Today at the Lege, and a note to grumpy staffers

For today's criminal justice action at the Lege, see Grits' previews of bills up in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee (Parts One and Two).

And an aside: This morning I had a call from a legislative staffer who is basically quite unhappy that I'm previewing bills before committee hearings because his bill might be changed. I explained that's why I'd called their office, to find out what was happening with it, but the staffer grumpily replied, "That's the problem with blogs, Scott, you can just go out there and say whatever you want."

Funny - I thought the problem with blogs was that we didn't call sources before writing about stuff like "real" journalists! I asked this staffer to tell me the real deal if he was afraid I was going to misrepresent the bill. "That's why I called you," I said. But he wouldn't discuss it and basically just wanted to express his unhappiness that I was writing about it at all before the committee hearing because they were "working on it" and things could change.

Look, there's no doubt that bills change during the process, there's no doubt that a lot of bills have flaws as filed that get worked out later, and there's no doubt that most bills filed will die. I hope nothing I've written gave anyone a different impression. But the truth is I'm tracking criminal justice legislation more closely than the MSM on the blog, and I think that's the real source of this staffer's resentment.

Folks at the capitol are used to the committee process happening more or less beyond scrutiny. Hearings are frequently dog and pony shows where the press and the public is presented with an image pols want to present, but the real heavy lifting on the details of legislation all happens before the hearing, or in cases where a bill is disputed, behind the scenes after the hearing is over.

Lobbyists track bills closely. When committee agendas are posted they go through the bills to see what they care about and begin to prepare for the hearing by lobbying members, lining up speakers, preparing written testimony. The important work they do happens before the members meet, but typically the public isn't even aware of the issue until a hearing occurs.

What I'm trying to do - on the issues I cover - is give blog readers the same access to information that special interests with lobbyists have enjoyed for ages. Thanks to the political version of Heisenberg Principle, more thoroughly examining these murky settings will inevitably change the process, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Part of how bad policy gets made is that nobody pays attention to it until it's too late, and part of making good policy is giving those with an interest enough information to participate in supporting it.

I recognize that it would be easier to negotiate bills if nobody but lobbyists and special interests knew they existed - I get that. I even sympathize with the overworked staffers' plight. But I don't think that's necessarily an argument for not casting greater light on the process. In fact, I'm sure it's not.

So to any other grumpy staffers out there: You know I'm previewing bills every week in four committees - Senate Criminal Justice, House Corrections, House Criminal Jurisprudence, and House Law Enforcement. I'm analyzing them as filed unless I'm aware of a substitute. I want to get it right. But it doesn't help to get stonewalled.

More information and communication, not less, is the best solution for legislators dealing with blogs.