Here’s the article that started it all:
Two minutes of testimony can change the world. Here’s how to do it. Rick Hutzell, Baltimore Banner
However, if you click this link you will notice that it now has a different title.
“Hutzell: Testifying at the State House? You’ve got 2 minutes to change the world.”
Have you noticed that newspaper articles that are printed and distributed online have this odd habit of changing their titles? What’s up with that?
Anyway, that’s not the point of my piece.
Hutzell writes about Marylanders who come to Annapolis to give testimony related to legislation being considered during the current session.
“You know, it takes a lot to come to Annapolis,” said House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk, a longtime committee chair before her election last month as speaker. “And then they have to wait for hours, right?”
There’s limited public transportation, no free parking and lots of obstacles. Two minutes might not seem like enough.
I enjoyed this article. It humanizes a process that many people may not even know about and explains why it is important. But I saw something in it that you might not. Or rather, I noticed something missing.
I went on social media and asked:
Can folks still give testimony via Zoom for Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis?
It says something about the kind of people I know that I received upwards of ten responses between Facebook and Bluesky, many with relevant links. Everyone assumed that I had asked because I had the desire to give testimony.
It was a little embarrassing to admit that all I had wanted to know was whether Zoom testimony was still an option.
That’s the bit about Hutzell’s article that bothered me. Remember, it was originally published with the title:
“Two minutes of testimony can change the world. Here’s how to do it.”
Let’s review. Here is the “how” outlined in the piece:
Arrange for transportation
Pay for parking
Take off from work
or school
or arrange for backup care if you are a primary caregiver
Go in person
Wait for hours
Additionally, if you are immune compromised, it doesn’t appear that many folks are masking these days in Annapolis so you’re on your own there.
If the only information you had was this piece in the Baltimore Banner, then you would have learned that giving testimony in Annapolis is open to people with money, time, privilege, and robust good health. Continuing along in that train of thought, then we can safely assume that those are the people for whom the system is designed to work.
I was relieved to hear from my friends that the option for remote testimony is still possible. I’m sorry that Hutzell didn’t find a way to mention it in his piece. Perhaps it just didn’t fit with the story he was trying to tell.
Do you think that’s why they changed the name of the piece? It originally claimed “Here’s how to do it.” Yet it clearly isn’t a how-to article. You may already know that journalists don’t get to write the titles to the pieces they write. So if the original one wasn’t accurate it isn’t Mr. Hutzell’s fault.
I came away from this piece thinking, “Wow, it’s really inconvenient and time-consuming to give testimony in Annapolis. Aren’t those nice people inspiring for persevering anyway!”
I wish I had come away with the feeling that the voices of Marylanders are valued and anyone can make a difference. Then, “Here’s how.” But that’s another article altogether.
Some things I’ve learned:
Virtual testimony is allowed throughout session, but folks have to indicate virtual when signing up and cannot change it to in person once sign ups are closed. Each committee posts their guidelines on the MGA website and there is a helpful tutorial on how to navigate the sign up process (from 8am- 6pm two days before the hearing).
Speaking of tutorials, newly-appointed delegate Gabriel Moreno (District 13) has created one that walks you through the steps:
Summing up, this explanation from Hutzell’s piece is helpful in understanding the process by which our state legislators consider and assess the bill before them:
The work of sorting out bills happens in subcommittees. Policy experts and lobbyists work behind the scenes to shape an issue’s prospects, to influence how lawmakers think about a problem.
Testimony, however, can make the difference between pass and fail.
I would change that last sentence to read:
Access to testimony, however, can make the difference between pass and fail.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment