committee can forego a public hearing on a bill with a motion to Refer to Table, which needs a 3/4 vote of the committee to pass. The committee recommended the rule change with a vote of 5 to 4, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. Here are the three rule changes:
Amend House Rule 44: Hearings and notices, adding the option for the committee to forgo a public hearing by a 3/4 vote of the committee.
Amend House Rule 45: Reporting of bills; committee reports; retained bills; Interim Study as a 2nd-year report; printing of committee reports and amendments; Part I, Article 28-a Constitutional compliance, adding Refer to Table as a recommendation option for the committee.
Amend House Rule 52: Table Calendar, adding a new section explaining the Table Calendar. A simple majority of the House may remove a bill from the Table Calendar, referring that bill back to committee for a hearing. The House can only do this if a relevant Rule 66 House Deadline has not been passed.
Of these five rule change recommendations, the most divisive is probably the final rule change, adding an option to “Refer to Table” and the creation of a “Table Calendar.” I’m going to discuss each of these amendments in the order they appear on the calendar, so if you want to jump to the Refer to Table amendment, please scroll to the bottom.
Delaying House Deadlines Amendment
Rules Committee unanimously recommended. Amendment would change rule 66. Deputy Speaker Steven Smith proposed the amendment. Amendment text in calendar.
Debate Summary:
Dem Floor Leader Weber emphasized that people shouldn’t be “lulled into a false sense of security” by later deadlines.
Selected Quote:
During discussion, only Dem. Floor Leader Weber spoke. She said, “I will only say that because of the extremely long period of time for the House to do the House's work, which I think is very useful in some cases, it's going to be up to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs to make sure that people don't get lulled into a false sense of having more time and getting the work out and figuring out what our time schedule is going to be coming up to the deadline and getting work out before the deadline. But having said that, I have no objection to the way it's written.”
House Subpoena Power Amendment
Rules Committee recommended on a party-line vote. Rep. Bob Lynn (R) and Deputy Speaker Smith proposed the amendment.
Amend House Rule 28 by adding additional language and a new subparagraph:
28. Subpoena Power. A Committee Chair wishing to issue a subpoena must first seek approval from the Rules Committee, which will make a recommendation to the full House as to whether a subpoena is warranted or not. No subpoena shall issue except by majority vote of the entire House membership and upon the signature of the Speaker. The Committee on Rules shall determine the form of subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and specify conditions, if any, with regard to the issuance and use of such subpoenas.
(a) Upon the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena duly issued and served, the Speaker shall refer the matter to the floor for a vote as to whether the person should be found in contempt of the House. Upon a majority vote of the entire House membership to hold the person in contempt of the House, the Speaker shall take appropriate action to sanction such conduct and enforce compliance with the subpoena.
Summary:
Rep. Lynn argued that these changes are needed to fix an issue that arose in the last session about subpoenas. This clarifies how enforcement would happen, and it makes sure that leadership of both causes, via the Rules Committee, would know about a motion to subpoena before it goes to the floor or otherwise acted upon.
Minority Leader Alexis Simpson asked for clarification on who would do the enforcement. That is, who is the equivalent to the US Marshall that would enforce this in Congress? Would it be the Sergeant-at-Arms? Rep. Lynn seems to agree that it would be the Sergeant-at-Arms, but he emphasizes that whatever happens, it would be the majority of the House that would have to agree to make it happen.
Minority Leader Simpson and Dem. Leader Pro Tempore Karen Ebel said they were opposed to the amendment and felt that a 3/5 majority would be a better bar for contempt.
I leave a clip from Mason’s on the subject of subpoenas.
NH Family Justice also voiced opposition to this rule change.
Selected Quotes and Context:
Rep. Lynn, not a member of the Rules Committee, testified, “As you all know, I'm sure last year, there was an issue arose regarding subpoenas issued by the legislature when, as I understand it, a Committee Chair determined that it was appropriate without much discussion to issue a subpoena. As a result of that, I think a number of people, including Representative Smith and myself, concluded that we should have a change to the rule dealing with subpoenas to make sure that before that happened and before there was any action taken in the event that a subpoena was not complied with, that there would be a more centralized and knowing basis for doing that, including making sure that leadership was aware of what was going on and were on board with doing it.
