Today was the 45th day of the session. We’re halfway there, day-wise.
There were brownies to mark the occasion, by chance available outside the Joint Hearing Room where we heard the medical marijuana bills.
So a quick rundown of where some of my bills are on the chessboard.
My bill clarifying licensing requirements for morticians whose religious beliefs prohibit embalming has passed the House.
The Judiciary Committee has approved my legislation extending protections for a reporter’s confidential sources to college journalists.
Two bills are on the Judiciary voting list for next week. One has an “up” arrow, indicating leadership support; the other has a down arrow. The former I won’t take for granted; the latter I’ll try to reverse. (The names of these bills have been left unsaid to protect the unresolved.)
I’m optimistic about calming Republican objections to allowing the courts to restrain potential election law violations before voters go to the polls.
Amendments are in the works for the bill requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before making independent campaign expenditures.
Discussions will soon begin with the pediatricians who objected to the bill allowing homeless youths to consent to medical treatment.
Public hearings in the weeks ahead for bills protecting employees from discrimination in the workplace, providing consumers with more information about electricity options, and keeping guns away from people with criminal records.
And only 42 days til Opening Day at Camden Yards.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Thursday, February 25 – Not yet fit to print
Publicity is nice, but it doesn’t get your bill passed.
USA Today had a story about legislation regulating corporate contributions to political campaigns in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision on this issue.
I was quoted, discussing my bill to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make an independent political expenditure. (“Delegate Rosenberg said he hopes it has a ‘tempering effect’ on outside spending in state races.”)
There was also a photo. (I’m wearing my Marx Brothers tie.)
Earlier in the week, I received a letter from the Maryland Bar Association, raising concerns about my bill.
That prompted me to ask an election law attorney for his thoughts. He sent me his suggested revisions yesterday afternoon.
At dinner last night, I learned that Professor Larry Gibson, who teaches election law, had testified against the Senate version of my legislation.
So this morning, I began drafting amendments to my bill.
As soon as they are available, I’ll seek comments from the election law attorney, the Bar Association, and Professor Gibson. But not the USA Today reporter.
That can wait - until the bill passes.
USA Today had a story about legislation regulating corporate contributions to political campaigns in response to the controversial Supreme Court decision on this issue.
I was quoted, discussing my bill to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make an independent political expenditure. (“Delegate Rosenberg said he hopes it has a ‘tempering effect’ on outside spending in state races.”)
There was also a photo. (I’m wearing my Marx Brothers tie.)
Earlier in the week, I received a letter from the Maryland Bar Association, raising concerns about my bill.
That prompted me to ask an election law attorney for his thoughts. He sent me his suggested revisions yesterday afternoon.
At dinner last night, I learned that Professor Larry Gibson, who teaches election law, had testified against the Senate version of my legislation.
So this morning, I began drafting amendments to my bill.
As soon as they are available, I’ll seek comments from the election law attorney, the Bar Association, and Professor Gibson. But not the USA Today reporter.
That can wait - until the bill passes.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday February 24 – Before or after
What you do before or after the bill hearing (or before the floor vote) is often crucial.
State funding for abortions would be eliminated under the House Republicans’ budget proposal, I read in the Sun this morning.
So my first email was to the pro-choice lobbyists: “We need to assume there will be a floor amendment and organize accordingly.” The response was positive.
On the House floor, I asked a committee chair if it made sense for the proponents and opponents of my bill to meet now that their views had been publicly aired. The chair agreed.
My bill that would restore money to the Cigarette Restitution Fund doesn’t have a hearing date yet. Nonetheless, I asked the Secretary of Health if we should meet to discuss the fund. We will next week.
I attended the press conference supporting Attorney General Gansler’s legal opinion that Maryland can recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
I made the point that the Judiciary Committee has already killed a bill that would prohibit state agencies from recognizing such unions. “And the outcome would be the same after today’s events,” I declared.
That has the added virtue of being true, but sometimes saying it’s so helps make it so.
