Senate Rules Reform Report Delayed

All over the state? (0.00 / 0)

Hope the rules committee makes the changes we've been waiting for and then implement them pronto. Not wait to implement them until its convenient for whoever.  By the way, when did the whole state of New York become Syracuse to Long Island...what happened to Buffalo, Rochester, Watertown, Potsdam, Jamestown...etc?   Okay, now give the "first post" bashing.

---

by: thepeople @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:48:01 AM UTC

First post bashing? (0.00 / 0)

I won't be providing it. But there is a reason why I said all over the state from Long Island to Syracuse. If I said "all over the state," that would imply that they held hearings, well, all over the state. They did not. So I added the Long Island-Syracuse piece in there for specifics.

If you were here at the time and read my posts on this, you would have known that I expressed disappointment that they wouldn't hold hearings in Buffalo or Rochester. Syracuse is nice (convenient for Valesky, who is one of the co-chairs) but not having a hearing in New York's second and third largest cities? I thought that was a little odd.

We will see what the report says on April 24. And keep in mind that this is just a report. You never know what recommendations the Senate will accept or decline.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 11:30:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

Sorry I missed your previous posts on this issue regarding the locations of the hearings. Ill try to visit more often, im just hoping that it doesnt take years, more specifically a year and half to impose these rules. We voted for these senators on their promise of change, so id expect it to occur relatively soon.  

---

by: thepeople @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 15:51:15 PM UTC

Limited hearings (4.00 / 1)

Even in NYC, the hearing was strictly limited -- only a few people were invited to testify, or even to submit written suggestions.  Everyone else was invited to make a YouTube video, but that's it.

Which leads to rules reform suggestion #1 -- let the public in.  Public hearings in the New York City Council (the committee hearings, that it) are open to the public.  Granted, people are only allowed two minutes, but if you have a point to make you can usually make it within two mintues.  If the point is larger than that, the solution is to get a group together and organize, so that everyone makes part of the point.  Committees are very willing to let groups testify together so that the full argument can be made.

I'm still optimistic about the final report.  Both Majority Leader Smith and the committee's executive director are reform-minded.  The real fight will probably begin after the committee report is released, as the forces of the status quo fight back.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 21:12:29 PM UTC

Two minutes is plenty... (0.00 / 0)

I have been at meetings where there are no time limits. People usually speak for two or three minutes, at the most. Once you implement a time limit, some people take that as a restriction. I don't. It prevents the guy who stands up there rambling about how government is terrible for 15 minutes (and yes, I have seen it happen) while others are waiting to ask serious questions or make legitimate points.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 23:35:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two minutes should be enough for everyone (0.00 / 0)

The longer they give me, the longer I'll speak, because I can make extra points in the extra time.  But...

In my experience at the NYC Council hearings, many people have no idea how long two minutes is (they never bothered to read their testimony aloud and find out just how long it takes to read it).  Generally, two minutes is about half a page worth of testimony, but many people show up with three or four pages (or more), and then start reciting all of it.  The bell rings, indicating that their time is up, but they plow on as if they were oblivious to the noise (they may actually be that self-centered).

After another minute or so, the committee chairperson will ask the poor schmuck to wrap up, which usually results in another half minute of droning on.  Finally, after three or four more all-too-polite requests from the chairperson, we are put out of our misery.  Once in a while, a committee chairperson makes it clear that two minutes does not mean three, or three and a half, and sticks to that right from the start, but it's very rare.

The other problem is that before the general public is allowed to testify, the insiders get their chance -- and they have no time limit.  I have heard invited speakers go through 24 pages of testimony, word for word, followed by another half an hour of questions from committee members (usually because the press is there, and everyone wants to be in the news cycle).

Speaking of the press, they usually leave before the general public gets to testify, which is a rotten trick, since the general public usually has more to say than the invited guests.

Ideally, in this situation I'd love to have a comrade close by, with access to a computer and printer.  During the early testimony, I could revise what I plan to say, e-mail the revisions to my friend (it helps to have an iPhone), who types it, prints it, and gets me the copies in time for my turn to speak.  Someday...

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 04:52:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]