“In fact, if you, in doing some research on this—apparently it happens almost never now—but as recently as like 1914, if I'm remembering correctly, the U.S. Congress actually sent the congressional marshal at the time out to arrest somebody who had failed to comply with a subpoena, and that is a proper way for the legislature to operate. I am not suggesting for a moment that I think that's something that we should begin employing on any kind of a routine basis, but I think it is important to understand that legislatures do have that inherent authority.”
Minority Leader Simpson asked Rep. Lynn, “So I think what I heard you say earlier is that if this did issue or situation did arise that we could figure out the procedures at that time of how we would enforce this or how the speaker would enforce this. And I, I'm concerned that doing that in the heat of any moment might not be the best time to do it and that I would want more of it to be fleshed out in this paragraph. So the first thing would be so who then would be the marshals as the marshals are for the US Congress? Do you mean like the Sergeant of Arms would be the equivalent to the marshals?”
Rep. Lynn responded, “I would think so. … So a Chairman of a committee isn't going to be able to decide, hey, I'm going to subpoena witness X. That has to go to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has to approve it. The Rules Committee can set conditions on how a subpoena should be issued. And then the provision for enforcement, which right now there is no real provision for enforcement. … The whole idea was to make sure that in these extraordinary circumstances where we decided to do something like this, everybody was sort of on board, with the approval of a majority of all of the members of the House.”
Minority Leader Simpson asked in reply, “I am still wanting a little bit higher of a bar. Would you be open to, instead of it requiring a majority vote of the entire house, maybe a three-fifths vote of the House?”
Rep. Lynn responded, “Personally, I would have a problem with that because I think it's important to understand that this inherent authority—as I think if you looked at the case law around the country—this inherent authority has existed in legislative bodies, I think going back to England. This isn't something that's new. It's very true that, thankfully, we have never had a practice in New Hampshire of kind of employing this on a willy-nilly basis or, really as far as I can recall, at all. But it's an authority that does exist. And I guess I would, it seems to me that if a majority of the members of the house felt that somebody was in contempt and that some action should be taken, I would think that that would be enough to move the process forward …
“Typically what would happen in civil contempt is [that the person would be told,] ‘You didn't have any just reason for not complying. You must comply.’ And the most extreme sanction would be for somebody to say, ‘You're going to jail until you comply.’ But that would have to be a court. The legislature can't put somebody in jail. … It seems to me that it's enough protection if a majority of the legislature felt that the matter should be referred to court, and then the court is the only one that could actually pull the lever, so to speak, as the final thing to say, ‘Yes, you are going to jail until you comply.’ So I guess that's a long way of saying, I think that the majority is enough.”
Deputy Speaker Smith asked, “The House already has subpoena power. And what's never addressed is the House subpoenas me, and we feel like I'm in contempt of the House. But it isn't explicitly stated, and that's what this accomplishes?”
Rep. Lynn agreed.
Dem. Leader Pro Tempore Ebel said, “I'd like to support the notion of having a three-fifths vote versus a majority vote. I guess, who's to say about anything, but it seems to me that at some level, if it's just the majority, it could be used as a political tool in some way. And if you had three-fifths of the House, you would feel more secure that it was a consensus of a very large number of the House members because being in contempt is being held in contempt is a rather extraordinary measure.”
I think it’s interesting to also refer to some of what Mason’s current edition says about subpoena power:
Sec. 802. Summons, Subpoenas and Warrants
1. A legislative body or a committee, when acting within the scope of its authority to conduct an investigation, may summon and examine witnesses, and require the production and examination of books, records and papers.
2. The law may provide for a penal offense for a witness who fails to appear before a legislative committee pursuant to a summons or subpoena issued by the appropriate legislative authority.
3. When a committee is authorized to subpoena witnesses, the chair of the committee, in conjunction with its counsel, may select the names and number of witnesses for attendance at each session, and the chair may sign the summons for each witness. Subpoenas should not be issued in blank.
4. When a subpoena duces tecum has been issued under statutory authority, showing that the purpose of the examination was within the scope of the inquiry authorized, the court cannot cancel the subpoena nor enjoin the issuance of any further subpoena.
