Senate might expand webcasting too
Photo by Kevin Steinhardt/flickr.com
Days after the House dramatically expanded webcasting of its proceedings, the Senate may be poised to do the same.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen, has introduced Senate Resolution 1, which would expand video webcasting from the Senate floor to include multiple cameras instead of the one that’s currently used.
The resolution would eliminate the part of the current webcasting rule that requires video webcasting “from a single camera installed at the rear of the chamber” and replace it with words that state that the video stream shall be “produced from cameras configured and operated in such a way that as much of the chamber is displayed as practicable but that no material on members’ desks, computer monitors or similar devices can be read or viewed except as would otherwise be possible with an unaided eye.”
The resolution is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee. If it’s approved there, the proposed rule change would also need the backing of the majority of senators in a floor vote. To bypass the committee if it doesn’t approve the rule change, the resolution would need approval of two-thirds of senators in a floor vote.
In addition, Sen. Eric Griego, D-Albuquerque, plans to introduce a resolution today that would require the Senate to begin audio webcasting from committee meetings this session and begin video webcasting of Senate committee meetings next year.
The resolution isn’t yet available online, but Griego said it’s modeled after similar legislation the House approved on Friday.
“Transparency and accountability should be cornerstones of our democracy. Many key decisions are made in committee. The public should not be left in the dark because they can’t make the trek to Santa Fe,” Griego said.
The House, after changes approved Friday, should have full audio and video webcasting of floor sessions and committee meetings beginning next year. If the Senate approves the rule changes proposed by Sanchez and Griego, it should too.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that approval of the Senate Rules Committee and of two-thirds in a Senate floor vote was needed to enact the new rules.
2 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is mention of archiving – it is prohibited.
Webcasting without archiving is nearly worthless. Because committee meetings move around, start and stop times are ignored, and agenda adjustments, it would be impossible to set your VCR or DVR to record anything – you would still be stuck with wading through hours of recordings to find what you wanted. Without book marks of some kind, viewers would have no idea even of what piece of legislation was on the table.
There are only two real obstacles to archiving – technology and cost. Neither plays; the technology is there, and so is the money; a few tens of thousands of dollars.
The real reason to not archive is simple, they lack the moral courage to be held honestly accountable for what they do and say in committee meetings and on the floor.
Further, the language that reads; “… cameras configured and operated in such a way that as much of the chamber is displayed as practicable … ) means more “google earth” coverage where you cannot make who is speaking much less look into their eyes. The practice of recognizing speakers according to their district, “the chair recognizes the gentleman from timbuctoo” will further confound watchers, unless they are conversant in the names of legislators and the districts they represent.
The sum total of what they have done is a cop out, they’re still cutting us out of the process.
For Senator Griego, as the Bruce Willis character in “Die Hard” (not filmed in NM – it was a good movie), said “… welcome to the party, pal …” Good. Any mention of archiving and the ability to search or retrieve after a hard day of work … for those unable to view during the day, while the meetings are being held?