Behind Closed-Door Government
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
One of the more distasteful aspects of the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session involved the closed-door CORE meetings involving leaders of both parties, of both the Assembly and Senate. During these cloistered sessions the deals were made and arrangements worked out for how much money would be spent in the 2010-2011 biennium. The details were ironed out on what taxes would be increased and by how much. After the decisions were made, the doors opened and the official activity was carried out, supposedly with transparency and openness.
Things aren’t any different in Washington, D.C. with constant behind closed-door negotiating processes setting down the provisions to be put into bulky, thousands of pages legislative proposals for government to take over everything from health care to auto companies. Because the Party is in charge – to the degree that they are – you don’t even have to include the other party…decide the outcome…then ram and jam to get it done! Voting on the measures is really nothing more than a waste of time – make it official sort of thing.
Thinking there something intuitively wrong with this method of public “deliberation” – it was troubling to learn that the U.S. Constitution was drafted in a very similar fashion. Reading an account of how the chairman of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington, had severely chided a member of the body for leaving meeting notes out for possible public discovery…a sick sense of resignation crept into my mind, nearly giving up hope that open government could be a possible way to conduct public business.
Yesterday there were some new insights discovered while listening to an audible book about James Madison – one of the insiders who was very much a force in the development of the U.S. Constitution and also a key salesman for adoption of the document. Madison’s efforts also included being one of the authors of promotional pieces (under the banner that has now become known as the “Federalist Papers”) to convince necessary acceptance.
Today, in our hindsight, we consider the purpose of the Constitutional Convention being held to rewrite the unworkable Articles of Confederation. However, at that time, the delegates from the 13 independent states were sent to work at amending the governing documents (Articles of Confederation). The veil of secrecy not only allowed for more forthright exchange of ideas – it also covered the contrary representation being exercised…with delegates deciding to do what they determined as opposed to what their respective states sent them to do. No wonder selling the Constitution was necessary – even going so far as to reshuffle and stack the process for approval – with state ratifying conventions being instituted instead of the approval of the state legislatures.
Is it just a quirk that behind closed-door sessions frees representatives to figure out for themselves what would be the best course to follow? Perhaps it is idealistic to long for an open, deliberate process for conducting legislative activities. Maybe it’s just too much to want tax policy to be ironed out in appropriate committees…through the established system (instead of “leadership” figuring out what they can line their minions to carry out). It’s just the way that the People’s business gets done…more efficient – we’re told…we don’t want to waste time and public funds with posturing and maneuvering that would be considered “grandstanding”.
As a witness to what we’ve been getting in terms of results from the behind closed-door system maybe some less-efficient, grandstanding wouldn’t be so bad. We might be able to establish an increased level of confidence that our representatives are acting on our behalf as opposed to being told that’s what they did after they decided…behind their closed doors.
One of the more distasteful aspects of the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session involved the closed-door CORE meetings involving leaders of both parties, of both the Assembly and Senate. During these cloistered sessions the deals were made and arrangements worked out for how much money would be spent in the 2010-2011 biennium. The details were ironed out on what taxes would be increased and by how much. After the decisions were made, the doors opened and the official activity was carried out, supposedly with transparency and openness.
Things aren’t any different in Washington, D.C. with constant behind closed-door negotiating processes setting down the provisions to be put into bulky, thousands of pages legislative proposals for government to take over everything from health care to auto companies. Because the Party is in charge – to the degree that they are – you don’t even have to include the other party…decide the outcome…then ram and jam to get it done! Voting on the measures is really nothing more than a waste of time – make it official sort of thing.
Thinking there something intuitively wrong with this method of public “deliberation” – it was troubling to learn that the U.S. Constitution was drafted in a very similar fashion. Reading an account of how the chairman of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington, had severely chided a member of the body for leaving meeting notes out for possible public discovery…a sick sense of resignation crept into my mind, nearly giving up hope that open government could be a possible way to conduct public business.
Yesterday there were some new insights discovered while listening to an audible book about James Madison – one of the insiders who was very much a force in the development of the U.S. Constitution and also a key salesman for adoption of the document. Madison’s efforts also included being one of the authors of promotional pieces (under the banner that has now become known as the “Federalist Papers”) to convince necessary acceptance.
Today, in our hindsight, we consider the purpose of the Constitutional Convention being held to rewrite the unworkable Articles of Confederation. However, at that time, the delegates from the 13 independent states were sent to work at amending the governing documents (Articles of Confederation). The veil of secrecy not only allowed for more forthright exchange of ideas – it also covered the contrary representation being exercised…with delegates deciding to do what they determined as opposed to what their respective states sent them to do. No wonder selling the Constitution was necessary – even going so far as to reshuffle and stack the process for approval – with state ratifying conventions being instituted instead of the approval of the state legislatures.
Is it just a quirk that behind closed-door sessions frees representatives to figure out for themselves what would be the best course to follow? Perhaps it is idealistic to long for an open, deliberate process for conducting legislative activities. Maybe it’s just too much to want tax policy to be ironed out in appropriate committees…through the established system (instead of “leadership” figuring out what they can line their minions to carry out). It’s just the way that the People’s business gets done…more efficient – we’re told…we don’t want to waste time and public funds with posturing and maneuvering that would be considered “grandstanding”.
As a witness to what we’ve been getting in terms of results from the behind closed-door system maybe some less-efficient, grandstanding wouldn’t be so bad. We might be able to establish an increased level of confidence that our representatives are acting on our behalf as opposed to being told that’s what they did after they decided…behind their closed doors.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 11/30/2009 5:33 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Nevada Legislature Congress
Categories: Government
Tags: Nevada Nevada Legislature Congress
Comments