Comments on: Unintended consequences: Can video ever cover reality? http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/09/unintended-consequences-can-video-ever-cover-reality/ Recommendations, Resources, and Reform Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:48:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rafael DeGennaro http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/09/unintended-consequences-can-video-ever-cover-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Rafael DeGennaro Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:05:03 +0000 http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/09/unintended-consequences-can-video-ever-cover-reality/#comment-57 I appreciate Josh prodding us to think carefully about transparency for its own sake. Glenn Beck's point is worth contemplating -- briefly -- in order to remember that transparency is a two-edged sword. Transparency is for democracy. The benefits of transparency massively outweigh the disadvantages. Ultimately, Glenn Beck and his colleagues may wish to consider what they show on their TV channel before urging removal of the cameras from Capitol Hill. With the new technologies, society has entered a new era. For all the challenges, the only way through is forward. Here are a few quick thoughts: 1) Floor speeches were posturing before TV was invented. Members of Congress would clip the Congressional Record and send their speech to their constituents. In ancient Rome, senators used different technologies, but they postured. 2) It's OK that many of the real deliberations will never happen in public. They'll happen in the bathroom or the bar or the car or wherever is the backroom. But it's still valuable to see what happens in the committee markup or hearing. The committee process legitimizes the legislative product. The committee report becomes part of the legislative history. And, if there is no committee process at all, that says something, too. 3) Regarding CRS reports, the argument for making them members-only would be more convincing if Congress weren't allowing them thousands to be sold by a private party. I used to by sympathetic to the status quo on this point until I needed a CRS report a few months ago and found it for sale online. Make them public. Off the top of my head, possible guidelines for weighing these issues might be: 1) Create space and opportunity for spontaneity in the legislative process. (For example, allow last-minute amendments sometimes.) 2) Allow informal, private space for members to gather and interact out of the spotlight. Official proceedings should be public. Non-official proceedings should not be. Each of us has had the experience of going to a conference and the most useful interactions being between sessions. All members to have that. 3) Generally, every American should get the same information at the same time, just as every investor should be able to listen to the publicly-traded company's quarterly conference call. 4) To the extent anyone ever proposes it, reject rigid direct digital democracy. The US is a republic. But that's a different question from whether to make information public. Anyway, it's useful to think about this stuff. Rafael DeGennaro ReadtheBill.org I appreciate Josh prodding us to think carefully about transparency for its own sake. Glenn Beck’s point is worth contemplating — briefly — in order to remember that transparency is a two-edged sword.

Transparency is for democracy. The benefits of transparency massively outweigh the disadvantages. Ultimately, Glenn Beck and his colleagues may wish to consider what they show on their TV channel before urging removal of the cameras from Capitol Hill.

With the new technologies, society has entered a new era. For all the challenges, the only way through is forward. Here are a few quick thoughts:

1) Floor speeches were posturing before TV was invented. Members of Congress would clip the Congressional Record and send their speech to their constituents. In ancient Rome, senators used different technologies, but they postured.

2) It’s OK that many of the real deliberations will never happen in public. They’ll happen in the bathroom or the bar or the car or wherever is the backroom. But it’s still valuable to see what happens in the committee markup or hearing. The committee process legitimizes the legislative product. The committee report becomes part of the legislative history. And, if there is no committee process at all, that says something, too.

3) Regarding CRS reports, the argument for making them members-only would be more convincing if Congress weren’t allowing them thousands to be sold by a private party. I used to by sympathetic to the status quo on this point until I needed a CRS report a few months ago and found it for sale online. Make them public.

Off the top of my head, possible guidelines for weighing these issues might be:

1) Create space and opportunity for spontaneity in the legislative process. (For example, allow last-minute amendments sometimes.)

2) Allow informal, private space for members to gather and interact out of the spotlight. Official proceedings should be public. Non-official proceedings should not be. Each of us has had the experience of going to a conference and the most useful interactions being between sessions. All members to have that.

3) Generally, every American should get the same information at the same time, just as every investor should be able to listen to the publicly-traded company’s quarterly conference call.

4) To the extent anyone ever proposes it, reject rigid direct digital democracy. The US is a republic. But that’s a different question from whether to make information public.

Anyway, it’s useful to think about this stuff.

Rafael DeGennaro
ReadtheBill.org

]]>