What Committee Chairmen Can Do

[Josh Tauberer]

Continuing on, what can committee chairmen do to support technology &
transparency? Here are some notes I've collected. If I'm missing any
interesting details or entire points, please chime in.

Where The Legislating Occurs
----------------------------

I understand that much of the real legislating in congress occurs during
markup sessions, which are essentially inaccessible to the public and
are poorly reported. What can be done about this?

Likewise, committee votes seem to be hugely important, especially
relative to their complete inaccessibility by the public. As far as I've
seen, they're usually buried as scanned images within reports.

Transcripts
-----------

Transcripts are the fastest and cheapest way to share with the public
what is happening in committee meetings, yet the review and revision
process can take months, I'm told. Is this true? Practically speaking
how long does it usually take to get a transcript? What can be done?

A review of Senate committee websites in December by someone on the list
but given to me privately indicated that less than a third of committees
make all hearing transcripts available, though the vast majority make
prepared statements available.

If not transcripts, then audio recordings are even more important. The
same review indicated no committees made audio recordings generally
available.

Video
-----

Access to video recordings of hearings and business meetings is spotty.
While hearings (but not business meetings) are often webcast, the
unavailability of full-resolution downloadable recordings prevents
journalists and the public from engaging in the issues. I'm told some
proceedings can be bought in DVD form possibly two months later, if the
staff cares to help you, and that it is a "PITA" to get credentials to
tap the video feeds coming from the cameras already installed in hearing
rooms.

Can anyone point to more information on the credentialing process?

Other Missing Data & Guidelines
-------------------------------

Republican Leader Boehner posted in March some minimum guidelines for
House committee websites.
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/03/06/leader-boehner-directs-ranking-members-to-use-web/

Committees should be clearer about explaining their role.

Senate committees seem to be pretty good about posting schedules.
There's an aggregated XML file for all upcoming committee meetings.

--
- Josh Tauberer
- GovTrack.us

http://razor.occams.info

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields
falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to
Tortoise (in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)

[John Wonderlich]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Josh Tauberer <taub...@govtrack.us> wrote:

Continuing on, what can committee chairmen do to support technology &
transparency? Here are some notes I've collected. If I'm missing any
interesting details or entire points, please chime in.

Where The Legislating Occurs
----------------------------

I understand that much of the real legislating in congress occurs during
markup sessions, which are essentially inaccessible to the public and
are poorly reported. What can be done about this?

I'd suggest that the chair's mark be online for three days before a markup, that committee schedules be posted in RSS beforehand, and that reports, committee prints, testimony etc be posted as soon as available.
 

Likewise, committee votes seem to be hugely important, especially
relative to their complete inaccessibility by the public. As far as I've
seen, they're usually buried as scanned images within reports.

Transcripts
-----------

Transcripts are the fastest and cheapest way to share with the public
what is happening in committee meetings, yet the review and revision
process can take months, I'm told. Is this true? Practically speaking
how long does it usually take to get a transcript? What can be done?

A review of Senate committee websites in December by someone on the list
but given to me privately indicated that less than a third of committees
make all hearing transcripts available, though the vast majority make
prepared statements available.

If not transcripts, then audio recordings are even more important. The
same review indicated no committees made audio recordings generally
available.

In 2007, the Senate added the requirement that committees post transcripts within 21 days of open hearings.  I think it's largely ignored.


There are also a variety of voluntary participatory measures committees can take, like inviting public commentary on pending legislation, like the Senate Finance Committee has done.  This may be outside the scope of the OSP report, but I like it.  :)

[Jones, Tom (Commerce)]

See comments below

 

-----Original Message-----
From: openhous...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Tauberer
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:09 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] What Committee Chairmen Can Do

 

 

Continuing on, what can committee chairmen do to support technology &

transparency? Here are some notes I've collected. If I'm missing any

interesting details or entire points, please chime in.

 

Where The Legislating Occurs

----------------------------

 

I understand that much of the real legislating in congress occurs during

markup sessions, which are essentially inaccessible to the public and

are poorly reported. What can be done about this?

 

Things are sometimes spotty but I wouldn’t say they’re poorly reported.  CQ does a mark-up report of every mark-up.  Yeah you have to pay for it, but they have to send someone there to do the work.   It certainly wouldn’t hurt to have committees post votes/amendments online relatively quickly after  the M-U (not volunteering for extra work! If anyone from the committee is reading)

 

Likewise, committee votes seem to be hugely important, especially

relative to their complete inaccessibility by the public. As far as I've

seen, they're usually buried as scanned images within reports.

 

Transcripts

-----------

 

Transcripts are the fastest and cheapest way to share with the public

what is happening in committee meetings, yet the review and revision

process can take months, I'm told. Is this true?

 

Yes.  Transcripts are a tedious process and their review, approval and publication takes a while.   The official GPO transcript can take months. 

 

Practically speaking

how long does it usually take to get a transcript? What can be done?

 

A couple different answers, and I will only speak to my experience.   From when the hearing ends to when we have the first draft from the transcription company we use, usually takes a week.   If its urgent I’ve seen them turned in as little as two days.  I believe some private services make them available quicker than that.  