State funding for abortions would be eliminated under the House Republicans’ budget proposal, I read in the Sun this morning.
So my first email was to the pro-choice lobbyists: “We need to assume there will be a floor amendment and organize accordingly.” The response was positive.
On the House floor, I asked a committee chair if it made sense for the proponents and opponents of my bill to meet now that their views had been publicly aired. The chair agreed.
My bill that would restore money to the Cigarette Restitution Fund doesn’t have a hearing date yet. Nonetheless, I asked the Secretary of Health if we should meet to discuss the fund. We will next week.
I attended the press conference supporting Attorney General Gansler’s legal opinion that Maryland can recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
I made the point that the Judiciary Committee has already killed a bill that would prohibit state agencies from recognizing such unions. “And the outcome would be the same after today’s events,” I declared.
That has the added virtue of being true, but sometimes saying it’s so helps make it so.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday February 23 – They never gave up
“My testimony wrote itself Saturday night.”
“I attended a fundraiser for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,” I told the Health and Government Operations Committee, before relating the following from the notes I had scribbled that evening.
“Doug Duncan, the former Montgomery County Executive, was the honoree. He told the group that the Mental Health Association had received 1,000 calls within two days of his announcement that he was ending his campaign for Governor because he suffered from depression.
“Another person with mental illness declared, ‘My mother and brother never gave up on me, even though I had.’
“I am here today on behalf of those who don’t have family to support them,” I told the committee. “House Bill 742 would allow homeless minors to obtain health care without parental consent.”
But I did not rely solely on the emotional impact of my testimony.
Before the hearing, my staff had shown me the pediatricians’ statement opposing my bill because current law allows a minor to consent to medical treatment if “the life or health of the minor would be affected by delaying treatment” to obtain parental consent.
I shared this with Debbie Agus, the mental health professional who asked me to introduce my legislation. Consequently, when the committee chair read from the doctors’ statement, she was prepared.
“That standard doesn’t address the reality for homeless children,” she replied.
“I attended a fundraiser for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,” I told the Health and Government Operations Committee, before relating the following from the notes I had scribbled that evening.
“Doug Duncan, the former Montgomery County Executive, was the honoree. He told the group that the Mental Health Association had received 1,000 calls within two days of his announcement that he was ending his campaign for Governor because he suffered from depression.
“Another person with mental illness declared, ‘My mother and brother never gave up on me, even though I had.’
“I am here today on behalf of those who don’t have family to support them,” I told the committee. “House Bill 742 would allow homeless minors to obtain health care without parental consent.”
But I did not rely solely on the emotional impact of my testimony.
Before the hearing, my staff had shown me the pediatricians’ statement opposing my bill because current law allows a minor to consent to medical treatment if “the life or health of the minor would be affected by delaying treatment” to obtain parental consent.
I shared this with Debbie Agus, the mental health professional who asked me to introduce my legislation. Consequently, when the committee chair read from the doctors’ statement, she was prepared.
“That standard doesn’t address the reality for homeless children,” she replied.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 22 – PC test
PC, in this instance, did not mean politically correct.
We were discussing my bill requiring the police to get a judge's approval before getting the records of where someone was when he or she made cell phone calls.
There were nearly a dozen prosecutors and police officers in the room, plus the lobbyists for the Public Defender and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The bill hearing is next week. We were trying to reach a consensus beforehand.
The sticking point was the legal standard the state would have to meet for a judge to grant access to those records.
PC is a difficult test, said one of the prosecutors.
PC, I realized after a moment's uncertainty, was probable cause.
Initials aside, these were the questions I was trying to answer:
Are these changes necessary to get the votes for the bill to pass? If we enact a weakened bill, how many years will it be before we would again consider this issue?
We were discussing my bill requiring the police to get a judge's approval before getting the records of where someone was when he or she made cell phone calls.
There were nearly a dozen prosecutors and police officers in the room, plus the lobbyists for the Public Defender and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The bill hearing is next week. We were trying to reach a consensus beforehand.
The sticking point was the legal standard the state would have to meet for a judge to grant access to those records.
PC is a difficult test, said one of the prosecutors.
PC, I realized after a moment's uncertainty, was probable cause.
Initials aside, these were the questions I was trying to answer:
Are these changes necessary to get the votes for the bill to pass? If we enact a weakened bill, how many years will it be before we would again consider this issue?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 19 – Very few questions
There were lots of questions from my committee members for the bills heard before mine. They dealt with vehicular homicide and drag racing.
Ditto for the one afterwards, where the subject was traffic citations.
But very few for my two bills, where the issue was freedom of speech and the press.
Wealthy public figures are filing lawsuits in Great Britain because the burden of proof in libel actions favors the plaintiff. The cost of defending against these actions chills reporters and authors from writing about these people.
My legislation would prohibit Maryland courts from enforcing these judgments if the foreign jurisdiction does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution.
There were no questions from the chairman because he had been called out of the room. However, two media attorneys and I had discussed this legislation with him in his office before the bill hearings.
My second bill dealt with the Maryland law that protects journalists from revealing their confidential sources. It would extend this statute to include reporters for a college newspaper.
This is not a hypothetical problem. The District Attorney in Chicago issued a warrant for the notes of journalists at Northwestern University, where reporting by the Innocence Project has freed people from Death Row.
Before next week’s voting session, I’ll talk with my fellow committee members to see if they have any questions or concerns about these two bills.
Ditto for the one afterwards, where the subject was traffic citations.
But very few for my two bills, where the issue was freedom of speech and the press.
Wealthy public figures are filing lawsuits in Great Britain because the burden of proof in libel actions favors the plaintiff. The cost of defending against these actions chills reporters and authors from writing about these people.
My legislation would prohibit Maryland courts from enforcing these judgments if the foreign jurisdiction does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution.
There were no questions from the chairman because he had been called out of the room. However, two media attorneys and I had discussed this legislation with him in his office before the bill hearings.
My second bill dealt with the Maryland law that protects journalists from revealing their confidential sources. It would extend this statute to include reporters for a college newspaper.
This is not a hypothetical problem. The District Attorney in Chicago issued a warrant for the notes of journalists at Northwestern University, where reporting by the Innocence Project has freed people from Death Row.
Before next week’s voting session, I’ll talk with my fellow committee members to see if they have any questions or concerns about these two bills.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 18 – Counting to twelve and to four
It’s an unusual position for me to be in.
I’m a liberal. I think government is a force for good. I try to pass bills.
Not this time.
I want to kill any legislation that would make it easier for the state to execute someone.
Last year, when we wanted to pass a bill repealing the death penalty, we had to count to twelve. That’s a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee.
This, year, the other side has to count to twelve.
We’re working to make sure they can’t.
----
I was worried I would refer to the 4th Amendment.
The bill did not require a search warrant.
It required that employers allow their workers to use their leave time to observe the Sabbath.
So I began my testimony by saying: “The 4th Commandment says, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.’ Our civil rights laws say that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.”
I’m a liberal. I think government is a force for good. I try to pass bills.
Not this time.
I want to kill any legislation that would make it easier for the state to execute someone.
Last year, when we wanted to pass a bill repealing the death penalty, we had to count to twelve. That’s a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee.
This, year, the other side has to count to twelve.
We’re working to make sure they can’t.
----
I was worried I would refer to the 4th Amendment.
The bill did not require a search warrant.
It required that employers allow their workers to use their leave time to observe the Sabbath.
So I began my testimony by saying: “The 4th Commandment says, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.’ Our civil rights laws say that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.”
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 17 – An extra “n”
5:00 pm was the bewitching hour.
Get your bills to the Clerk’s Office by that deadline and you avoid the delay of having them referred to the Rules Committee. Most bills eventually emerge from Rules, but your public hearing date will be later rather than sooner.
