Utah Senate President Lane Beattie thought he'd open the now secret Rules Committees in the Legislature and be praised for it.
Instead, his proposal is being picked at by Democrats - no real surprise there - and several citizen interest groups as well.A Wednesday meeting of the Legislative Process Committee - where Beattie made his proposals on opening Rules and transferring its "sifting" powers to himself, the speaker of the House and standing committee chairmen - turned sour after Democrats and representatives from Utah Common Cause, United We Stand and Utah Issues all pointed out possible problems.
Behind the complaints is the possibility that Beattie and his successors could abuse the new power, the result being one or two men could keep bills bottled up without a fair hearing.
After listening to the complaints, Beattie blew up.
"I've never heard such a bunch of baloney in my life," he said, his voice rising. "Your arguments (against his proposal) are illogical. Of all the groups who want (open meetings), it should be you. I'm incensed that you ridicule this."
Claire Geddes of United We Stand - Ross Perot's citizen action group - said she supports opening the Rules Committees. But maybe, she said, Rules should still assign bills to standing committees and "sift" legislation at the end of each session - in an open session - instead of the Senate president and House speaker doing those things.
Beattie said he's willing to listen to proposed changes to his plan. But he then added that he's going forward with it regardless of what the Legislative Process Committee decides to do concerning Rules.
In an interesting sidelight, Rep. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, argued in favor of the current system, saying it at least let minority Democrats have some say in which bills came out of the secret House Rules Committee during the final days of each 45-day session.
Davis and Democratic leaders don't advocate keeping Rules closed and secret. But they worry very much about giving all power on bill flow to the majority Republicans. Beattie argues that such abuse of power is inherent in the current system - and that it could be present under his changes if a president played politics. "But at least you'd know who to point the finger at - me. And at least you'd have a public vote, on the floor of House or Senate. You don't have that now," Beattie argued.
"What could be more democratic than having a majority - and I'm talking majority with a small `m' - not necessarily Republicans or Democrats - make the decisions on which committees hear a bill or deciding which bills are heard in the final days of the session?" asked an incredulous Rep. Byron Harward, R-Provo, co-chairman of the process committee.
Under Beattie's plan, legislative staff would write and number bills (as they do now) and then recommend to the presiding officer of the House or Senate which standing committee should hear that bill. All bills must be assigned to a standing committee. The recommendation would be based on the bill's subject matter.
Beattie and the House speaker would, administratively, make those assignments. Any member who didn't like where his bill was going could object and ask for a vote to send the bill to a more favorable committee. "The majority rules in the open," says Beattie.
At the end of each session, leaders must "sift" bills - the most important bills must be put at the top of the House and Senate calendars for votes, or critical matters like the budget, bonding, key legislation would go unfinished.
Currently, in the House the secret House Rules Committee sifts. Senators in recent years have done sifting in public, with the majority GOP leader making motions to move important bills to the top of the calendar and members voting to do that in open session.
Davis said that historically House Rules members have tabled all bills that come to them for sifting. It then takes two-thirds vote to lift each bill and send it to the House calendar for floor votes. Since Republicans don't have two-thirds majority on the secret House Rules Committee, minority Democrats have horse-traded bills - so many GOP bills can come up for a hearing, but one Democratic one must also.
"It has at least given the minority party a way to have a public debate on the issues important to us," said Davis.
That can still happen, said Beattie and Harward. As bills are moved from the bottom of the calendar to the top in the final days, Democrats can rise on the floor and argue that their bills should be moved up - and so be considered. Democrats doubt that will really happen, however. They guess that Republicans will only "sift" their own bills to the top of the calendar.
Unsaid was what happened in the 1994 session. House members, with most, if not all, Democrats pushing the idea, voted to open House Rules. After the motion passed and Rules was open, Democrats quietly went to Republicans leaders and complained that in the final sifting their bills would likely be ignored by the majority party. Sheepishly, those who led the open Rules fight a week later relented and asked that Rules be closed for the rest of the 1994 session.
"Now the Democrats are doing the same thing (with Beattie's suggestion)," said one GOP leader who asked not to be named. "They want Rules open because the public demands it. But they want the limited power they've had from the secret committee. I don't see how they can have both."