5. When a witness lawfully summoned refuses to appear, a warrant may be issued to compel the witness’ attendance.
6. No affidavit charging contempt need be filed before a house to authorize it to issue its warrant to arrest a contumacious witness who refuses to testify before one of its committees. The written report of the committee is sufficient authority for the issuance of the warrant.
7. A witness disobeying a subpoena of a legislative committee may be apprehended and brought before the committee by a sheriff under a warrant issued to the sheriff, and either prosecuted for a misdemeanor under a statute for failure to obey the subpoena or punished for contempt by the legislature, but that person cannot be punished by the judiciary for contempt.
I think it’s interesting that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are arguing for the rules to rely more on Mason’s guidance on this matter.
The organization NH Family Justice sent an email to its subscribers opposing this rule change saying, “In the New Hampshire House, subpoena power is limited by House Rule 28, which requires all subpoenas be approved by the whole House. In other states, individual committees possess subpoena power. The proposed changes limit that power even further by requiring all efforts to issue subpoenas first be approved by the House Rules Committee. This committee could be used to gatekeepe [sic] subpoena power by assigning a recommendation for or against the subpoena.
“Additionally, the proposed changes would funnel all punishment power for failure to comply with subpoena to the Speaker of the House. The New Hampshire Constitution provides that the House as a body has the power to administer punishments to people obstructing its duties, such as persons refusing to comply with subpoenas. The proposed amendment would take that power from the body and place it squarely in the hands of the Speaker.”
Considering Granite Grok linked to their site, so it seems they are probably right-leaning. But I’m not certain.
Proper Business Attire Amendment
Rules Committee recommended on a party-line vote. Rep. Jeanine Notter (R) proposed the rule change.
Amend House Rule 2 by adding the following subparagraph:
2. (a) When the House is in session, all members in the House chamber shall be dressed in proper business attire. This shall apply to committee proceedings as well.
Debate summary:
Rep. Notter testified for why a rule requiring proper business attire should pass. It should be to show dignity and respect to the House. It also would not be very difficult for members to follow this rule. She emphasized that compliance is as easy as buying some business clothes from Goodwill.
Dem. Floor Leader Weber pointed out not even everyone in the committee room at the moment are in business attire, including herself, who just came from a physical therapy appointment. She pointed out that there are people who wear athletic shoes for medical reasons, and she pointed out that the rule may lay an extra financial burden on some members. She also pointed out the whole process may be demeaning.
Minority Leader Simpson said that as someone who has spent time as a teacher, she knows how difficult it is to enforce dress code rules. She questioned who would make decisions about what violates the rule and who would enforce them.
Deputy Speaker Smith responded that violations of this rule would be egregious and obvious, such as wearing flip flops or a WuiTang Forever shirt. He also said that it’s not expensive to comply with this proposed rule.
Speaker Packard emphasized that civility has gone down in the House over the years, and members of both parties have worn inappropriate attire. He also said he would consult Minority Leader Simpson before making decisions about enforcement.
Selected quotes:
Rep. Notter, not a member of the Rules Committee, testified, “The House of Representatives is a hallowed institution with a 200-year history. Dignity and respect should prevail. And our dress, the way we dress should reflect that. We've seen a lot of casual clothing, which cheapens the decorum. We've seen not enough clothing. We've seen ripped jeans and committee. I remember in 2008 when I was first learning about New Hampshire politics, Speaker Donna Sytek taught a class, and she said she always wore a jacket. It doesn't mean you have to go into hawk to dress properly for the House. I had a friend that served her first two terms with me. She went to Goodwill, bought two jackets, and she switched them out for those two years. And then her second term, she had a new jacket. So she had three to switch. And that was fine. So I hope that you'll agree with me and pass the amendment.”
During debate, Dem. Floor Leader Weber said, “I am well aware of the fact that I came from a physical therapy appointment today and I am wearing the equivalent of a T-shirt. I noticed that there are other members here who are not wearing constructed jackets with lapels. I don't own one with a lapel anymore. Thank God. And I'm thinking, and I actually agree very much in principle with this because as I tell my fourth graders, we are representing our town when we come to the legislature and we want to represent our town and be respectful.
“But I am thinking of the innumerable layers of what I think of as proper business attire and what other people may think of as proper business attire. And the people who may run afoul of it either because of medical conditions that require special shoes or less shoes than any of us would rather people add on or other things like that. I'm also thinking of the number of people, for example, who wear athletic shoes as opposed to what I think of as business shoes.
“And finally, with respect to the point about going to Goodwill for the jackets, every one of us makes a financial sacrifice to serve in this place. And for some of us that sacrifice is a great deal more than for others. But the whole having to figure out whether it's Goodwill, whether it's something else. It's demeaning to have to make those kinds of considerations and I'm concerned about that for those members who are making a really difficult sacrifice in order to serve in this place.
“So for those reasons, I think if you would want to prescribe no blue jeans or no ripped clothing, although I remember a member who as a matter of religious observance wore a sweatshirt that had its sleeves snipped out. I think without knowing exactly what proper business attire is, you, Mr. Speaker, are going to have a tough time of it. So for that reason, although I support it in principle, I personally will be voting no.”
Minority Leader Simpson said, “So my concern is how this will be fleshed out. I'm concerned of who is going to make the specific decisions about what business attire is. So I'm thinking of the school dress codes where there has to be: ‘How long can the skirt be?’ ‘Must you wear a skirt?’ Does what the women wear have to be a certain way and the men wear a certain way? And so I'm concerned about who's going to make those decisions and then who's going to enforce them, which is not spelled out here. So I'll be voting against this as well. Thank you.”
Deputy Speaker Smith responded, “I have more faith than that. I think the idea is we do not want a representative showing up for committee or a House session, wearing flip-flops, board shorts, and a Wu-Tang forever shirt that hasn't been washed since COVID. I mean, I think things where this rule would arise are going to be pretty obvious. I don't believe the intent is that I have to start shopping at Lord and Taylor or Brooks Brothers. I got this on clearance for 50 bucks and I'm very happy with it. I further believe that when there is an issue it'll be glaringly obvious and that the leaders of both caucuses and the House will be able to have a talk so that the member can be talked to. And I don't think we're going to be looking at skirt length, unless it's a micro skirt in which case maybe we should. But I mean beyond that, I have faith in both sides being able to work this out.”
Minority Leader Simpson responded, “Having taught school, sometimes I have a little less faith than you do representatives that in how easily this will be to work out so I hope to be included in conversations about how we're going to operationalize this should it pass today.”
Speaker Packard said, “Well, I was not going to talk on any of these but I think on this one. I definitely agree that along with discipline and civility in the house, we have gone downhill over the number of past number of years. I'm looking at something that's egregious, which both sides have done in the past three or four years. Offensive t-shirts or things of that nature that I've seen both sides wear or somebody coming in and farmer jeans or something like that. I'm not going to get involved in somebody that might come in in a dress shirt and a jacket and maybe have jeans on. Would that probably not be proper attire? Yes. But I think we have to use common sense here. I think this is just a way for us to stop the egregious stuff that we've seen over the past few years. And yes, Representative Simpson, I will consult you.”
Bill Copies Amendment
Rules Committee unanimously recommended. Deputy Speaker Smith proposed the rule change.
Amend House Rule 43 to read as follows:
43. Clerk to provide Chairman’s copies, bill copies for distribution. After each bill has been numbered and referred by the Speaker to the appropriate committee, the Clerk shall provide a copy to the committee chairman and procure a sufficient number of copies for distribution.
Summary:
The Clerk of the House says this is a housekeeping amendment so that the rules better accord with how things are currently done.
Selected Quotes and Context:
Deputy Speaker Smith yielded to Clerk of the House Paul Smith.
The Clerk said, “This is a change that I had proposed to Rep. Smith. All it does is basically put into reality what our practice has been for the last several years. … And this is really just a housekeeping amendment to just say that after each bill has been numbered, we'll procure a sufficient number of copies. … This was a discussion between committee services, the Senate clerk's office, my office many years ago, and that's why that process has changed. So we were just suggesting a quick update to housekeeping.”
Refer to Table Rule Amendment
Rules Committee recommended on a party-line vote.