With two days of hearing already lost to snow, bills are already being scheduled for March 23.
I thought I was going to be the lead sponsor of legislation that amended a law I passed several years ago. But the delegate who had requested the revisions to that law decided he would be listed first on the sponsor line and I would be second. (It won’t affect my effort on behalf of the bill.)
I put one bill in the hopper right after the morning floor session and another early this afternoon, after my staff had proofread the changes we had requested to the prior version.
I had to do the proofreading on two bills bill that became available at 4:50. They are bond bills for improvements to the Swann Ave. and Glen Ave. Firehouses.
Glen had an extra “n”.
With the correction made, Delegate Oaks and I were the last members to make it to the Clerk’s office.
They stayed open until 5:05 pm. We had told them we were coming.
Get your bills to the Clerk’s Office by that deadline and you avoid the delay of having them referred to the Rules Committee. Most bills eventually emerge from Rules, but your public hearing date will be later rather than sooner.
With two days of hearing already lost to snow, bills are already being scheduled for March 23.
I thought I was going to be the lead sponsor of legislation that amended a law I passed several years ago. But the delegate who had requested the revisions to that law decided he would be listed first on the sponsor line and I would be second. (It won’t affect my effort on behalf of the bill.)
I put one bill in the hopper right after the morning floor session and another early this afternoon, after my staff had proofread the changes we had requested to the prior version.
I had to do the proofreading on two bills bill that became available at 4:50. They are bond bills for improvements to the Swann Ave. and Glen Ave. Firehouses.
Glen had an extra “n”.
With the correction made, Delegate Oaks and I were the last members to make it to the Clerk’s office.
They stayed open until 5:05 pm. We had told them we were coming.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 16 – Déjà vu and the First Time
It’s not unusual to be asked if I would support an amendment broadening the scope of my bill.
It happened at the hearing on my bill dealing with campaign committees for referendum and ballot issues campaigns. House Bill 247 would require these committees to disclose on the Internet within 24 hours any contribution received during the last two weeks before Election Day.
These midnight contributions are not a hypothetical problem. In 2008, the committee supporting the slots referendum listed $2.7 million in contributions in the report that was filed on November 25, three weeks after Election Day.
“Should we extend your bill to loans?” asked one member of the Ways and Means Committee.
“Should this apply to candidate committees as well?” questioned another.
“Both are consistent with my bill,” I responded. “If it’s the wisdom of the committee to add those circumstances, I would not object.”
What happened on my other election bill was a first.
Each of the last three years, my Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House of Delegates but never received a committee vote in the Senate.
“This bill is déjà vu all over again with a lineup change,” I began my testimony.
Last year’s bill has been pared down to one provision, I explained. If an individual or group violates - or there is reasonable grounds to believe is about to violate, the existing prohibitions on voter fraud or dirty tricks, the Attorney General or any registered voter can ask a judge for preventive relief, instead of waiting until the horse is out of the barn door on Election Day.
A delegate began reading from the statement of an interest group supporting legislation that was broader in scope than my bill.
“That was last year’s bill,” I replied.
It happened at the hearing on my bill dealing with campaign committees for referendum and ballot issues campaigns. House Bill 247 would require these committees to disclose on the Internet within 24 hours any contribution received during the last two weeks before Election Day.
These midnight contributions are not a hypothetical problem. In 2008, the committee supporting the slots referendum listed $2.7 million in contributions in the report that was filed on November 25, three weeks after Election Day.
“Should we extend your bill to loans?” asked one member of the Ways and Means Committee.
“Should this apply to candidate committees as well?” questioned another.
“Both are consistent with my bill,” I responded. “If it’s the wisdom of the committee to add those circumstances, I would not object.”
What happened on my other election bill was a first.
Each of the last three years, my Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House of Delegates but never received a committee vote in the Senate.
“This bill is déjà vu all over again with a lineup change,” I began my testimony.
