KootenaiConservative added this comment to another post. According to the Spokesman-Review, in the upcoming Idaho legislative session, the Joint Finance Appropriations Committee (JFAC) will allow public testimony for the first time in history. Especially considering JFAC is the most powerful committee in the legislature, this is a big victory for open and accountable government.
What are your thoughts on JFAC allowing public testimony? Thanks, KC, for bringing this up!
Anything else you’d like to discuss?
What is JFAC?
Comment by rochereau — December 17, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
rochereau,
Sorry for not including that in the original post (It’s there now.) It is the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee with members from both the House and the Senate.
Comment by Bill — December 17, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
JFAC has the final say on revenue projections and is in charge of setting the budget.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — December 17, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
They hold the purse strings!
Comment by mary — December 17, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Why now? What does JFAC believe the public can add?
Comment by Bill — December 17, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Now, they ask for the public to step in so we can be used. Things are bad, if the public is included then it doesn’t look like their mess.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 8:42 am
If I understand things, by “public” they mean “lobbyists.” Sorry to disappoint you.
Comment by Dan — December 18, 2010 @ 8:50 am
Stebbijo,
Do you see this as an admission by Idaho’s legislators that they are not up to the task of representing their constituents? Is it possibly an acknowledgment that our “citizen legislators” lack the public administration skills and the time needed to devote to the task of administering the state’s legislative responsibilities? Many of our state legislators wear the “small businessman” label proudly as some kind of badge of competence. Did being a small businessman ever correlate directly with competence as a public administrator? If it did, does it still? If not, then what are the alternatives?
Comment by Bill — December 18, 2010 @ 8:58 am
DADT is finally on its way to the dustbin of history: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?hp
Can’t say I was proud “Mr. Crapo, no” and “Mr. Risch, no” when they called the roll. But hats off to the 6 Republicans who did stand up for equality and military effectiveness.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — December 18, 2010 @ 10:00 am
We’ve hit a new low in cynicism if moving towards more transparency equates to some kind of conspiracy to provide cover for our elected citizen legislators. I’ll always come down on the side of more openness in the deliberative process of lawmaking. Should we just let the experts in public administration dictate what is the best public policy? Isn’t that kind of thinking somewhat Fascist?
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 18, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Gary,
If opening JFAC to public testimony is so desirable and so beneficial, why hasn’t it been done before? What has changed? Why now? Does JFAC suddenly believe the public has become miraculously enlightened? As Dan suggests and as JFAC knows very well: The majority of the “public” testimony will be from registered lobbyists.
Comment by Bill — December 18, 2010 @ 11:08 am
‘let the experts in public administration dictate what is the best public policy? Isn’t that kind of thinking somewhat Fascist?’ Hmm. Is it being suggested that the NIC Board’s action in purchasing the mill site because of their ‘vision’, without a vote of the citizens, was a fascist act?
Comment by Happy Trails — December 18, 2010 @ 11:10 am
Bill, in a nutshell – yes, that is what I said. You just embellish my thoughts.
Gary, I admire that you think that we are moving on toward transparency and any effort helps, but I think it may be too late. Nethertheless – my opinion does not imply a conspiracy – seriously – it just implies that public testimony is a guise to make us feel like after all of these years we are finally included. It’s a formality – nothing will change. They don’t want to listen – they want to be entertained. Testimony isn’t going to make a difference but it will make things look ‘more on the up and up’ because it will be our fault if something goes through because we didn’t show up. Just look at the megaloads mess – public intervention is not working. Your OML is ruined.
Things are the way they are because there is no morality in government. Our politicians lack moral development. That is how I understand our state of affairs locally,statewide,and nationally. It’s how I make sense of it all.
The alternative might be to push for term limits again so we are not represented term after term by the same Fascists – or have several hundred of us show up with a pitchfork or two and some tomatoes.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 11:24 am
The answer…anarchy!…oops, we already have it. never mind.
Comment by Happy Trails — December 18, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Dan, I’m confused (don’t say it 🙂 ). Why would they let lobbyists in?
Comment by rochereau — December 18, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Yes, rochereau is right – along with Dan – lobbyists are now considered “public” entities so the government can have their way with us. Kind of like the ITD is not a “public” entity so they had to spend 3K on a meeting room for coffee and a visual technology setup (megaloads meeting) because the “public” needs to put in a 180 day advance notice.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Lobbyists exist because of the First Amendment. We have a right to petition the government. We can choose to do that in person or we can hire someone to do it for us, i.e., a lobbyist.
When I’ve testified against the abuses of urban renewal practiced by the LCDC, I’ve often been the only individual citizen to do so. Taking the side of urban renewal are elected officials, directors and employees of URAs, and tens of thousands of dollars of lobbyists.
In a way, an individual person petitioning the government is quaint. It’s only when there are several thousands of people protesting do the idiots sit up and notice.
Comment by Dan — December 18, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
I don’t think we have anarchy, Happy. We have a wannabe aristocracy. They’re behaving very much like the French Aristocracy of the late 1700s. I would advise them to take note of that history.
Comment by Dan — December 18, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Dan, interesting perspective. I believe the key, however, is your description of “a wannabe aristocracy”. I would argue that the current status is anarchy, with the “wannabes” trying to evolve into an aristocracy. I would suggest we are not to an aristocracy yet because there is dissention between the wannabes seeking to establish just who are the chosen few, the true aristocrats.
Comment by Happy Trails — December 18, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
Well, if all those true aristocrats,i.e., folks like Henry VIII – succumb to syphyllis – then so be it.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
I know what a lobbyist is. So Dan, what you are saying is, if I want my opinion heard in JFAC, I can (must) hire a lobyist to voice it for me. They will hear hired guns, not the people who hire them. You have to love politics (not).
Comment by rochereau — December 18, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
I think the allusion to aristocrats here, is to those who were separated from their heads! How about a guillotine at McEuen field….consider that “Team McEuen”.
Comment by rochereau — December 18, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Call them “stakeholders.”
Comment by Dan — December 18, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
One by one – civily without pitchforks or tomatoes – this is how we win. Dan said it.
In a way, an individual person petitioning the government is quaint. It’s only when there are several thousands of people protesting do the idiots sit up and notice.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Hence, the Tea Party!
Comment by rochereau — December 18, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
It’s a filibuster of lobbyists – so to speak. I hope I have made my point clear.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 18, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
How many public comments regarding the proposed McEuen Field design will be implemented?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — December 19, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Oh, Oh, Oh, Susie, let ME guess…..zero. The plan has already been decided by the “powers that be” who appointed Team McEuen! Am I right?
Comment by mary — December 19, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
The community meetings for the McEuen Field design are actually nothing more than lip service from the Queen of Cd’A and her court.
Comment by Ancientemplar — December 20, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Oh AT, you disparage royalty everywhere. 🙂 Now, back to my guillotine idea!
Comment by rochereau — December 20, 2010 @ 8:58 am