Committee observations

January 21, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If I checked my Blackberry, read the news online, generally just didn’t pay attention, or even got up and left during a meeting, I think that would be rude behavior. But my behavior would be acceptable apparently as a member of our General Assembly.

I’m pretty green when it comes witnessing firsthand the workings of our legislators, so I was caught off guard at how the committee meeting I attended took place. I was amazed at how long it took for the 8:30 a.m. meeting to start. I foolishly thought that I had to be there right on time and that the legislators would value punctuality. I’m sure they are busy and have a lot to do and would want to get the show on the road, but that didn’t happen for another 20 minutes.

Some of the senators in this particular meeting checked their phones, got up frequently, and even stared into space for a period of time while someone was testifying about a bill.

Someone who doesn’t work in government or work with the government may be offended by the behavior if they aren’t prepared for it. To spend your time preparing a statement and then looking up to see what appears to be half the committee not paying attention would frustrate me.

In the private workplace, this behavior during a meeting wouldn’t fly, but as I attend more meetings and hearings, I’ll learn that’s just how it’s done in the legislature.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT