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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT