What Did They Do?

In August of 2010, I retired. That’s right; I quit going to work every day. It’s been an adjustment I have yet to conquer.

As the legislative season grew closer and closer, I found myself having serious withdrawal symptoms. For thirty years I have walked the halls of the Capitol. I started in 1980, as an elected Representative from Warren County. In 1988, I left the Legislature on my own accord and began a lobbying career that has kept food on the table until my retirement.

There’s something about being around the Capitol. You learn about issues and hear both sides in debate. You see the TV cameras and have a very good idea of what is going to be on the local news. When you read about an issue in the paper, you know far more about it than the average citizen and usually more than the reporter. I guess it’s being on the “cutting edge” of government actions that makes it so interesting to me.

So I began to think of how I could still be around the Legislature without the intense pressure of lobbying. Over the years many people have asked me to do reports for them. I usually declined unless they were willing to pay me. So, I decided I might be able to round up a client or two interested in knowing what’s going on but not able to be at the Capitol all day, every day.

Fortunately, I found such a client. They pay me to go to committee meetings and listen to the floor sessions. I text them of immediate actions and give them a weekly report on the issues of interest to them. I also call them right away if I sense they need to talk to a particular Legislator on an issue. It is working well for both of us. I can be involved in the process without any pressure. I do not talk to Legislators about any issue and quite honestly I don’t care if a bill passes, gets amended or fails. It is not my concern. My only concern is to keep my client advised.

You may be wondering why someone would hire me to just listen and report. First of all, my actions allow the client to continue working with minimal disruption. When I call them for action, they can usually talk to a Legislator on the phone. If testimony is required, they can prepare it, deliver it and go back to work. If the testimony only concerns their business and they do not otherwise attempt to influence a Legislator they do not have to register as a lobbyist. Consequently they can “fly under the radar” because their competitors will not be totally aware of their involvement in the issue.

You might say, well they could hire somebody at a lesser cost to listen and report. Yes they could, but will that other person have the technical expertise required. Does the other person know about the Legislative rules and deadlines? Will they know the difference between the subcommittee rules, the committee rules, and the floor rules? Will the other person know the pros and cons of dealing with particular legislators? Will the other person be aware of all the other players and their concerns on the issue? Will the other person know precisely when and how to take effective action on an issue?

Yesterday as I was listening to the House, I noticed committee chairmen moving to “lay the bill on the table subject to call”. They were doing that to protect their bill which would have been bumped to the heel of the calendar if a motion was not made. Rather than do that, the chairmen could have moved to “have the bill considered read for the third time”. It would allow the bill to retain its place on the calendar without placing it on a different calendar which has higher priority. It’s early in the session. After about an hour of floor action, the chairmen remembered the “proper” way to deal with the bill. By the way, the rules on calendar placement and placement retention are different in the House and Senate.

Another example of technical knowledge is to know the difference between “the usual motion” on the floor and “the usual motion” in committee. When made on the floor it means that "the rules be suspended, the bill considered engrossed, read for the third time and placed on final passage”. That motion requires a 2/3 vote. When made in committee, the motion is made after a bill receives approval and has the effect of moving to reconsider the vote whereby the bill passed and tabling the motion to reconsider. Once that action is taken, the bill is no longer the property of the committee and is placed on the calendar for floor action. The “usual motion” in committee only requires a majority of those voting, not the majority of a quorum.

A client asked yesterday what “TSDP”, “TSDPAA” and “TSDPCS” means when shown as a committee recommendation. It means "Title Sufficient Do Pass", "As Amended", "Committee Substitute". And each recommendation requires a different action on the floor of the House or Senate. You get the idea. There's a distinct language and a different set of rules to play by when dealing with the Legislature.