*The following amendment is one amendment to House Rules, affecting three different rules:
Amend House Rule 44 by adding a phrase and new paragraph (f) as follows:
44. Hearings and notices. A hearing shall be held on each bill referred to a committee, unless as provided for below. Notice of committee action shall be posted as follows:
(f) A committee may forego a public hearing on a bill with a motion of Refer to table if 3/4 of the committee votes in favor thereof.
Amend House Rule 45 (a) to read as follows:
45. Reporting of bills; committee reports; retained bills; Interim Study as a 2nd-year report; printing of committee reports and amendments; Part I, Article 28-a Constitutional compliance.
(a) All bills in the possession of committees shall be reported out by the date specified in Rule 66 with one of the following recommendations: Ought to Pass, Ought to Pass with Amendment, Inexpedient to Legislate, Refer for Interim Study, Refer to Table, or Recommended but to be Laid Upon the Table Because of Funding. All bills retained by a vote of the committee for action in the second year session shall be included on a list provided to the House Clerk on or prior to the deadlines specified in Rule 66. Refer for Interim Study shall be a committee report only in the second-year session. The Committee, as its Interim Study final report, shall submit its findings and any recommendations.
Amend House Rules by adding a new House Rule 52, and renumbering succeeding rules, as follows:
52. Table Calendar. A bill having been reported out of committee with a motion of Refer to Table, shall appear on the Table Calendar. A majority of the members present and voting may remove a bill from the Table Calendar. Any bill removed from the Table Calendar will be recommitted to the committee for further consideration, provided it has not passed the deadline as stated in Rule 66.
Summary:
Republican Leadership pushed for this bill and it was publicly supported in an op-ed by Rep. Dan McGuire (R). Arguments for tend to emphasize the number of bills the House has to go through each year and that the purpose of this rule change is to make that more manageable. Arguments against tend to emphasize that this tamps down the public’s ability to be heard on issues important to them, it hampers political participation.
Both left-leaning and right-leaning advocacy groups came out in opposition to this rule change.
Steve MacDonald, owner of Grok Media LLC, said that he heard that the amendment will be tabled first thing in the morning.
Selected quotes and context:
In the committee hearing, Speaker Packard said, “We have been talking about … ways to try and streamline our process of the extreme number of bills that we've been getting year after year. It's getting to the point where we're going to have trouble retaining members. We're going to have trouble getting members to sit on a committee and it's going to get more and more difficult if we don't find some ways to start reducing the number of bills that every committee has to hear. … I just think it's worth giving it a try. … I just feel that this is at least one first step. If it doesn't work, we can get rid of it.”
According to Ballotopedia, 92 out of nearly 400 State Representative incumbents did not file for re-election in 2024, and an average of 101 State Representative incumbents did not file for re-election from 2010 to 2022. The Speaker seems to be suggesting that this number would go up if the House does not gain better control over the number of committee hearings.
House Democratic Floor Leader Lucy Weber was against the amendment. She said in the committee hearing, “I realize we can change all of our rules at any time, but one of the things that I am concerned about is unbelievably irritating as some of our debates are to me, removing all possibility of debate of a bill from the house is entirely against all of the traditions that have been in place since I've been here. And when I discuss them with other places, I find that the more that people say, ‘are you out of your mind to do it that way?’ the more I value that we do it our way, irritating as it may be. And the idea that a super majority of a single committee can effectively override the will of a majority of the house—or potentially—is troubling to me.”
Rep. Dan McGuire (R) wrote an op-ed in InDepthNH arguing for the rule change saying, “As you can imagine, some of those bills are obvious stinkers that have been thoroughly rejected in previous years. Some may be duplicates or near-duplicates of other bills on the same subject. This rules change could give committees more time to consider worthwhile legislation, resulting in a better work product.” In an article by Ethan Dewitt of the New Hampshire Bulletin, “McGuire predicts the rule will be invoked sparingly if it passes” today. The article reported Rep. McGuire saying, “Is this going to be used for 10 percent of bills? I don’t think so.”
