That’s Not Who We Are

There has been much criticism of the 2011 Montana legislature and I have tried very hard to defend them against the slings and arrows, knowing that they are dealing with very contentious issues and very passionate supporters and opponents. It’s a tough job and our 150 senators and representatives are definitely overworked and underpaid. So I really, really do try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that every single one of those legislators not only volunteered for the job, but spent a great deal of time, effort, and money to get the job – so it is unacceptable when they refuse to do the job. How proudly those campaign signs proclaimed that the candidate would “fight for you” and “represent you”. And only the terminally naive would believe that that means 100% of the time, on every bill, would your representatives vote the same way you would.

But the one thing they can all do is listen to those who take the time to come to the Capitol and share their points of view with those that have been elected to represent them.

The first time I testified as a witness in a legislative hearing was 1969, when I supported a constitutional amendment to reduce the age of majority. I was a college freshman and, like all 19 year-olds, I felt that I had all the perspective and wisdom necessary to advise my elders as to public policy. But God bless them – every single member of the committee sat and listened as I and many, many of my peers passionately pled for our right to vote. And oh – yeah – drink – two years sooner than the current law allowed.

Since then I have invoked the privilege to participate in the legislative process on all sorts of issues – some noteworthy, some not. Sometimes the votes went my way, sometimes not. One thing that was common to every committee that I ever appeared before was the simple respect and courtesy that was shown to every proponent and opponent by the legislators, regardless of the eloquence or logic of their presentation.

Such is not the case this year. Statewide newspapers have carried story after story about how citizens have been denied their right to speak their piece on the issues of the day. I tended to discount the stories, giving the benefit of the doubt to the legislators. The hearings that I personally had participated in were exactly as I had always experienced – professional and friendly.

Until last Wednesday.

I can honestly say that I have never been so ashamed to call myself a Republican in my life. The chairman of the committee was way beyond rude. He unreasonably cut off two witnesses, an elderly couple who had traveled from Butte and a lady who had taken time off from work and come in from Livingston, flustering and frustrating all three of them. An expert witness who was invited by the opponents of the bill flew in from California at his company’s expense to provide factual evidence to counter the opinions of the bill’s sponsor and supporters. He was virtually told to sit down and shut up because the committee had four more bills to hear and each side could only have 10 minutes for their testimony and his time was up.

Admittedly, the bill isn’t one of the headline-grabbers, and in all likelihood it would probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of the people of Montana. In its own way, however, it does have the potential to negatively impact the lives, property, and financial well-being of many people. The people who do know and understand what this bill can do sincerely oppose it and the people who support it are equally sincere. They all deserve to have their elected representatives make an informed decision one way or the other after a full and fair hearing. As it stands now, that won’t happen.

As I sat there watching and listening to the unforgivable behavior of the chairman, I was in turn flabbergasted and then appalled. Montanans are nice people. We welcome those who are guests in our homes and in our public buildings. We do not shut our guests up because we disagree with them; we do not ignore their right to speak because we have other things to do; we do not treat them as nuisances when they wish to participate in their government.

They are “We the People” and our legislators owe them – us – their deepest and fullest respect. Always. That’s who we are.

5 thoughts on “That’s Not Who We Are

  1. Well said, and exactly on time as well. I think that we are going to have to relook who we are electing, and start with Thomas Jefferson’s maxim that “any man who seeks public office is not worthy of it.”
    All of us need to look around at successful business men and women, professionals, teachers, ranchers etc. and say to them “I know it’s an inconvenience, but we need you to go to Helena, and not the idiot that wants it.”

    We need to reexplore participatory democracy by asking those who don’t want to participate, to stand for office anyway. Cause we sure didn’t come out too well with this batch.

  2. There are committee chairs who are very courteous, Pat Ingraham of the House State Administration committee comes immediately to mind. But I’m afraid those chairs are the exception rather than the rule.

    There’s just something about politics this time around – it’s a dog eat dog approach. And why? They certainly are no better than anyone else, just because they got elected. Maybe it’s a love affair with the perceived power they assume they have. Which in itself is puzzling since the power with the legislature lies with a majority not the individual.

    But I agree with Steve. We didn’t do too well with this batch of legislators.

  3. Before you paint with too broad a brush…

    There are two conflicting situations at work in this year’s legislature – one is that there are so many new, inexperienced legislators that the lobbyists are in control. In the hearing I write about, the main proponent, the lobbyist for one of the most prominent groups in the state blatantly lied in his testimony, but – due largely to the inexperience on the committee, combined with the chair’s commitment to getting the hearing done quickly – that fact could not be communicated in the hearing.

    I’ve never been anti-lobbyist (cripes, I’ve been a lobbyist) but the absolute rule was that a lobbyist NEVER lied to a legislator. This year, that rule doesn’t apply. Consequently we have legislators with very little or no context in which to put much of what they are being asked to decide being told things that are inaccurate or incorrect and then expecting them to create good public policy.

    The other conflict is that with so many new legislators and so many controversial issues, things can get out of control quickly.

    There is something to be said for institutional knowledge – and that only comes with experience. I would submit that most of the people serving in this legislature are good people with a genuine desire to do the right thing. The problem is that the “right thing” is an elusive beast and inexperienced hunters are not likely to be successful.

  4. Mike – you’re spot-on about Pat Ingraham. She’s been terrific. Her counterpart in the Senate…not so much.

  5. I believe I sat through the hearing to which you refer….or another with similar outcomes. I was appalled that folks who travelled from out of town were not given their time at the podium because the committee and chair were in a hurry to hear more bills. I do applaud Representative Ingraham as well….she is calmly in control and courteous to everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *