Miller's objection was that the meeting of the Local & Consent Calendars committee was not open to the public. If upheld, it would have killed the calendar and we would not have had that fine, elevating sham debate last night. The same point was raised some weeks ago against the regular calendar. (It was "respectfully" overruled.) Here's my question: How can the chair rule on this point? The resolution of the issue requires specific knowledge that is not generally available. (At some committee meetings, attendees sign cards indicating their interest in a particular bill.) Further, it raises the question of who is "the public." I spoke to the committee clerk of Local and Consent, who said that staff and lobbyists were in the room. Are they "the public?" I would say yes as to lobbyists. Short of someone coming forward and claiming that entry to the room was blocked, I can't see how the point can be legitimately sustained.
- 1 week