페이지 이미지

things in the Congressional Record, he does not know of your staff backup.

I really think it is meaningful to see you all listening to debates. It may surprise you, but in the senate in Connecticut, debates have been on occasion persuasive oral debate.

One, when you talk about the change of light, did you indicate that

Representative DELLENBACK. May I ask you two questions. special lighting was necessary to be installed in the chamber which is relatively unobtrusive, or that the normal lights in your chamber would be adequate ?

Senator Rome. We still have the problem of having lighting which generates heat in the veins of some of our speakers. It remains there.

I am suggesting there are sophisticated cameras now. I own a new movie camera which does not require any outside lights, and Mr. Taff, I am sure, could comment.

I have not asked him directly the question, but I have a suspicion if such cameras are not available for the TV media now, they certainly should be made available, and our technology would allow them to be available, and that should be one of your major requirements.

Representative DELLENBACK. But you still use the lights?
Senator ROME. Yes.

Representative DELLENBACK. So you are talking about a change which would be desirable, which you have yet to accomplish?

Senator ROME. That is correct.

Representative DELLENBACK. Second, on the question of open meetings, you interest me as a matter of legislative procedure, you mean all meetings are open?

There are no closed meetings, no matter what is being discussed, no committee is able to have a closed meeting?

Senator ROME. No committee has had. It is a senate procedure, the joint rules did not provide it in writing, but from the day we took office, the senate has all of its hearings and meetings jointly with the house, the committee meetings and hearings, and the senator presides.

It has been our unwritten rule, which has been abided by that body, that there would be no closed meetings of any committee, and that has been the rule, unwritten, but abided by since January of 1973.

Representative CLEVELAND. I appreciate that very much, senator.
This is helpful testimony.
Mr. Taff, you may proceed.
Mr. Tarf. We will continue to speak as a team.
Mr. Yocom will answer specific questions in detail.
I will proceed with the next statement.


EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION CORP. Mr. TAFF. I'm Paul K. Taff, president and general manager of the Connecticut Educational Television Corp. On the air and in print we refer to ourselves as Connecticut Public Television, or even more briefly as CPTV.

Originally three reserved channels were allocated to Connecticut, later a fourth was added and CPTV is the licensee for these four stations. The use of an additional translator for a geographical area

difficult to reach now permits us to cover the entire State of Connecticut with a high quality UHF signal capable of serving approximately 3,100,000 people.

The first ETV station in Connecticut, WEDH channel 24 in Hartford, went on the air October 1, 1962. Since then stations have been added in Bridgeport, Norwich, and New Haven with the translator in Waterbury scheduled for service this month.

If one classified public television stations by their ownershipnamely—university owned, school system owned, State owned, or wide-based community owned—we are the only statewide community owned operation in the country.

As a community network, the operating funds for CPTV are from the typical sources—we do get a support grant from the State, but we receive funds from viewer membership, foundation and corporate gifts, and production grants.

The costs of our coverage of the Connecticut General Assembly are borne by our general programing fund supplemented by recent grants from the William Benton Foundation and this year in the absence of a Benton Foundation grant, by one from the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving.

Connecticut Public Television first brought cameras to the floor of the Connecticut House of Representatives in 1964, nearly 10 years ago, as the assembly was in a special session to deal with two reapportionment problems—congressional districts and State assembly districts. These were film cameras. The films made from the floor were used in special reports usually the day after the event occurred.

This same technique was used during the regular biennial session of 1965 and much of the 1967 session. But by June of 1967, near the end of the session, CPTV had acquired a fully equipped video tape remote unit. This equipment was first used to record the entire house of representatives debate on the State budget for the 1967–69 biennium. The 5-hour debate and the rollcall vote were broadcast that same evening on the CPTV stations.

By 1969, another new piece of equipment made live transmission from the State capitol building possible. Many debates from both houses of the legislature were broadcast live during the 1969 and 1971 sessions.

The 1972 session was the first even-year session of the general assembly since the voters approved a constitutional amendment providing for annual sessions of the legislature. Again, many broadcasts originated live from the capitol, including nightly reports in the “Connecticut Newsroom” program.

For the 1973 session, new assembly rules permitted coverage of the committee meetings. New formats were tried, including the debate format developed by the nationally distributed public television series “The Advocates."

Selected debates of the 1974 session, now in progress, are being taped and reports are being presented by CPTV, this year in color for the first time.

Accuracy and fairness have always been achieved in all of Connecticut Public Television's activity in news and public affairs programing. Fortunately, strict adherence to these principles has caused CPTV to gain the respect of the members of both parties and the leadership of both houses.

All decision making as to what issues were to be covered and how they were to be handled were always made by CPTV personnel. CPTV has never shied away from its responsibility to report information it judged to be the public's business. All broadcasts have aired whaterer facts have become known to CPTV personnel whether or not such facts presented powerful factions in a favorable light. All issues, which in the judgment of the producers were worthy of coverage, were covered. Never, to the knowledge of anyone who has worked on CPTV's coverage of the general assembly, has any political figure attempted to influence CPTV's journalistic judgments.

It would be my considered opinion that this has been an excellent public service and that the public, and legislators, have benefited from it. The public reaction has been favorable.

Mr. Chairman, just 2 days ago, WCBS in New York did about a 2-minute editorial. I will leave it for the record, wherein they said if you gentlemen on this committee want to see this kind of thing in real action, you should take a look at Connecticut.

Representative DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent it be made a part of the record.

