My bill to live stream and digitally record House committee hearings is getting a lot of attention. The legislation would cover all hearings, work sessions, executive sessions, committees of conference and any other committee proceeding subject to prior notice in the House calendar.
It is important to expand opportunities for citizens of New Hampshire to see everything we do in their House of Representatives, not only to ensure that state government is accessible and transparent but also to give people an opportunity to be fully engaged and sufficiently knowledgeable of the direction of their government.
With 400 state representatives, almost everyone in New Hampshire knows at least one of us, and our phone numbers and email addresses are listed on the General Court website. Contacting us is easy, but gaining a real understanding of what we’re doing is frequently a challenge. The recording of our activities will make it possible for everyone to see whatever discussions interest them. Recordings will be helpful to representatives as well, because they can’t be in more than one hearing at a time.
But this level of transparency seems to be an unsettling idea for some, and there are those who are particularly upset that the idea is coming from me.
Speaker Shawn Jasper expressed shock that such legislation, which he characterized as costing over a million dollars, would come from someone who found the 2017 budget’s spending excessive and wasn’t shy about saying so.
Since the speaker has no desire to put the budget behind us, I think it’s appropriate to point out that the 2015 budget increased General Fund spending, which is the portion of the budget over which we have the most control, 0.9 percent in 2016 and another 0.9 percent in 2017. The budget signed this year increases spending 7 percent in 2018 and another 2.7 percent in 2019. An almost 10 percent combined increase puts New Hampshire very much out of step with other states anticipating or experiencing a slower economy.
The next to last paragraph of an article in The Hill, published during our budget discussions, points out that 1 percent was the desired increase in most state budgets this year. While it is true that New Hampshire’s revenues were up last year, the answer to the question of how much we’ll spend shouldn’t be “we won’t know until we know how much we have in revenue.”
Another article points to a recent slowdown in New Hampshire state revenues, which, should it continue, won’t be surprising to those of us paying attention.
The speaker’s estimate of the cost of installing wiring and cameras in 24 hearing rooms also deserves discussion.
Technology has come a long way and dropped in price significantly since the speaker came to the House in the early 1990s. My estimate runs approximately $2,000 per room for wiring and perhaps $500 for each of two cameras per room. Our current service, which provides live streaming and digitally records House and Senate sessions, is scaleable and can be expanded to provide the required computer capability. On that basis, even doubling the estimate of the cost of hardware and installation, the cost comes in at under $150,000. In a $3 billion General Fund, I’m confident a determined effort can find $150,000.
While this proposal is very popular, there are those who are very comfortable with the way we now operate and think this is an idea we can do without. There are two ways the measure can be defeated. Inflating the projected cost of the installation, equipment and service needed to accomplish the legislation’s purpose is an obvious option that I expect to hear more about.
Of greater concern, however, is referring the bill to the Finance Committee, which, because it entails an expenditure, is certainly one of the committees that will be considering it. The Finance Committee enjoys a great deal of latitude. It can disregard the recommendation that the appropriate policy committee, which hears bills first, has spent time and effort compiling. It has the ability to increase, decrease or eliminate the funding recommended by the policy committee and can, in effect, kill any bill that comes before it.
In spite of these obstacles, I think that a transparent House of Representatives is an idea whose time has come. The response from my fellow representatives has been overwhelmingly positive. I believe I can also count on concerned citizens who value transparency to follow the bill’s progress and ensure it has the support necessary to make it through what promises to be an interesting legislative journey.
(James W. McConnell of North Swanzey represents Cheshire District 12 in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.)