 

There is a legitimate issue of making what the Senator said readable.  The transcripts often come back with words goofed and misspelled and words transposed.   The only editing allowed is non-substantive changes.  This is a necessary part of the process, because if we published what that the court reporter sent us in many places it would be unreadable (and not because the content was incredibly boring) 

 

As an aside I heard at one point that the Law Library of Congress was working on an online transcript library. 

 

 

 

A review of Senate committee websites in December by someone on the list

but given to me privately indicated that less than a third of committees

make all hearing transcripts available, though the vast majority make

prepared statements available.

 

“Offical transcripts” are more than just the recording of the comments of the witnesses and the Senators – often members and Senators include items in the record and these are sometimes received after the hearing concluded (most comms hold the record open for a week or two) 

 

Prepared statements are usually easier to put up because most of the time what staff write up is readable and ready for public consumption immediately.  

 

If not transcripts, then audio recordings are even more important. The

same review indicated no committees made audio recordings generally

available.

 

I think a fair number make avail video.  I know we do. For example  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=9716ac30-a07b-4a69-aec2-189ecaf1beee   video usually contains audio. 

 

Video

-----

 

Access to video recordings of hearings and business meetings is spotty.

While hearings (but not business meetings) are often webcast, the

unavailability of full-resolution downloadable recordings prevents

journalists and the public from engaging in the issues. I'm told some

proceedings can be bought in DVD form possibly two months later, if the

staff cares to help you, and that it is a "PITA" to get credentials to

tap the video feeds coming from the cameras already installed in hearing

rooms.

 

Executive Session (mark-up) information is spotty and harder to come by.  This is a problem and should be fixed. 

[Jon Henke]

Here's a very unreasonable question: Wouldn't it be more efficient if any formal activity (submitted amendments, language changes, etc) had to be submitted and conducted online?  Submit a change, vote on it, make any approved changes, move on to the next section, with everything either (a) happening online in real time, or (b) posted online immediately after.  It could happen in a single meeting, or over the course of days.   And the members would have no reason to object to the transcript, because they would be writing/authorizing everything published.

Wikipedia is obviously too informal a tool for this, but the idea of a documentable and precise process like that would make markup sessions much simpler and more accountable. 

-------------

Jon Henke

(202) 595-4323

There is a legitimate issue of making what the Senator said readable.  The transcripts often come back with words goofed and misspelled and words transposed.   The only editing allowed is non-substantive changes.  This is a necessary part of the process, because if we publishedwhat that the court reporter sent us in many places it would be unreadable (and not because the content was incredibly boring) 

[John Wonderlich]

As radical as that question may be, any reasons that that can't happen should help us identify barriers much more clearly.

I find your question to be an incredibly helpful formulation.

[Jones, Tom (Commerce)]

A couple points  - and don’t take them as objections per se, just insights. 

 

The simplest reason that working online might be a problem is that as a practical matter, Senators are old.   Not a bad thing – I want to be old one day. 

 

More seriously though, mark-ups tend to move relatively quickly.   Members and staff mark-up amendments in pen writing through words and sending the handwritten changes to the desk for consideration. …there is still a lot of crossing out shall and changing it to may.   And frankly some people like paper.

 

In fact, I’m a pretty tech savvy guy and I like marking up my bill text in pencil, scanning it and sending that back to leg counsel.  

 

Could it be done differently?  Certainly, and there’s an argument to be made that it should be.  I just don’t think we’re to the point – yet – where all business can be conducted on a laptop.  Most members would be comfortable with laptops at their spot on the dais, but I am not sure all would be.  It would certainly be something worth considering – I’m not sure what the tech challenges are, but they’re certainly surmountable. 

[Jon Henke]

I appreciate the insight.  

"Speed" and "preference for pen and paper" may be the barriers to change that will be expressed (I understand that you're explaining, not endorsing), but I think that is more of a "we've always done it this way" objection than an actual, practical barrier.  Markup sessions don't need to be in-person and brief.  They could occur over the course of a day or days.  And whether it was a brief session or a longer process, there's no reason typed messages could not be every bit as fast as handwritten messages.   If people just like paper, they could easily make their marks on paper and then have a staffer type up the change.

So, two things:

1. To respond to Wonderlich's point about identifying barriers: I suspect the only real barrier to a digital, online markup process is disinterest by the stakeholders in changing a comfortable process to something that makes them and legislation a bit more vulnerable to public scrutiny.   A relatively senior Republican policy staffer once told me something very relevant to this.  He said, "It's easy to get a lot of politicians to agree on a policy.  It's incredibly hard to get them to do anything about that."  So, the key to moving the ball here is incentives - positive benefits or negative consequences.  What could be done to align the incentives for the politicians and staffers with digital, online legislation process?

2. Obviously, getting a lot of politicos on the same page is difficult.  But sometimes, the best way to get an organization to improve is to do it better and force them (or shame them) into evolving.   Could a single Member put the markup session online in a less formal way - perhaps having a staffer live-blog the markup process, or post each iteration as it is submitted in a "Markup Session" section of their site? 

-------------

Jon Henke

(202) 595-4323