« Ind. Courts - St. Joe and Marion County prosecutor's races | Main | Ind. Law - More on proposed telecommunications overhaul »

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Ind. Gov't. - Two columnists today focus on House video record; concerns about the video record

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener of the Louisville Courier Journal has a column today headlined "Contentious General Assembly debates a sign of democracy in action" featuring debates available via the House video archive. Some quotes:

[T]his year, particularly in the House, it's been hard to go even a few hours without a contentious debate filled with sometimes fascinating, sometimes exhausting give-and-take of ideas.

That's in part because it's an election year and Republicans control the House by a mere two-seat majority. So it will be a bitter battle in a dozen or so competitive districts as each side tries to win control for 2007 and 2008.

During the session, the parties are trying to position themselves with arguments, policies and proposals they believe will help them or hurt the other party in the election.

That's led to some contentious debate in the House that sometimes crosses what legislative leaders believe is an invisible (and ever-moving) line of decorum.

But this year's robust debate also is about the issues at hand.

Re the toll road leasing bill and several other bills:
Republicans like it. Democrats are suspect. And last week, the resulting debate -- while sometimes political -- also was the kind of clash of ideas that are hallmarks of democracy.

It lasted four hours. More than one-third of the chamber's 100 members spoke. And it was frustrating for some because the outcome of the bill was essentially predetermined. It seems nobody changed anyone's minds during the discussion.

But those who were listening -- whether in person or on the Internet -- could have learned a lot about the philosophies of the lawmakers debating the bill.

You can go back and listen to it -- or just parts of it -- at www.in.gov/legislative. Click on "Watch the General Assembly" and then on "House Video Archive." Then click on "February 1."

Perhaps most notable among the speakers was the bill's sponsor, Rep. Randy Borror, R-Fort Wayne, who explained the basics of the bill and talked about what he considered "fallacies" of the opponents. He starts talking about 7 1/2 minutes into the session day.

Later, there were passionate speeches by a number of lawmakers, including Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Lakeville, and Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City. And there's a classic give –and take between Borror and Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, which appears about an hour and nine minutes into the second audio file.

Also last week, lawmakers debated two controversial abortion bills as well as divisive legislation about education issues.

But the most passionate debate this year came on a bill that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving any state social services. There were a number of good speeches on that debate, which can be found near the end of the audio file for "February 2."

The most stirring came from Rep. Mike Murphy, R-Indianapolis, who talked about fairness and the Constitution. But it was silent in the chamber as he quoted the Bible.

The standing ovation from lawmakers -- Republicans and Democrats, those who voted for and against the bill -- was long and loud. The bill was defeated.

I've highlighted the use of "time-markers" in the LCJ story, and in the following quotes.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette today, in a column covering a number of different items, also uses a "time-marker." Under the heading "Smackdown hits nerve", the column reports that Rep. Win Moses (D- Fort Wayne) aggressively questioned Rep. Randy Borror, R-Fort Wayne on the toll road bill:

House Speaker Brian Bosma also took note of the uncomfortable exchange between the two. When a similar situation arose the next day between two other lawmakers, Bosma stopped it.

“It’s not a deposition. It’s not a cross-examination,” he said. “We’ve been very lenient yesterday and today. Yesterday got a little out of hand.”

Moses added that he holds nothing personal against Borror, and he tried to lighten the mood the next day when Borror came up for another bill.

Moses walked to the front of the chamber where members mumbled under their breaths that he might go after Borror again. Instead, he congratulated Borror on a good bill and said the other lawmakers should pass it, a comment met with loud cheering and clapping.

To see the heated 15-minute debate between Moses and Borror, go to www.in.gov/legislative and hit the link on the right side of the page to watch the General Assembly. Once there, go to the House video archive – Feb. 1, Part 2 – and fast-forward to 1:09 minutes.

Concerns. One concern is illustrated in the following, also from today's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette column:
Allowing Hoosiers to watch the House floor debate via the Internet has been a welcome move forward into the 21st century. But what happens when a member goes too far?

House Speaker Brian Bosma was faced with that situation last week when one Republican member during debate on a bill made an inside joke about another GOP lawmaker that was construed by many to be an allegation of marital infidelity. And he did so knowing the other man’s wife was watching the proceedings on the Internet.

Bosma immediately chastised the member, who later gave a quick apology. But the damage was done.

The question then became, what do they do about the joke on the Internet archive? In the end, Bosma and House Democratic Leader Pat Bauer agreed on a motion to allow the lawmaker to withdraw his comments from the permanent record, which includes the Internet. By the next morning, the online video had been spliced in a way that cut out the comment.

Everyone seemed to agree on removing this particular item, but there are no rules written into House procedure on the issue. So what happens if a member simply embarrasses himself and wants to remove that?

Those are questions Bosma is struggling with. “This is the first time we had to deal with this issue, and we had to make some hasty decisions, maybe I should say prompt decisions, on the matter,” he said. “We are at least setting some temporary precedent until our rules can be expanded to cover this issue.”

Bosma also promised he would never unilaterally alter the video record and hopes future Speakers would not as well.

One question is - is there a record of the motion? Is the motion in the video archive? Is the motion in the House Journals? Or was history erased, without a trace?

More questions. The video archives of the Indiana House sessions are important Indiana historical documents. The Indiana Senate does not even maintain an archive of its session days. The House, to its credit, does, at least during the session.

But where is the archive of the 2005 House session? This was removed from the General Assembly website when this year's session began. Perhaps this historical treasure trove was summarily pitched. If not, it should again be made accessible online for the citizens of the State. And why not post them as video podcasts, so that citizens can download them and view them more easily. Many citizens do not have internet connections that permit viewing multi-hour sessions without tecnhical interference.

Thoughts. It is time for the General Assembly to move into the 21st century. Rep. Bosma has made a good start. But why leave the way our General Assembly's history is recorded and maintained up to the judgment of each individual House and Senate leader? Put it in law.

There is a law, found at IC 2-5-1.1-12.1, and 13 through 16. It is a hesitant first step. Parts of it are troubling. For instance, Section 13(d) seems to say that it was alright for the Louisville Courier Journal and Fort Wayne Journal Gazette to do what they did today -- to point to sections of the video archive, without obtaining prior approval from the General Assembly. But I have read it three times and I'm still not sure the law allows it, although I know the Constitution does.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 5, 2006 08:03 AM
Posted to Indiana Government | Indiana Law