« DPNM Chairman Gonzales Calls on Susana Martinez to Terminate State Staffer(s) Responsible for Sending Racist Email | Main | As Holiday Weekend Approaches, ACLU NM Issues Alert To NM Residents Traveling To Arizona »

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Webcasting Approved for Interim Committee Meetings of NM Legislature

HSTEI This week, members of the New Mexico Legislative Council voted unanimously to approve webcasting of interim committee meetings. The decision was applauded by Rep. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), who helped pass legislation to start webcasting committee meetings during the regular session. Steinborn was also the first to introduce a joint memorial during the regular session to webcast interim committee meetings.

“This is another step in the right direction. We are always looking for ways to make government more transparent and accessible to the public. Webcasting is a useful service for our constituents,” Steinborn said in a written statement.

Webcasts of interim committee meetings will be broadcast in the same manner as regular session committee meetings, as live streams on the Legislature website. They will not be archived. In the past, interim committee meetings have been held around the state. This year, due to budget constraints, the meetings are being held in Santa Fe.

The schedule for interim committee meetings can be found on the legislative website.

June 30, 2010 at 09:11 AM in NM Legislature 2010, Transparency, Web/Tech | Permalink


I would like someone to answer this question; why should we settle for (less than) "half a loaf" of webcasting?

I'm not sure that people understand how little transparency they have begrudgingly agreed to; audio only - with no good way of telling who is speaking, and no archiving - no way of reviewing something if you miss it the first time around.

For the overwhelming majority of New Mexicans, this settlement offers no improvement at all.

Do we not deserve to see and hear our representatives deliberating on the spending of our power and resources?

There is no good and ethical reason the our legislature cannot set the bar for legislative webcasting. The only reason at all is, the lack of will of those who represent us.

There is no government of the people and by the people, without the people(s) fully informed participation.

Why be satisfied with less than the best?

Before you suggest that we cannot afford it, be sure to cite some facts - the majority of those in the know, know that the cost for even the most robust webcasting represents a statistically insignificant portion of the budget - tens of thousands of dollars in a $5.5B budget; one thousandth of what we will spend running an empty train up and down the Rio Grande Valley.

Posted by: ched macquigg | Jun 30, 2010 5:07:32 PM

So in our earlier history, how was the citizens' informed participation? This is a big improvement and as always it takes time for new things to be adopted.

If political reporters weren't so lazy and news organizations so caught up in trivia we could get much better coverage from them.

Funny you come across as a Luddite when you talk about public transportation yet you want only the best for the 100 people who would watch the webcasts.

Posted by: CF | Jun 30, 2010 5:53:30 PM

Luddite, indeed. Ignoring your need to to attack the messenger, there is a difference between a need for public transportation, the ability to pay for public transportation, and the decision to pay for one thing instead of something else if there is not money for both.

Before I would buy a train, I would buy a method of folding stakeholders into the decision about whether or not they want to pay for a train.

In any event, the point has nothing to do with whether or not the train is a good idea, but rather to put into perspective the costs of webcasting which is unknown to most,and the cost of the rail runner which is a little more familiar.

How about this, for less than the cost of a single PIO, whose job is to spin the truth about the spending of our power and resources, we could actually watch them being spent.

As far as your completely unsubstantiated, and historically inaccurate (as evidenced by the participation in the weblogging of the of regular session) guesstimate about how many people might watch, it isn't about watching live, as it is about modern pamphleteers (bloggers) and legacy press being able to link to history instead simply recounting it.

You have not moved me.

Posted by: ched macquigg | Jun 30, 2010 9:21:17 PM

Oh Ched just wants what he wants and thinks everyone should want that too and what he gets is never good enough. Politics is compromise get used to it.

Posted by: Pete | Jun 30, 2010 10:35:09 PM


Apparently the state is going to be $160M short on medicaid. So which would you rather have, $50M to help out the poor, or a train nobody rides? Let me guess; you'd just raise "rich peoples" taxes and fund them both, and every other boondoggle you can think of.

I notice you have offered no argument, sound or otherwise on the subject of the post and thread, why robust webcasting to an archive is not a reasonable expectation. Surprise, surprise.

How about the culture of corruption and incompetence in state government - are you going to compromise on that too? Do you agree with CF, it takes time and we should get used to it?

Why can't you people discuss politics without name calling,hatred and bigotry?- just curious.

Posted by: ched macquigg | Jun 30, 2010 10:55:22 PM