Insider Hearings Rampant in Olympia
Posted by Amber Gunn - March 10, 2010What do Olympia insiders know that the public doesn't? Apparently a good deal.
Another last-minute "public" hearing on a ghost bill took place in the House Ways & Means Committee today at noon. We might as well start calling these displays what they are: insider hearings. The proposed text for HB 2365, nebulously entitled "Relating to general government programs to implement the 2009-11 operating budget," was not available to the public until the start of the hearing.As it turned out, the bill was a resurrection of a failed Senate bill that was voted down on March 8.
Given the fact that the text of the bill was not available until the hearing started, it was baffling that several interested parties showed up to testify for or against specific parts of the bill, mostly in relation to the proposal to slap a $1 surcharge every six months on car insurance policies to prevent auto theft. Nevermind the fact that the legislature raided the auto theft prevention account in last year's budget to fund other priorities.
Several questions come to mind here:
1) Why is the House holding a hearing on a bill that already failed the Senate?
2) Why bother to hold a public hearing with only a few hours' notice on a bill that the public hasn't had time to review? (I've asked this question before).
3) How is it that several interested parties knew the content of the bill in advance, but the public didn't? Interested members of law enforcement, defense attorneys and prosecutors all praised the bill, and a couple of insurance lobbyists disparaged it.
So much for transparency and public participation. It's hardly earth-shattering news that insiders run the show in politics. That's why safeguards exist, such as requiring five-day notices before public hearings occur, prohibiting public hearings on title-only bills, etc. But these safeguards can be waived by legislators, and they've clearly made good use of that power. Though the public's opportunity to meaningfully participate has been shoved aside with this and various other ghost bills that have popped up this legislative session, obviously the Olympia insiders are still getting a heads up. If only we commoners were so lucky.
Thoughts? Add Comment -
km said on Mar 10 2010 at 3:56pm
Amber: This process is anathema to me.
While we selected these folks to go to Olympia and make decisions for us; we didn't authorize them to do so without reasonable transparency and the opportunity for public input.
The sponsors of these bills should be listed in your article, so that their constituents can see what their representatives are doing.
Amber Gunn said on Mar 11 2010 at 1:35pm
Yes, the only thing that will protect citizens from this kind of garbage is a constitutional amendment. That's what I would suggest.