One of the hallmarks of representative government is the ability of the public to express their views to those in power. Generally speaking, the closer politicians are to the people, the more likely they are to reflect the views of their constituents.
So, it is understandable that some private citizens and representatives of interest groups are expressing their dissatisfaction with a proposed change in House of Delegates rules that would eliminate public hearings on proposed legislation.
Current rules allow any House member or citizen to call for a public hearing on a bill once the bill is placed on a committee agenda. The change proposed by House Speaker Roger Hanshaw strikes that rule.
In its place, the new rule allows individuals to file comments that will be part of the official record available to legislators in their information packets. More importantly, however, the proposed rule requires the deliberative process to include three separate days of consideration: A hearing, markup and deliberation, which will be the voting stage.
The proposed rule states that the hearing “consists of examining proposed legislation; a sponsor explaining the legislation and answering questions; and the taking of testimony” [emphasis added]. This is an important change.
At a pubic hearing, witnesses just speak. When there are a lot of witnesses, the allotted time can be limited to a minute or so. The themes of the speakers often overlap and there is no questioning or fact checking. More importantly, these hearings are often sparsely attended by the very legislators who will make decisions about the bill. Rarely does a public hearing have a significant impact on legislation.
My understanding is that House Speaker Hanshaw hopes that the testimony in committee before lawmakers will be more impactful. The bill sponsor will have to explain the bill during the hearing stage—as opposed to the committee attorney—and there will be more give and take among lawmakers and the witnesses.
In addition, if a bill goes to a subcommittee and is reported up to the standing committee, the process repeats. So, there is potential for public testimony at both stages.
This format has the potential to be more informative for lawmakers and interested parties… as long as committee chairs are faithful to an open process that values a full and fair understanding of a bill. Additionally, the chairs must ensure that the public has sufficient lead time to know when a bill is going to be up for consideration.
The three stage process also means a bill will move more slowly in the House, and that is also a positive. When making laws, the emphasis should be on quality, not quantity. More time to discuss, debate and gather information means lawmakers and the public will be better informed.
Eliminating the public hearings in the House is a sensitive issue. Opponents believe the change represents a barrier to public participation in the legislative process. However, if the new rule is executed the way Speaker Hanshaw intends, it will lead to those who make the laws hearing more directly from citizens and interest groups.
And that is the way it should work.