Last year’s bill has been pared down to one provision, I explained. If an individual or group violates - or there is reasonable grounds to believe is about to violate, the existing prohibitions on voter fraud or dirty tricks, the Attorney General or any registered voter can ask a judge for preventive relief, instead of waiting until the horse is out of the barn door on Election Day.
A delegate began reading from the statement of an interest group supporting legislation that was broader in scope than my bill.
“That was last year’s bill,” I replied.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Monday, February 15 – Long memories
There are some things you can’t find on Google.
But with a long memory and good staff, you can get what you want.
Republican legislators have been invited to discuss their proposed budget cuts at a joint meeting of the House and Senate fiscal committees.
“This is a first,” a budget staffer told the Sun in a front-page story today.
“Not true,” I said to myself.
I knew we had done this before because I was on the committee when it happened.
I spoke to a budget analyst who used to staff Appropriations. She found the 1997 letter from Chairman Rawlings inviting the House Republican Caucus to present its budget savings proposals.
I then shared it with the Sun reporter.
----
It’s good to know somebody’s reading this diary.
I ran into an executive branch official at lunch. “What are you working on?” he asked.
“A bill that would restore money to the Cigarette Restitution Fund that’s been redirected to Medicaid to meet budget shortfalls,” I replied.
I was a lead sponsor of the bill creating that fund. It directs money received from the legal settlement with the tobacco companies to research and prevention programs related to cigarette smoking.
“That law passed ten years ago. It may be time to study how we allocate that money in the future,” the official said. “As you write in your diary, sometimes you can accomplish things without passing your bill.”
But with a long memory and good staff, you can get what you want.
Republican legislators have been invited to discuss their proposed budget cuts at a joint meeting of the House and Senate fiscal committees.
“This is a first,” a budget staffer told the Sun in a front-page story today.
“Not true,” I said to myself.
I knew we had done this before because I was on the committee when it happened.
I spoke to a budget analyst who used to staff Appropriations. She found the 1997 letter from Chairman Rawlings inviting the House Republican Caucus to present its budget savings proposals.
I then shared it with the Sun reporter.
----
It’s good to know somebody’s reading this diary.
I ran into an executive branch official at lunch. “What are you working on?” he asked.
“A bill that would restore money to the Cigarette Restitution Fund that’s been redirected to Medicaid to meet budget shortfalls,” I replied.
I was a lead sponsor of the bill creating that fund. It directs money received from the legal settlement with the tobacco companies to research and prevention programs related to cigarette smoking.
“That law passed ten years ago. It may be time to study how we allocate that money in the future,” the official said. “As you write in your diary, sometimes you can accomplish things without passing your bill.”
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12 - Quoting Higher Authorities
In addition to quoting Supreme Court Justice Stevens on the harmful effect of unlimited corporate money in political campaigns, I can now cite Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
They introduced legislation yesterday to restrict such spending at the federal level. So I asked our bill drafter if their proposals had any provisions that we could add to ours.
Another Supreme Court decision has made it far more difficult for the victims of an unlawful employment practice to be compensated. It interpreted the civil rights laws to require that discrimination be the only motivating factor.
I’ve introduced House Bill 504, which would allow recovery if discrimination was one of several factors that prompted the employer’s illegal act.
I met with the chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my legislation. When he asked me the facts of the Supreme Court case, I did not quote Justice Stevens’ dissent.
I hadn’t read it. But by the time of the public hearing, I’ll know it very well.
They introduced legislation yesterday to restrict such spending at the federal level. So I asked our bill drafter if their proposals had any provisions that we could add to ours.
Another Supreme Court decision has made it far more difficult for the victims of an unlawful employment practice to be compensated. It interpreted the civil rights laws to require that discrimination be the only motivating factor.
I’ve introduced House Bill 504, which would allow recovery if discrimination was one of several factors that prompted the employer’s illegal act.
I met with the chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my legislation. When he asked me the facts of the Supreme Court case, I did not quote Justice Stevens’ dissent.
I hadn’t read it. But by the time of the public hearing, I’ll know it very well.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Thursday, February 11 – A very quiet walk
It was a very quiet walk to work this morning.
The main streets of Annapolis were plowed but with hardly any cars on them.
At a chance meeting in the committee offices, a lobbyist assured me that the votes were there for a favorable report on a bill we had heard.
“But first you have to get it on the voting list,” I replied.
That means convincing the chairman and the committee leadership that the bill is necessary (Why do we need this bill?) and can be amended to address concerns raised at the public hearing.
----
In the fourth year of a term, it’s never too early to plan for the fall election – when all 188 seats in the General Assembly will be on the ballot.
There’s a new wrinkle this fall – early voting. For five days in the week before the primary and the general election, polls will be open in a handful of locations in Baltimore City and in each county.
Getting out the vote will no longer be a one-day operation. This uncertainty bred anxiety at a discussion among my colleagues.
The main streets of Annapolis were plowed but with hardly any cars on them.
At a chance meeting in the committee offices, a lobbyist assured me that the votes were there for a favorable report on a bill we had heard.
“But first you have to get it on the voting list,” I replied.
That means convincing the chairman and the committee leadership that the bill is necessary (Why do we need this bill?) and can be amended to address concerns raised at the public hearing.
----
In the fourth year of a term, it’s never too early to plan for the fall election – when all 188 seats in the General Assembly will be on the ballot.
There’s a new wrinkle this fall – early voting. For five days in the week before the primary and the general election, polls will be open in a handful of locations in Baltimore City and in each county.
Getting out the vote will no longer be a one-day operation. This uncertainty bred anxiety at a discussion among my colleagues.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Wednesday, February 10 – Laptop as lifeline
My chairman always sleeps at home.
So he didn’t make it back through the snow to Annapolis for this morning’s floor session.
Our committee had two bills to be considered on the House floor.
As I was leaving my office to head to the State House, I remembered that and brought my laptop with me.
I had reviewed the folders for the two bills yesterday, but now they were locked in a staffer’s office. And committee counsel would not be on the phone to assist with any questions raised by my colleagues.
So my laptop, with the text of the amendments but no further explanation, would be my lifeline.
Both bills drew questions. One passed to third reader; the other was special ordered to Tuesday for further discussion.
So he didn’t make it back through the snow to Annapolis for this morning’s floor session.
Our committee had two bills to be considered on the House floor.
As I was leaving my office to head to the State House, I remembered that and brought my laptop with me.
I had reviewed the folders for the two bills yesterday, but now they were locked in a staffer’s office. And committee counsel would not be on the phone to assist with any questions raised by my colleagues.
So my laptop, with the text of the amendments but no further explanation, would be my lifeline.
Both bills drew questions. One passed to third reader; the other was special ordered to Tuesday for further discussion.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 9 - A certainty in Judiciary
“A stronger deterrent is needed for those homeowners who maliciously damage their own property during or after a foreclosure proceeding,” read the statement of the Maryland Association of Realtors in support of legislation that would make such conduct a criminal misdemeanor.
“Human trafficking is a form of modern day slavery,” declared the written testimony of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault in favor of bills that would increase the penalty for sexual solicitation or trafficking of a minor.
Favorable committee action a certainty. How could anyone oppose these measures?
Perhaps you’ve forgotten the question that every bill sponsor must answer:
Why do we need this bill?
On the Judiciary Committee, that means: Is this conduct already illegal? Why aren’t people being prosecuted and serving the maximum sentence under the existing law? Will increasing the penalty reduce the crime?
----
One witness said that another bill before us would criminalize fraternity pranks.
“Is the penalty double secret probation?” I asked my seatmate.
“Human trafficking is a form of modern day slavery,” declared the written testimony of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault in favor of bills that would increase the penalty for sexual solicitation or trafficking of a minor.
Favorable committee action a certainty. How could anyone oppose these measures?
Perhaps you’ve forgotten the question that every bill sponsor must answer:
Why do we need this bill?
On the Judiciary Committee, that means: Is this conduct already illegal? Why aren’t people being prosecuted and serving the maximum sentence under the existing law? Will increasing the penalty reduce the crime?
----
One witness said that another bill before us would criminalize fraternity pranks.
“Is the penalty double secret probation?” I asked my seatmate.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Monday, February 8 – Seven bills but not all witnesses
When you have seven bill hearings scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, being snowbound for two days helps you get your testimony finished ahead of time.
Normally, I’m fine tuning my written statement the morning of the hearing. After perfecting my opening sentence (“Hit them in the forehead with a 2x4,” I tell my students.), I rewrite it for my oral testimony. (“Never read your written statement.”)
With snow again in the forecast, whether my witnesses will be able to make it on Wednesday is up in the air.
On my “tourist libel” bill, I’m counting on having three lawyers at my side who know the issue better than I do. So I may do some extra studying tomorrow night.
Tonight’s floor session was canceled, but I drove to Annapolis anyway. I had run out of chicken salad at home.
Hardly any members or staffers around today. “There was nobody there to get anything done with,” lamented one of the latter at the Rite Aid this evening.
Normally, I’m fine tuning my written statement the morning of the hearing. After perfecting my opening sentence (“Hit them in the forehead with a 2x4,” I tell my students.), I rewrite it for my oral testimony. (“Never read your written statement.”)
With snow again in the forecast, whether my witnesses will be able to make it on Wednesday is up in the air.
On my “tourist libel” bill, I’m counting on having three lawyers at my side who know the issue better than I do. So I may do some extra studying tomorrow night.
Tonight’s floor session was canceled, but I drove to Annapolis anyway. I had run out of chicken salad at home.
Hardly any members or staffers around today. “There was nobody there to get anything done with,” lamented one of the latter at the Rite Aid this evening.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Thursday, February 4 - Friends in the right places
It's good to have the subcommittee chair as your co-sponsor.
Twice this morning, I asked the relevant subcommittee chair to sign on to one of my bills. Both times, they did - with enthusiasm.
One would allow a homeless youth to obtain mental health treatment without parental consent. The other would require the Public Service Commission to implement a consumer education program informing residential and and small commercial customers about the rates and services offered by different electricity suppliers.
Their support does not guarantee that either bill will pass. But the person one step below the committee chair now has a stake in my legislation..
Twice this morning, I asked the relevant subcommittee chair to sign on to one of my bills. Both times, they did - with enthusiasm.
One would allow a homeless youth to obtain mental health treatment without parental consent. The other would require the Public Service Commission to implement a consumer education program informing residential and and small commercial customers about the rates and services offered by different electricity suppliers.
Their support does not guarantee that either bill will pass. But the person one step below the committee chair now has a stake in my legislation..
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Wednesday, February 3 – Virtual sunshine
We had our first committee voting session of the Virtual Sunshine era.
The Speaker has decided that committee votes will now be available online. So my colleagues were skittish.
If we have a dozen bills on a controversial subject, only one will receive a favorable report, a delegate correctly noted, and people will now know that we voted against all of the others.
I whispered a simple solution in my neighbor’s ear: Don’t vote on the other bills. Keep them in the chairman’s drawer.
There was no debate before we killed the bill that would prevent the Attorney General from finding that the state can recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.
However, the bill’s supporters did not need to speak now or forever hold their peace. They may try a parliamentary maneuver to bring the bill to the House floor.
The Speaker has decided that committee votes will now be available online. So my colleagues were skittish.
If we have a dozen bills on a controversial subject, only one will receive a favorable report, a delegate correctly noted, and people will now know that we voted against all of the others.
I whispered a simple solution in my neighbor’s ear: Don’t vote on the other bills. Keep them in the chairman’s drawer.
There was no debate before we killed the bill that would prevent the Attorney General from finding that the state can recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.
