Public Information and Private Worship

“Who makes the final decision?” a colleague asked at the hearing on House Bill 712.

My legislation would amend the Public Information Act.

It would describe the circumstances where a private citizen could obtain information related to a government decision about financial incentives and benefits to a business.

My response: The state or local government would decide if the law required that the information be made public.  If you have the resources, you would appeal that decision to the court system.

That wasn’t the only question I was asked at our bill hearings this afternoon.

Delegate Tiffany Alston sits next to me.

She was about to testify on her “Sacred Places Safety Act.”

House Bill 547 would, in part, create a criminal offense for a crime of violence in a place of worship.

“Place of worship” is defined as “a nonresidential location where more than one individual assembles for purposes of religious or spiritual observance.”

Del. Alston showed me the testimony of the Baltimore Jewish Council.

“Several small congregations are places of worship within the home of the Rabbi and their family,” it read, “with the living room being used as the ‘synagogue’ for the community.”

“That is accurate,” I told her.

I’ll ask her tomorrow how the hearing went.

A staple in time

            Little things count.

            A staple, in this instance. 

            Late yesterday, I took my staff’s advice and decided to narrow the scope of my legislation exempting a professor’s research or other information of a proprietary nature from the Public Information Act. 

             Using the University System of Maryland’s definition of intellectual property, we drafted an amendment that exempts from public access a faculty member’s research that meets that definition. 

            All of the language in the original bill would be deleted.  The amendment would become the bill. 

            After I made the final edits to my testimony this morning, I left this note for my staff:

            Staple the amendment to my testimony. 

           The reason: When committee members read my testimony, they will also see the amendment.  When I speak before the committee and refer to the amendment, they won’t be searching for it among the many papers on their desks. 

           The hearing went well.  Committee members read my amendment. 

           It doesn’t guarantee they’ll vote for the bill, but every little thing helps.

Fixing a problem

            “Is there a problem that needs to be fixed?” 

            That’s another way of saying, “Why do we need this bill?”

             Registered nurses, physician assistants, and licensed clinical social workers could provide health care to minors without the consent of their parents or guardians under my House Bill 68

            A physician, psychologist, or individual operating under the direction of one of those practitioners can already do so. 

            My legislation does not change the circumstances where such care is permitted.  You would not know that from the objections that certain interest groups are raising.  They want to use my bill to change the existing policy.

            I will emphasize that in my written and oral testimony at tomorrow’s bill hearing.

             Is a professor’s research on medical, scientific, technical, or scholarly issues already exempt from a request under the Public Information Act?  Is that also the case for documents dealing with public policy issues?

             I introduced House Bill 62 after learning of incidents where professors were intellectually harassed in Wisconsin and Virginia.  Are the laws there as protective of academic research as Maryland’s already is?

             I need to know the answer before Thursday – when the bill will be heard.

  • My Key Issues:

  • Pimlico and The Preakness
  • Our Neighborhoods
  • Pre-Kindergarten
  • Lead Paint Poisoning