Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Formation of Legislative Task Force

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Harrison
    May I suggest that the respective state chapters review the bills authored by their own senators? This would divide the pie 50 ways (or less, depending upon
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 15, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      May I suggest that the respective state chapters review the bills authored by their own senators? This would divide the pie 50 ways (or less, depending upon the number of chapters and willingness/ability of the chapters to participate. Frankly, the RLC would become more relevant to more people if we did this. An RLC endorsement would mean something if it was backed by this sort of active analysis and reporting of what Congress is up to. I miss the Liberty Index. I recall that we have been short-staffed at RLC HQ for a very long time, and I know that it is easy for people to ask for stuff, but they need to step up and provide the stuff as well. I'm in Minnesota, so I've got goofball Franken and rubberstamp Klobucher to deal with. If you can find someone to step up for their own states, then count me in. We will, of course, need to define the parameters and intention of the process and reports, as Bill has indicated.

      Best regards,

      Doug Harrison
      Minnesota



      On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:49 PM, westmiller@... wrote:



      Posted by: "Dave Nalle"
      > ... committee to review Congressional legislation ...<
       
      Cliff Thies and I did this for several years, though only at the end of the year, to prepare the roll-call list for the Liberty Index. I haven't had the time to do the follow-up web DB entries, but still review the votes he proposes. Each year, I invited RLC National and State officers to participate in reviewing that list, but only recall one or two requests and no suggested changes. Although Mike Holmes is no longer active, he did occasionally participate in our discussions. So, I welcome anyone who has the time (and a certain degree of knowledge) joining in this kind of ad-hoc committee effort.
       
      However, your invitation isn't clear about what the proposed Committee will do. If it's just a compliment to the assembly of the Liberty Index, that's one thing. If it's an on-going selection of roll-call votes that can contribute to the ratings, that's another. If it's a detailed review of pending legislation for the purpose of alerting members and encouraging lobbying, that's another. The last of these is a huge task that requires tools like "Cap-Whiz" that capture, summarize, and provide some flagging tools on each pending bill. That can be expensive and time-consuming to manage, or even monitor.
       
      If the intent is to identify bills well in advance, in order to facilitate professional or volunteer lobbying of Congress (as your website post suggests), that's another gigantic coordination task. Certainly a worthy goal, but I'm not sure that we have the personnel or resources to do it effectively.
       
      Bill
      BTW: This discussion should probably be moved to RLC-Action, which is intended to focus on operational planning and projects. (CC)



    • Douglas Harrison
      May I suggest that the respective state chapters review the bills authored by their own senators? This would divide the pie 50 ways (or less, depending upon
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 15, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        May I suggest that the respective state chapters review the bills authored by their own senators? This would divide the pie 50 ways (or less, depending upon the number of chapters and willingness/ability of the chapters to participate. Frankly, the RLC would become more relevant to more people if we did this. An RLC endorsement would mean something if it was backed by this sort of active analysis and reporting of what Congress is up to. I miss the Liberty Index. I recall that we have been short-staffed at RLC HQ for a very long time, and I know that it is easy for people to ask for stuff, but they need to step up and provide the stuff as well. I'm in Minnesota, so I've got goofball Franken and rubberstamp Klobucher to deal with. If you can find someone to step up for their own states, then count me in. We will, of course, need to define the parameters and intention of the process and reports, as Bill has indicated.

        Best regards,

        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota



        On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:49 PM, westmiller@... wrote:



        Posted by: "Dave Nalle"
        > ... committee to review Congressional legislation ...<
         
        Cliff Thies and I did this for several years, though only at the end of the year, to prepare the roll-call list for the Liberty Index. I haven't had the time to do the follow-up web DB entries, but still review the votes he proposes. Each year, I invited RLC National and State officers to participate in reviewing that list, but only recall one or two requests and no suggested changes. Although Mike Holmes is no longer active, he did occasionally participate in our discussions. So, I welcome anyone who has the time (and a certain degree of knowledge) joining in this kind of ad-hoc committee effort.
         
        However, your invitation isn't clear about what the proposed Committee will do. If it's just a compliment to the assembly of the Liberty Index, that's one thing. If it's an on-going selection of roll-call votes that can contribute to the ratings, that's another. If it's a detailed review of pending legislation for the purpose of alerting members and encouraging lobbying, that's another. The last of these is a huge task that requires tools like "Cap-Whiz" that capture, summarize, and provide some flagging tools on each pending bill. That can be expensive and time-consuming to manage, or even monitor.
         
        If the intent is to identify bills well in advance, in order to facilitate professional or volunteer lobbying of Congress (as your website post suggests), that's another gigantic coordination task. Certainly a worthy goal, but I'm not sure that we have the personnel or resources to do it effectively.
         
        Bill
        BTW: This discussion should probably be moved to RLC-Action, which is intended to focus on operational planning and projects. (CC)



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.