miller hudson
For the first time in years, I find myself frequently attending legislative committee hearings at the Colorado State Capitol. A lot has changed recently. Some things have changed for the better, while others may seem like not much has changed. Minority members, now Republicans, are reportedly unhappy with how the Democratic committee chairs are managing testimony. Historically, the chair has asked bill sponsors if there are any specific witnesses they would like to have testify first. Admittedly, this favors the proponents, but let's be honest: Members of Congress themselves are often the ones who have the toughest grip on the bills they have. Expert witnesses can reveal the who, what, and why of this bill.
It is up to committee members to bring out these issues during the post-introduction question period by the sponsors of a particular bill. Sponsors typically bring several key supporters to the hearing and provide detailed answers. In order to ensure equal treatment, notaries are usually limited to only a few minutes and are strictly enforced. Supporters and opponents alike no longer arrange travel for expert testimony under these restrictions. In their absence, something has been lost for both the people and the legislators. No one can explain a 50-page bill or his 100-page bill by connecting the different provisions in a way that's easy to understand. We can identify experienced and expert witnesses, usually lobbyists, who are prepared and timed to speak quickly to these narrow windows.
Stay informed: Sign up for the daily opinion in your inbox, Monday through Friday
Debate would be greatly improved if a limited number of 10-minute slots were available to pre-qualified protagonists. Before the online era, witnesses who were physically present testified by physically signing a piece of paper, and their testimony was called in order of appearance. Currently, only committee staff and committee chairs know who has signed in and when. People who appear to support the bill and those who oppose it take turns testifying, and a panel of four to five witnesses selected from a sign-in list answers with a yes or no. This does not result in a coherent argument, as successive witnesses may represent vastly different views. A thoughtful analysis by one speaker can be immediately followed by a crazy, paranoid exegesis that throws the audience into the underworld.
And then there's Zoom. A legacy of COVID-19, the benefit is that residents within the state can attend public hearings without having to travel to Denver, thereby avoiding wasted travel time and expense. At the same time, this significant increase in participation shortens the opportunity to speak. Testimony becomes repetitive and redundant as alternate versions of “me too” dominate the conversation. I can't help but think it would be in everyone's interest to have some kind of online voting app. You can also tally “for or against”, fully aware that this mechanism can be regularly “gamed” by the most harmful opinions. Alternatively, observers could vote likes and score each comment after each presentation.
Another shortcoming of the current arrangement is the utter disdain shown by members of Congress toward citizen speakers, an issue that is entirely bipartisan. As testimony takes place by drone, committee members respond to emails on tablets, browse the internet on cellphones and enter and exit hearing rooms. While the zoomer may not be aware of this behavior, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is actually present. However, one cannot help but feel some sympathy for the short intervals given to the testimonies and their repetitiveness that fails to capture the attention of those present. Public opinion turns into a farce in which all participants play their part.
This is a serious problem. If the bill is important to leadership or Gov. Jared Polis, there is no real chance to persuade them because promises are obtained behind closed doors before public hearings. So what is the point of listening carefully? We set up a deliberation process without any deliberation. Just as the introduction of sophisticated, virtually invisible messaging applications contributed to the “transparency” violations that surfaced last year and were covered up this year, the legislative process has contributed to what I call “the government's Let's pretend. Let's pretend we care. Let's pretend we're motivated by a commitment to the greater good. Let's pretend we care. Let's pretend we're motivated by a commitment to the greater good. Let's pretend we're listening. We just say we did it, and if they say they didn't, we call them liars.
When I was a business owner, I believed in management by “walking the walk.” When something goes wrong in an organization, the first people to notice are the employees doing the work. On Capitol Hill, many members know the system is flawed. They are happy to complain privately, but are afraid to talk about their concerns in public. The time has come for an interim committee that includes lobbyists, interest groups, and legislators to develop recommendations to improve the efficiency, integrity, and effectiveness of the Colorado Legislature. A college admissions consultant recently pointed out that getting into a top American university depends on how good you really look. Discipline, persistence, and even grades are far less important. That sounds a lot like some of our congressmen.
Miller Hudson is a public relations consultant and former Colorado state legislator.