However, the bill’s supporters did not need to speak now or forever hold their peace. They may try a parliamentary maneuver to bring the bill to the House floor.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
February 2 – More than “no”
“You can’t just say ‘no’ all the time,” I heatedly responded.
After the Governor’s State of the State speech, a radio reporter told me that the Republican response was “All the Governor talked about was government, government, government - despite the message sent by the voters in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.”
“Government has a role to play in stimulating the economy, and we need to seek compromise, as President Obama made so clear last Friday,” I also told the reporter.
At the Governor’s post-speech reception, I related this story to a high ranking member of the O’Malley administration.
His response: “The speech was all about jobs, jobs, jobs.”
----
The legislative process may be theatre (at times), but you don’t usually have a preview of coming attractions. Except today.
We had a hearing on a bill requiring the police to get a search warrant approved by a judge before using a tracking device to determine the location or movement of an individual or object.
I will be introducing a bill requiring a warrant before the police obtain a record of where you were when you used your cell phone.
The arguments for and against today will be repeated when my legislation is heard.
One thing for sure. Unlike the bill sponsor today, I won’t go to the witness table alone. I’m no 4th Amendment scholar. If I’m going to be asked questions about the relevant Supreme Court holdings, I want someone who knows the law at my side.
I won’t be able to Google.
After the Governor’s State of the State speech, a radio reporter told me that the Republican response was “All the Governor talked about was government, government, government - despite the message sent by the voters in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.”
“Government has a role to play in stimulating the economy, and we need to seek compromise, as President Obama made so clear last Friday,” I also told the reporter.
At the Governor’s post-speech reception, I related this story to a high ranking member of the O’Malley administration.
His response: “The speech was all about jobs, jobs, jobs.”
----
The legislative process may be theatre (at times), but you don’t usually have a preview of coming attractions. Except today.
We had a hearing on a bill requiring the police to get a search warrant approved by a judge before using a tracking device to determine the location or movement of an individual or object.
I will be introducing a bill requiring a warrant before the police obtain a record of where you were when you used your cell phone.
The arguments for and against today will be repeated when my legislation is heard.
One thing for sure. Unlike the bill sponsor today, I won’t go to the witness table alone. I’m no 4th Amendment scholar. If I’m going to be asked questions about the relevant Supreme Court holdings, I want someone who knows the law at my side.
I won’t be able to Google.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Monday, February 1 – Targeted and finalized
Personalize your testimony.
I followed my own advice yesterday when I was asked about the bill I’m introducing to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make independent campaign expenditures supporting or targeting a candidate.
“When I ran for reelection in 1986, the landlords tried to defeat me because I had introduced legislation requiring them to lower the risk of lead poisoning in their properties,” I told the listeners on Shalom USA radio. “Under the recent Supreme Court ruling, there is no limit on the amount of money they can spend to oppose a person like me.”
----
We had finalized the changes to the bill draft.
“Should I try to get co-sponsors?” one of the advocates asked.
“For just one day,” I replied. “It’s more important to get the bill introduced and an early hearing date than to get more signatures.”
“Should we tell the people who’ve already signed on about the changes?” said another supporter.
“Don’t worry. They didn’t read the bill the first time,” I answered.
I followed my own advice yesterday when I was asked about the bill I’m introducing to require shareholder approval before a corporation can make independent campaign expenditures supporting or targeting a candidate.
“When I ran for reelection in 1986, the landlords tried to defeat me because I had introduced legislation requiring them to lower the risk of lead poisoning in their properties,” I told the listeners on Shalom USA radio. “Under the recent Supreme Court ruling, there is no limit on the amount of money they can spend to oppose a person like me.”
----
We had finalized the changes to the bill draft.
“Should I try to get co-sponsors?” one of the advocates asked.
“For just one day,” I replied. “It’s more important to get the bill introduced and an early hearing date than to get more signatures.”
“Should we tell the people who’ve already signed on about the changes?” said another supporter.
“Don’t worry. They didn’t read the bill the first time,” I answered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)