Fishbonker
Life Member
There was a question recently about how the whole process of legislation worked. I received this in a weekly update from my representative and I thought it explains it very well.
Notes from the Capitol
The first funnel week has come and gone at the Iowa Legislature. Any policy bill must have passed through at least one House or one Senate committee in order to remain viable. Bills that have not will wait until next year. This leads to a frantic week of sub-committee and long committee meetings. When a bill is introduced it is assigned to a committee; the committee chair then assigns the bill to a sub-committee typically comprised of three members. We hold a public sub-committee meeting on each bill before it reaches the full committee. Sub-committee meetings are typically informal gatherings around a table at which lobbyists and members of the public are allowed to speak and even debate the merits of the legislation at issue. Full committee meetings are, of course, also open to the public though typically only legislators contribute to the debate and discussion.
So, there are a fair number of bills that move quickly in the last week before the funnel. A bill may be considered at an 8:00 a.m. sub-committee meeting before being passed through the full committee at 1:00 p.m. Now having passed out of a full committee, many of these bills will go no further; leadership typically does not initiate floor debate on a piece of legislation unless and until they are confident 51 people will vote for it. Alternatively, some new ideas that do not quite yet have sufficient support to make it through a committee are sometimes amended into pilot projects or studies. Many legislators seem to feel much more comfortable with studying, or appointing other people to study, a new idea rather than actually enacting it. Depending on the issue and one’s perspective this can be frustrating, but the system and the personalities do not seem to lend themselves to quick innovations.
One of the most interesting and illuminating aspects of the Legislature are caucus meetings. Caucus meetings are closed meetings of the members of one party either of a particular committee or of all members. So, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee may meet to discuss bills that they wish to pass or all House Democrats may meet to discuss particular issues that have made it to the floor. I say that caucuses are interesting and illuminating because they allow for frank discussions, brutal honesty and, sometimes, profound disagreements. When an issue is discussed internally, away from the lobbyists and media, people open up and it becomes easier to understand a colleague's perspective. If a particular bill does not have sufficient support to move forward, this becomes known inside a caucus meeting and the surprise of having a bill defeated either in committee or on the floor - is typically averted. We try to find a balance between making government as open and transparent as possible, but also recognizing that some discussions must be kept private. As a rule of thumb, I think it would be accurate to say that all meetings with Republicans and Democrats are fully open to the public, however, most meetings of just one party or the other are closed. I do not know that we have achieved a perfect balance, but that seems to be how the institution operates.
Nate Willems
When I win the lottery I’m gonna spend lots more time in DSM so I can attend more sub and full committee meetings. Well, I’ll have to fly back from what ever warm place I’m living to attend and then I’ll have to depend on the Governors tags I’m sure I’ll qualify for to hunt every year or perhaps I’ll start my own club to try and get the laws changed.
The ‘Bonker
Notes from the Capitol
The first funnel week has come and gone at the Iowa Legislature. Any policy bill must have passed through at least one House or one Senate committee in order to remain viable. Bills that have not will wait until next year. This leads to a frantic week of sub-committee and long committee meetings. When a bill is introduced it is assigned to a committee; the committee chair then assigns the bill to a sub-committee typically comprised of three members. We hold a public sub-committee meeting on each bill before it reaches the full committee. Sub-committee meetings are typically informal gatherings around a table at which lobbyists and members of the public are allowed to speak and even debate the merits of the legislation at issue. Full committee meetings are, of course, also open to the public though typically only legislators contribute to the debate and discussion.
So, there are a fair number of bills that move quickly in the last week before the funnel. A bill may be considered at an 8:00 a.m. sub-committee meeting before being passed through the full committee at 1:00 p.m. Now having passed out of a full committee, many of these bills will go no further; leadership typically does not initiate floor debate on a piece of legislation unless and until they are confident 51 people will vote for it. Alternatively, some new ideas that do not quite yet have sufficient support to make it through a committee are sometimes amended into pilot projects or studies. Many legislators seem to feel much more comfortable with studying, or appointing other people to study, a new idea rather than actually enacting it. Depending on the issue and one’s perspective this can be frustrating, but the system and the personalities do not seem to lend themselves to quick innovations.
One of the most interesting and illuminating aspects of the Legislature are caucus meetings. Caucus meetings are closed meetings of the members of one party either of a particular committee or of all members. So, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee may meet to discuss bills that they wish to pass or all House Democrats may meet to discuss particular issues that have made it to the floor. I say that caucuses are interesting and illuminating because they allow for frank discussions, brutal honesty and, sometimes, profound disagreements. When an issue is discussed internally, away from the lobbyists and media, people open up and it becomes easier to understand a colleague's perspective. If a particular bill does not have sufficient support to move forward, this becomes known inside a caucus meeting and the surprise of having a bill defeated either in committee or on the floor - is typically averted. We try to find a balance between making government as open and transparent as possible, but also recognizing that some discussions must be kept private. As a rule of thumb, I think it would be accurate to say that all meetings with Republicans and Democrats are fully open to the public, however, most meetings of just one party or the other are closed. I do not know that we have achieved a perfect balance, but that seems to be how the institution operates.
Nate Willems
When I win the lottery I’m gonna spend lots more time in DSM so I can attend more sub and full committee meetings. Well, I’ll have to fly back from what ever warm place I’m living to attend and then I’ll have to depend on the Governors tags I’m sure I’ll qualify for to hunt every year or perhaps I’ll start my own club to try and get the laws changed.
The ‘Bonker
