Thursday, February 04, 2010
Rep. Jeff Steinborn's Resolution to Require Webcasting of Interim Committees Heads to House Floor
Great to see progress on this government transparency legislation. Under legislation sponsored by Rep. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), the audio and video broadcasting of legislative interim committees would be required beginning this year. House Joint Memorial 15 unanimously passed the House Appropriations and Finance Committee. It now heads to the House floor for consideration.
“Interim committees play an important role in our process," Rep. Steinborn said in a statement released by the House Democrats. "Legislative policy and budgetary recommendations are all developed in the interim committee process. Broadcasting these meetings would provide an incredible opportunity to expand the participation of both legislators and interested citizens -- all from the convenience of their home or office computer. Additionally, this technology offers the opportunity to save the state money because legislators will be able to listen to meetings without having to travel and all the expenses that go along with that.”
House Joint Memorial 15 directs the Legislative Council Service to begin deploying webcast technology to interim committees this year. Interim committees meet between legislative sessions and are comprised of both Senate and House members. These committees meet all over the state, including at the State Capitol.
There currently is no rule or requirement providing direction of establishing webcasting for interim committees.
While legislation beginning webcasting is a step forward, the refusal to put the recordings in a searchable archive speaks to the real unwillingness to be held honestly accountable for what they do and say in committee meetings and on the floor.
It would be a real shame if this was all we got.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 5, 2010 7:00:28 AM
I'm shocked that Ched would be pushing for a searchable archive. It would cost a significant amount of money to create and maintain it. When money is for something he wants I guess it's ok
Posted by: Sean | Feb 5, 2010 8:14:26 AM
Less than $200K, way less, is not significant in a four and half billion dollar budget. One less UNM Vice President would cover it.
What is with your attitude? Are you so convinced that you are right about everything, that you will not even allow any other opinion to be expressed?
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 5, 2010 1:53:41 PM
Where did you get that figure? Out of your ass?
Posted by: Sean | Feb 5, 2010 3:58:41 PM
It comes from the Legislative Council Service, the agency that is responsible for the camera and staffing of archivists.
What are you, twelve?
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 5, 2010 7:29:06 PM
I don't see your cite to the information Ched. Funny you say $200,000 isn't much but Janice Arnold Jones and her Republican pals think the domestic partnership bill to give people basic civil rights is too expensive. Izzell complained about the bill's printing costs. The rest of the Republicans would rather cut education and Medicaid funding than have the rich pay a 1.5% surtax for a few years.
Everything is too expensive to Republican except if it's for one of their pet projects.
Do you support Arnold Jones' position that the domestic partner bill is a threat to the "covenant" of marriage?
Posted by: Sean | Feb 6, 2010 10:45:13 AM
There is no citation, I interviewed a staff member who asked not be be identified. There really is no dispute over the figure, I have run it by a lot of people who are in the know, and there is no dispute.
I don't know for certain, but I am fairly sure that Domestic Partnership rights are not being "denied" as a function of cost- I again, I just don't know.
I choose to ignore your anti-Republican bigotry regarding relative importance and funding priorities - you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how bigoted it sounds.
I do not support JAJ's position on Domestic partnerships. I do know her well enough to know that her decision is based in principle and not on denying equal treatment of human beings according to their sexual preference.
The fact that the bill is over 800 pages long, is problematic.
If you want to discuss her position statement, I would suggest you contact her directly, through her website. It is not my place to explain or defend her position on any issue.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 6, 2010 1:05:40 PM
Hilarious. You tout Arnold Jones as the savior governor but you don't know her positions? What the hell kind of principle on her part would stop her from supporting somewhat more equal rights under civil law for gays & lesbians? Maybe she is defending the kind of marriage that is on display on the front page of the Journal today. Some 3 times married woman who killed her second husband and had her son help bury him in the yard.
Posted by: Queer | Feb 6, 2010 1:27:26 PM
I didn't say I didn't know her position; I said it is not my place to defend it.
Domestic partnerships are obviously a priority of yours, maybe even your only priority. I have others.
In my opinion, a "savior" governor ends public corruption and incompetence and offers stakeholder a seat at the table.
Your "savior" will guarantee domestic partnerships.
You go your way, I'll go mine.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 6, 2010 4:17:27 PM
Ched is like clockwork. No matter what Democrats do it's not enough. No matter what Arnold Jones does or doesn't do she is spotless and wonderful. The only people she would give a seat at the table would be right wing, backwards looking Republicans like herself.
The only thing she has ever achieved in the legislature is putting a camera in her committee. Name another accomplishment with any value.
Some people are very easily fooled. A person who does not support equal civil rights for all is not a person with admirable values.
Posted by: Old Dem | Feb 6, 2010 5:04:23 PM
If you are suggesting that JAJ is does not support equal rights, you are wrong.
Thank you for your ad hominem attack and the validation it implies.
Carrying her webcam into the legislature in support of her belief in transparently accountable government required more courage than you apparently are able to understand.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and suppose that you have not even gone to her website to read her position on domestic partnerships. I'm right aren't I?
And what is with your vitriol, is that a Democratic Party value that you are passing on to your offspring?
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 6, 2010 5:20:08 PM
I'm going to step in here Ched and answer you. NO, Janice Arnold Jones does NOT support equal rights for lesbians like myself and my partner. She does not even support domestic partnerships, which is hardly granting full equal rights. Here's what she told the Journal about this year's bill:
"While I have not read Senate Bill 183, the domestic partnership bill sounds an awful lot like marriage. I have voted to defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman, as it is the covenant that anchors civilization. I will not support marriage by another name and would therefore veto this bill [if she were governor]."
Does that sound like she supports equal rights for me? She thinks the bill SOUNDS like marriage? Wow, that's a great basis for her vote. She talks about a COVENANT with all its religious connotations. Wake up Janice, marriage in America entails a civil license and a justice of the peace. Marriage DOES NOT require a church ceremony.
Arnold Jones is spouting the same bigoted view that her religious beliefs should be obeyed by all Americans. As for her view that civilization will become unanchored if LGBT people can get rights for their relationships under civil law, I guess she believes that Spain, Portugal, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Canada and many other nations are falling apart because their gay citizens' domestic arrangements are protected by law.
If you think carrying a camera into a meeting room requires courage, you should try living as a gay or lesbian person in the climate of hate and discrimination nurtured by Arnold Jones and her ilk.
Posted by: barb | Feb 6, 2010 10:49:18 PM
I agree with Barb. And I still don't see any accomplishments listed for Arnold Jones.
Posted by: Old Dem | Feb 6, 2010 11:41:07 PM
As I have written previously, I do not speak for JAJ.
On her website, on the subject of domestic partnerships she writes;
There are many reasons people live together. When people live together, share assets, and have a mutually desired interest in a companion’s well-being there should be easily accessible legal safeguards that can be executed to establish standing.
If you can, without all of the vitriol, point to the shortcoming, and then we can discuss it.
Posted by: ched macquigg | Feb 7, 2010 6:40:58 AM