6 ms·

U.S. Senate Handbook

29 points by cwal37 12y ago

spindritf 12y ago
Since they lead with its secrecy, I'm guessing there's nothing particularly interesting or scandalous in it?
- privong 12y ago
  What should be scandalous is that the Senate's rules have been secret – in the absence of public rules, how do we know who is following them?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If you read the documents even a little, you'll see that they're not even as salacious as an employee handbook. Most employee handbooks aren't 90% rules about office supply requisition procedures. What does it matter who's following these rules? Do you really care whether a senator has properly installed a [Chair (Overstuffed)] in their personal office rather than their front office? I'd be more worried about the opposite phenomenon. The handbook is apparently used by the Senate Ethics Committee. I'd be worried that a giant book of rules about how exactly to obtain your parking pass or requisition an easel or how to arrange chairs in the rules committee room (note: actual examples) could easily be used as a weapon against individual senators by accusing them of "ethics violations". Rule violations by senators are a tricky thing. Senators do not in fact serve at the pleasure of the Senate Ethics Committee. They're elected by the people of their state. The Constitution requires the Senate to make its own rules, but those rules are primarily for the orderly conduct of business in the Senate.
    - swombat 12y ago
      I think there is credence to the argument that the damn thing shouldn't have been secret in the first place. The practice of over-classifying stuff just reduces the transparency of the government in general. If it's not secret, don't classify it.
    - privong 12y ago
      I have not looked into the actual document contents, but based on what you said, I do agree with you. But your poins are orthogonal to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for a manual/handbook for the Senate's conduct of business to be public or secret in a representative democracy.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    I'm not sure why we would care. The senate made the rules; they should be the ones to care if the rules are followed. There's not much justification for secrecy, but it's hardly scandalous.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I don't know, the disparity in paper allotment by sheet between Alabama and Georgia does appear to be a travesty.
cwal37 12y ago
Related in that it concerns the Senate, I thought this 2010 New Yorker piece[1](which I found via the currently-open archives) was extremely interesting, but also troubling. If you have even a passing interest in the ongoing legislative dysfunction, this article should provide you with plenty to think about. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/09/the-empty-chamber?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/09/the-empty-chamb... EDIT: I also seem to have trouble getting titles right on submission to HN. In this case, the reason it's even news that this was released is because it had been a secret document in the past. I feel like the edited title removes a crucial piece of information about this story. Even if the content itself is not particularly revelatory, it speaks to a bigger picture (perhaps even more effectively due to its mundane nature) about the almost comical lack of transparency in certain aspects of the governing process. EDIT2: In trying to think of other words to replace secret, I kind of hit nothing much because most of those words (such as: mysterious, covert, classified, etc.) evoke the same linkbait-y feeling. Not sure if there is really a good replacement choice.

29 points by cwal37 12y ago

spindritf 12y ago

Since they lead with its secrecy, I'm guessing there's nothing particularly interesting or scandalous in it?

privong 12y ago
What should be scandalous is that the Senate's rules have been secret – in the absence of public rules, how do we know who is following them?
- tptacek 12y ago
  If you read the documents even a little, you'll see that they're not even as salacious as an employee handbook. Most employee handbooks aren't 90% rules about office supply requisition procedures. What does it matter who's following these rules? Do you really care whether a senator has properly installed a [Chair (Overstuffed)] in their personal office rather than their front office? I'd be more worried about the opposite phenomenon. The handbook is apparently used by the Senate Ethics Committee. I'd be worried that a giant book of rules about how exactly to obtain your parking pass or requisition an easel or how to arrange chairs in the rules committee room (note: actual examples) could easily be used as a weapon against individual senators by accusing them of "ethics violations". Rule violations by senators are a tricky thing. Senators do not in fact serve at the pleasure of the Senate Ethics Committee. They're elected by the people of their state. The Constitution requires the Senate to make its own rules, but those rules are primarily for the orderly conduct of business in the Senate.
  - swombat 12y ago
    I think there is credence to the argument that the damn thing shouldn't have been secret in the first place. The practice of over-classifying stuff just reduces the transparency of the government in general. If it's not secret, don't classify it.
  - privong 12y ago
    I have not looked into the actual document contents, but based on what you said, I do agree with you. But your poins are orthogonal to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for a manual/handbook for the Senate's conduct of business to be public or secret in a representative democracy.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  I'm not sure why we would care. The senate made the rules; they should be the ones to care if the rules are followed. There's not much justification for secrecy, but it's hardly scandalous.
tptacek 12y ago
I don't know, the disparity in paper allotment by sheet between Alabama and Georgia does appear to be a travesty.

cwal37 12y ago

Related in that it concerns the Senate, I thought this 2010 New Yorker piece[1](which I found via the currently-open archives) was extremely interesting, but also troubling. If you have even a passing interest in the ongoing legislative dysfunction, this article should provide you with plenty to think about. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/09/the-empty-chamber?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/09/the-empty-chamb... EDIT: I also seem to have trouble getting titles right on submission to HN. In this case, the reason it's even news that this was released is because it had been a secret document in the past. I feel like the edited title removes a crucial piece of information about this story. Even if the content itself is not particularly revelatory, it speaks to a bigger picture (perhaps even more effectively due to its mundane nature) about the almost comical lack of transparency in certain aspects of the governing process. EDIT2: In trying to think of other words to replace secret, I kind of hit nothing much because most of those words (such as: mysterious, covert, classified, etc.) evoke the same linkbait-y feeling. Not sure if there is really a good replacement choice.