Thread by @IAmNickReynolds

Management Council is discussing this policy change right now. Live stream here:

https://twitter.com/WyoFile/status/1390664972112433158

Interesting quote by Albert Sommers: "I think the public participation piece is probably going to be the most hotly debated [we have]." (1/2)

"One of the things that I've heard repeatedly from some of the chairs on the House side is the concern that if we don't have some throttle on who comes in when they come in, then we can get all manner of out of state people coming in at one, you know, kind of flooding in."

LSO Director Matt Obrecht notes there is no constitutional right to allow public comment. However, he said that any policy to restrict testimony based on one's residency would need to be vetted thoroughly before enactment.

Rep. Andy Schwartz suggested lawmakers could consider a fee for out-of-state people wanting to comment on issues.

Rep. Greear requesting these policies only address logistics for the interim session -- not the special session, and not the budget session.

Rothfuss: I think my constituents are always going to be better off if I'm participating to the greatest degree I can. And I don't think it really should be just up to the chairs of the committees, because the chairs of the committees don't necessarily represent my constituents.

Ana Marchese, of the @EqualityState, calls on them to maintain the hybrid testimony model throughout the interim session.

"We believe that these practices will benefit both legislators and Wyoming citizens, and they will also help to foster public input, feedback and comments"

We also have former journalist extraordinaire turned- @alzassociation spox Ramsey Scott, who notes Wyoming is "ahead of the game" when it comes to public interaction.

We even beat Colorado, he said.

Said that without remote particiaption, he would not have been able to take part in the most recent session due to COVID protocols.

Sounds like Kinskey is attempting to make remote participation compulsory, and to only apply to the interim session. Said it would give lawmakers discretion to participate remotely or not.

This would limit where meetings could happen though... here's the working list. They are all fairly large communities... probably won't see a meeting in Lander or Sundance this year.

Will also impact legislator pay (you make less if you tune in.)

That amendment passed, and we're now looking to clarify some of the language outlined in that amendment. You can participate remotely in-session if you want to, and we're now talking about if remote participation shall be authorized, as opposed to at the discretion of the chair.

So we've adopted a motion to make remote participation compulsory unless the chair says otherwise, if I have that correct.

So you would have to hold a meeting at the above sites, it seems like. Unless the chair decides otherwise.

This is the part we messed with:

Part "B" is subject to Part "A" and has been amended so that remote participation SHALL be authorized, rather than may. It adds more teeth to it, but it sounds like chairs have some leeway.

They're now talking reducing legislator pay if they participate remotely. Sen. Hicks noted some lawmakers were caught in hotels or motels on their way to the Capitol and weren't able to participate in meetings. Rothfuss notes lawmakers can waive their pay if they want.

We're now dividing legislator pay out of the existing division, which itself was part of a larger amendment to the original bill.

My head hurts.

Gray opposing a provision that would allow lawmakers to continue to participate remotely. Says he wants to return to full in-person participation as it was pre-COVID.

But Hicks says lawmakers need flexibility, especially in cases like his, where his well failed.

"I cannot anticipate all the circumstances that people are going to come to." he said. "I don't want to deny legislators, the ability to do their elected job was to represent their constituents."

"We all agree remote or in person is absolutely the best thing," Hicks added. "But I am not going to support taking the discretion away from legislators to live their lives, and do the things that they need to on a day to day basis."

Greear expressed concerns that if they make things too easy to participate remotely, they could lose new legislators, who would miss out on valuable networking time.

But this is about technology, both Hicks and Gierau said.

Lawmakers can still participate remotely.

Ayes: Gierau, Hicks, Kinskey, Rothfuss, Connolly, Schwartz, Yin,
Nos: Driskill, Gray, Greear, Sommers.

Didn't hear Dockstader and Barlow's vote.

Gray now moving to extend the deadline to cut off the signup for testimony from 5 p.m. the day before to midnight before the meeting.

Some chairs, like Hicks, are opposed to it, noting their experience in holding hearings on controversial topics. Say they do their best to publicize these issues ahead of time, and there is ample opportunity for the public to weigh in.

"I can't think of the number of committee meetings that I've had, but we've had over 30 or 40 people testify on various controversial issues, and you're going to get certain groups that come in here and exploit this," he said. "And I think it's a bad precedent."

Barlow said he once had 106 comments on an issue in a four-hour meeting. All in-person.

Yin and Rothfuss have sided with Gray's amendment. Always interesting that on transparency issues, the hard conservatives and Dems tend to be in alignment.

Motion fails 6-6.

Now on a motion to require all joint interim committee meetings take place in an approved facility, in this place the ones I named above. Could be tough for Ag or Select Water, Hicks notes. They do a lot of field visits in very remote areas.

The amendment has been adopted.

Policy is adopted, 7-5, Dockstader excused.

Nos: Driskill, Gray, Greear, Sommers, Hicks.
Ayes: Gierau, Kinskey, Rothfuss, Connolly, Schwartz, Yin, Barlow.