Senate General Laws and Technology Committee meeting.

I’ve spent the past hour in the Senate Committee General Laws and Technology meeting, here in Senate Room B.

This is my first time in a Senate committee room. It’s way more comfortable and nice-looking than the House committee rooms. It’s like moving from coach to business class. The senators are sitting on a slightly-elevated platform, and the result is that they’re at eye level to anybody who is standing and testifying, which is civilized touch.

The room is about 40% full, with most people in suits and looking very much as if they’re here for professional reasons, which is a stark contrast to the hearing I just left.

Most of what has transpired has been pretty pedestrian. The senators have asked questions of a series of fellow senators who have come before them to speak on behalf of the bills that they’re sponsoring. Sen. Stolle and Del. Terri Suit spoke about an Oceana/BRAC bill (SB565, which is actually pretty interesting), Sen. Ken Cuccinelli spoke on behalf of his SB355 (which would “eliminate the golden parachute problem,” in his words), which got a little funny. It turned out that his bill may conflict with one sponsored by Sen. William Wampler. Sen. Wampler, who sits on the committee, confessed that he didn’t know much about the bill, since he was carrying it for somebody else, but further confessed that he couldn’t figure out on whose behalf he was carrying it. Laugher rippled across the room, and consideration of the bill was delayed.

Sen. Harry Blevins spoke about HB98, which would extend state auto coverage to Meals on Wheels. And Sen. Henry Marsh spoke briefly about his SB107, which is so mundane as to be worthy of no description.

Senate General Laws and Technology CommitteeSen. John Edwards (my representative when I lived in the New River Valley) described a pair of totally uninteresting bills that he was carrying on behalf of the Code Commission (swapping “may” for “shall,” for instance), and a third (SB359 which permits the Department of Veterans Services to accept donated property to create a Southwest Virginia Veterans Cemetery.

What was interesting was Sen. Mark Obenshain’s bill SB334, which would require public libraries to install censorware on their public computers if they accept any state funding. All public libraries do, so this would mandate censorware. Those with anything more than passing familiarity with me know how pissed off I get at the prospect of such censorship, particularly with the crap that passed as software in the filtering industry. Several senators asked some good questions of Sen. Obshenain, but he could only parry them, not actually respond to them. It turned out that Sen. Wampler had introduced a very similar bill, so he got up and talked about his bill, too.

I have to get together with a couple of people before I leave for the day, so I don’t know how things are going to wind up with this bill, but I get the strong impression that the majority of this committee favors censorship of this nature.

I’d define this hearing as long stretches of tedium punctuated by interesting bits. A good book combined with the ability to keep one ear open seems like a healthy approach to attending such meetings.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

4 replies on “Senate General Laws and Technology Committee meeting.”

  1. It’s interesting to see legislators at least admit that they’re carrying a bill for “someone else” and know little about it … its rather disturbing actually.

  2. The more you learn about the way government really works, the more scared you get. A trip to the GA is enough to take the shine off anyone’s government apple.

  3. The ghost of Dick Black just keeps hoping to get lucky with the filtering software bill, year after year.

    This should be a dead issue. All Virginia public libraries must have an acceptable use policy for the internet, which *may* include the use of filtering software. The best policy, in my opinion, is the one we have in Loudoun. People are free to choose either filtered or unfiltered access for themselves or their children, leaving the decision up to parents, not the government. How’s that for family friendly?

  4. There’s a supreme court case striking down a federal law conditioning federal support for libraries on installation of censoring software on computers. It was struck down on first amendment grounds. Hard to see how this bill is any different isn’t it?

Comments are closed.