|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Feb 1, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller * The House approved its new rules today. As I told subscribers this morning, this section of the old rules was deleted…
Some limited remote committee participation will be allowed for members. Those who testify in committees will be allowed to do so if the technology is available. But no more remote floor voting. The Senate has kept its options open. * The Question: Are you in favor of eliminating remote floor voting or should it have been kept? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
|
 |
|
|
- Change Agent - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 1:46 pm:
They should keep it, but under very limited circumstances. You get to vote remotely for medical reasons (including being contagious), but not when you want to leave Springfield early or go on a tropical vacation. Esther Golar-level deathbed heroics should not be required for good governing in 2023.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 1:48 pm:
Get your shots, wear a mask if necessary, but push the button in person. Only in cases of extreme circumstances should proxy or remote voting be allowed.
- Flapdoodle - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 1:52 pm:
Voted to eliminate.
Need to encourage attendance, not create escape routes. Perhaps build in means to accommodate special circumstances (e.g., illness, family emergency) providing tech is available and approval granted. But don’t make it standard procedure.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 1:56 pm:
A quorum must be present on the floor. But this provides for participation especially when circumstances like health could prohibit. I’m happy that my representative could have that option. I’d rather not have a lack of participation just because a modern convenience is not employed.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 1:59 pm:
It was good to eliminate it.
Not everything can transfer to remote work.
Sausage factories, for example, work best when everyone is physically present.
However, I do think it may still be beneficial to keep parts of it. A good example would be for a elected rep having a natural disaster in their district, and being allowed to vote remotely to be able to instead address the local needs of his constituents, while still being able to vote remotely on important state business.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 2:14 pm:
Eliminate it. It can be reinstated if there is another pandemic.
I’d prefer a rule requiring vaccination to access to the floor requires vaccination.
- Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 2:15 pm:
Eliminate. As a selfish Springfieldian, spend your hard earned money here, not on the golf course or traveling or campaigning, so we can get the tax revenue. half /s
Seriously though, the capital is Springfield, COVID is now endemic, so there’s really no reason not to be here.
- MomElected Official - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 3:38 pm:
I wonder how many legislators with kids (esp women) would be in government if they could occasionally vote remotely? Encouragement - yes, but for the occasional schedule conflict this is a good solution.
- northsider (the original) - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 4:25 pm:
I’d keep it. If anything good came from the pandemic it’s that we learned our bodily presence at the workplace isn’t always necessary to get our work done.
If they want to make sure it’s not abused, allow it by permission under the same terms as an “excused absence”.
- Dupage mom - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 5:18 pm:
How will the legislators work together and discuss concerns if they are doing it from their couch in Naperville? Glad its gone.
- Springfield watcher - Wednesday, Feb 1, 23 @ 8:05 pm:
This was an item that both parties agreed on. The abuse was rampant and had to come to an end.
- Eire17 - Thursday, Feb 2, 23 @ 4:02 am:
Like a lot of reasonably good ideas it was abused. We know that. So come to Springfield. No one in the General Assembly was drafted. They all ran for a job that for parts of the year is located in Springfield. So come on down.