Rep. McGuire wrote his op-ed in response to an op-ed in InDepthNH by former State Rep. Marjorie Porter. She called the rule change the power to “pocket veto” a bill. She said, “Our rules require every bill must have a public hearing, so the people can make their voices heard. We are unique in this way, and proudly so. Other states allow citizens to vote on ballot initiatives—changes to laws the people, not the legislature, want. In NH, we do not allow ballot initiatives. It’s always been argued that with our very large citizen legislature we can ask our local reps to file a bill for us. As all bills must have a hearing, the public has a chance to advocate directly for the changes they want. … In the Live Free or Die state, the peoples’ [sic] voices should be heard.”
The Charlotte Matherly of the Concord Monitor wrote an article about the rule change, which talks about constituent Jean Slepian’s objections, pointing out that “why would people bother to make long trips to the State House or take time off work if they may not even get a chance to speak?” Slepian said that the rule change would discourage “what legislators often say they want more of: public participation.”
Dewitt’s article in the Bulletin also discussed Open Democracy Executive Director Olivia Zink’s argument: “Legislation does not become law all at once. Sometimes, certain ideas need years to take root in the Legislature, and public hearings are important to that process, she said, even when the bill’s prospects seem low.” Zink talked about Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The article said, “New Hampshire was one of the last states to adopt it as a state holiday, doing so in 2000 under Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, 17 years after President Ronald Reagan had made it a federal holiday. That happened after years of attempted legislative bills—and public hearings—until the effort broke through.” Zink said, “And it did take multiple years of that bill being introduced and failing before it actually saw the light of day.”
Doris Hohensee wrote in Granite Grok, “It’s beneficial to have public hearings even for seemingly unpopular bills. Legislative services has been known to confuse a bill to the point where a sponsor may need a hearing to clarify it. A committee may believe a bill has no support or chance of passage, yet the public may show up to disprove that assumption.”
CNHT wrote in Granite Grok that a motion to Refer to Table would mean that “the topic would not be discussed in committee, either on the merits of the issue or the bill proposal. … Meanwhile, you and other witnesses will sit there in the room denied, prohibited from giving your testimony.
Cornerstone Action wrote in Granite Grok, “The proposed amendment is an attack on bills heard in committees that often lack fair representation on certain issues.” Cornerstone Action emphasized how the House Judiciary Committee is often “stacked” with a “pro-abortion” majority.
RebuildNH wrote talking points against the amendment. According to its About page, it’s “a grassroots movement of citizens who opposed the COVID tyranny of lockdowns, unconstitutional executive overreach, church and school closures, and mask mandates, then later the corruption of science, vaccine mandates, and all manner of infringements on health and personal freedom.” NH Family Justice also quoted from RebuildNH’s talking points.
Steve MacDonald, owner of Grok Media LLC, wrote against the amendment and said that the amendment was “probably dead.” According to Granite Grok’s About page: “We ARE your feared: Fire-breathing, right-wing, hard-charging, gun-toting, opinionated, outspoken, rabble-rousing, letter-writing, radio microphone stomping, Conservatives and Rational Libertarians!”
MacDonald said in the article, “I’ve just learned that all this noise will likely result in the amendment being tabled first thing tomorrow morning. How Ironic, if true. May I make a suggestion not that leadership ever runs anything by us or takes our advice? In the future, if you want to mess with public hearings, issue a press release with your understanding of how you think you meant this to work. It will still get picked apart, but given what happened this time, perhaps you can write it to address these concerns before anyone takes you to the woodshed.”
I talked to my father, Bernie Horn who is the Senior Director for Policy and Communications at the Public Leadership Institute in Washington, DC, about the change, and he was against it. He expressed over email to me that it would be egregious “if a committee votes to table a bill and not have a hearing on the day of the hearing.” My father suggested that if opponents of the rule change believe it will pass, they could propose a change. The amendment could specify that a bill can only be placed on the Table Calendar by a 3/4 vote at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. He agreed with constituent Slepian that it would be especially egregious “to have a citizen come to a meeting for a scheduled bill and THEN not be allowed to speak.”
Autistic Poem of the Day
 |
Varied Hues by Kathleendallma
The world, not us, builds walls so high,
And calls us “other” in its eye.
Yet who we are, we need not change—
Just let the world be rearranged.