Thread by @jacoblstern

In 2014, I was a clerk for the ME legislature's enviro committee and I'm flabbergasted by the arguments by progressive Reps (many of whom I respect) against making committee votes and testimony public. /1 #mapoli @act_on_mass @byChrisVan @statehousenews
masslive.com/boston/2021/02…

@reptricia & @skpeake said that offices do not have the "technical capacity" to post testimony publicly. As a 23 year-old committee clerk in ME, I did this. Sometimes after a big hearing I'd have to scan 100+ pages, but it's not hard! I'd post it all online within 24-48 hours. /2

In the rare cases (~1% of the time) where a constituent shared a book or another document that would have been logistically challenging to post online, I'd either ask them for an electronic version or simply not post it. /3

@RepMichlewitz said he was concerned about pushback from members of the public who didn't realize their testimony would be public. The Maine legislature thought of a solution for that too--they added this disclaimer to their testimony submission portal. mainelegislature.org/testimony/

And there *are* options in ME if you want to submit testimony that's not public: "Testimony received after the day of the public hearing will be distributed to committee members and staff, but it will not be published online" /5

I'm deeply grateful for the MA legislature's leadership on climate, police reform, election access and many other issues this past year. But I'm struggling understand the opposition to basic transparency practices that have been the norm in other states for ages. /6

In closing, I'll add that the ME state house is far from perfect, but in terms of transparency, there's no comparison with MA. In case anyone's wondering, here's what it looks like to have testimony publicly available online: legislature.maine.gov/bills/display_…