Press Release of October 6,
2008
This week, I want to update you
on a new effort in the state House of Representatives to
broadcast our floor sessions. This has been discussed for
several years in North Carolina as a way to open up our
deliberations to anyone who is interested and to improve
confidence in how we handle our business.
The House Select Committee on
Television Sessions held its first meeting this week. Below is a
summary of the meeting and the effort to date.
House Select Committee on
Televised Sessions
House Speaker Joe Hackney appointed Representative Cullie
Tarleton to chair the committee. Representative Tarleton is a
former senior vice-president and general manager for WBTV, WBT
Radio, and WCCB-TV and a former member of the board of directors
for the National Association of Broadcasters. Other members of
the committee are Representative Linda Coleman; Representative
Margaret Dickson; Representative Rick Killian; Representative
Grier Martin; Representative Mitch Setzer, and Representative
Thom Tillis. Denise Weeks, the principal clerk in the House,
will serve as an advisory member of the committee.
As part of its study, the committee has been asked to review
and assess current television access to state government and how
it compares to other states and the federal government. The
committee is expected to submit its final report by December 31.
The General Assembly already provides live audio broadcasts
of floor sessions in the House of Representatives and the
Senate, as well as press conferences and meetings of the Finance
and Appropriations committees of both bodies.
Other States
The research staff opened the
meeting with a presentation about what other states are doing:
-
About 40 states, including
North Carolina, have broadcasts of some type. Thirty-two
offer video and 15 have audio. Some states offer both for
both chambers and others offer video of one chamber and
audio of another.
-
24 states offer broadcasts
of committee meetings.
-
28 states have television
broadcasts. Not all of these offer the kind of
“gavel-to-gavel” coverage that is being considered for the
House. Some of these broadcast an edited package of clips or
highlights.
The committee then looked at
examples of broadcasts from several states. Some states have
archived video clips on their web sites that users can search.
In some cases, links to the chamber’s agenda, bills and other
information are listed alongside the video, allowing users to
read the bills as they are being debated. Other states simply
display the video.
In many cases, legislative
staffers handle the video feed, but in some instances other
state agencies were brought in to handle the job.
Costs
Technical advisers from the General Assembly have been
examining the possibility of producing broadcasts for several
years. One of them told committee members that startup costs for
televising House sessions would be about $1.3 million. About
half that money would be spent for equipment and the other half
would be spent on recurring costs, such as personnel. The costs
of preparing the General Assembly’s 17 committee rooms for
broadcasts would be an additional $750,000.
The recurring costs include the costs of archiving video,
though no decision has been made yet about whether such a record
is required. Some states don’t archive their video broadcasts.
The video system would be separate from the existing network at
the General Assembly to prevent interference with telephone and
Internet service.
What’s next?
Representatives of the cable television industry and public
television attended the meeting. Both are interested in working
with the House of Representatives, but the logistics of getting
the broadcasts on a television station will take time to
discuss. Some members of the committee also want to talk about
how to provide access to the video for personal and commercial
use.
The next meeting date has not been set, but the committee
intends to meet frequently so that it can submit its
recommendations before the Dec. 31 deadline.