Representative CLEVELAND. So ordered.
It will be made a part of the record at this point.
[The editorial follows:]


We think it's time you got to know your representatives in Washington a lot better. It would happen if you were allowed to watch on television or listen on radio while Congress does some of its most important work during debate on the floor of the House and Senate. Congress doesn't permit live or recorded broadcasts of floor debates but it's thinking about changing that rule. If there are any questions about the benefits or problems related to broadcasting, we suggest the representatives take a look at Connecticut. Connecticut has permitted sessions of the State Legislature to be broadcast for about five years. Lawmaking has not been stalled by showboating members performing before the cameras. Assembly Speaker Francis Collins says long-winded politicians have become a bit more windy and quiet ones have begun to speak up.

But no more than they do anyway in front of packed galleries. Sessions have not increased dramatically in length. Collins said, “Politicians have become more responsive and the voters have become more educated.” For example, Connecticut tax payers watched in horror while their lawmakers voted for a state income tax in 1971. The outcry after the broadcast was so intense that the law was repealed. That's called interaction.

If you think that's unusual, listen to this. The Connecticut legislature is considering letting citizens testify at committee hearings over the phone while they watch the proceedings on TV. The point is—we have modern means of communication and we should be using them.

Connecticut already is. We think it's time democracy became updated. Congress is currently looking into ways of increasing its contact with the American people. The Connecticut experience has shown that broadcasting legislative sessions when they merit it is one way to do it.

That was General Manager David L. Nelson expressing the opinion of the management of WCBS radio. We'd like to hear what you think. For information on how to reply to this editorial or to receive a copy of it, write to News Radio SS. New York 10019. Mr. TAFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the absence of any future program support grants, or if overall program budgets had to be cut, I would still insist on as much cover

age of the Connecticut General Assembly as we could possibly afford. It is now a part of our expected service to the public.

The legislators are involved in the people's business, so are wethat's what we are all about, and we feel we are working together to create an informed public, so necessary for our survival.

Now, I would like to introduce Mr. S. Anders Yocom, Jr., vice president and program manager for Connecticut Public Television.

Mr. Yocom joined CPTV when it first went on the air in 1962. He was the assigned producer for CPTV's earliest coverage of the Connecticut General Assembly in 1964 and produced all coverage through the 1971 session. As program manager, he now supervises those who are continuing this coverage. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yocom will continue. STATEMENT OF S. ANDERS YOCOM, JR., VICE PRESIDENT,

CONNECTICUT EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION CORP. Mr. Yocom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative CLEVELAND. You may continue, Mr. Yocom. Mr. Yocom. Members of the committee, I am honored to be here with you today to share our experience in televising the Connecticut Legislature. I speak to you in the hope that Congress will soon open its doors to television coverage, which in my opinion will be a positive step in bringing about better government.

I would like to deviate from my prepared testimony slightly. I have ? video tape to show you, and I am not sure if you have seen any examples of this kind of television, but I have brought this tape. It is a sample of the coverage of the Connecticut Legislature, and if I may, I would like to give you some background, so when the debate begins, you will understand what was in progress.

The general assembly was in special session June 23, 1971, when this tape was made. They had been up to that time unable to pass a fiscal package which was due to take effect a week later on July 1.

As we pick up the debate, the Democrats, in the majority then, were in the process of enacting a revenue bill.

One of the Republican amendments would have established a requirement that all public welfare recipients be required to reside in Connecticut for a year before being entitled to receive benefits.

The speaker of the house ruled that the amendment was not germane, and that it was out of order.

The Republicans challenged this rule.

There are several things I hope you will see as you watch this. I will comment later on such things as camera placement, the fact that a procedural debate can be interesting, and I think can be educational and rewarding to the viewers. Essentially I hope you will derive a feeling for the image of what it actually looks like to cover a legislative body on television.

So what you are about to see is the debate on this procedural matter. and we see the house majority leader rising to support the ruling of the speaker, which I explained was the Republican amendment which was ruled not germane.

Could we have the tape please?


JUNE 23, 1971 Mr. - - The subject of this bill is the raising of revenues for the State of Connecticut. The subject of the amendment, at it was explained and as I have seen it on other occasions, is to place a requirement upon individuals who might become eligible to receive certain benefits under the welfare programs, not at all the same purpose, not at all the same bill.

I happen to feel rather strongly about the matter and the content of the particular amendment, as is well known to the gentleman and some others in this House. However, I feel that we must adhere to our rules and, particularly on this occasion in this special session, this amendment cannot come before us, and it is for that reason that I made the point of order and I think that the ruling of the Chair was quite correct on that basis.

Mr. - - Mr. Speaker, we I think all appreciate the fact that this is a matter of some concern to many members of this House and many people in the State of Connecticut.

And in spite of the fact that just a few weeks ago the majority leader voted, spoke in favor of this particular amendment, was a cosponsor of this amendment, he now finds it in the course of our special session, such amendment certainly goes to the very heart of our revenue and financial picture in this State is by some magic of parliamentary procedure now not germane.

I think it is germane, Mr. Speaker, and I think that there is sound and logical legal basis for this particular amendment. I would refer you, sir, to section 402 of Masons, paragraph 2, which says, and I quote, “To determine whether or not amendment-whether an amendment is germane, the question to be answered is whether the question is relevant, appropriate, and in a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter of the original proposal.”

I submit, Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us fulfills all of those three requirements to the hilt. In addition, under paragraph 3, to rebut the argument of the majority leader, “To be germane, the amendment is required only to relate to the same subject. It may entirely change the effect of the motion or measure and still be germane to the subject."

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is clearly germane to the financial picture of this State, and anyone who does not agree can vote against the ruling, the appeal of the ruling of the Chair and conclude this matter for this session. I happen to think that the particular amendment before us is of sufficient importance to the financial well-being of this State that not only should it be declared germane, it ought to be passed by an overwhelming vote, as it was just three short weeks ago. Mr. —

Mr. Speaker? Mr. (Presiding Officer). For remarks on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, the gentleman from the 52nd.

Mr. - - Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Chair. In so stating, Mr. Speaker, I too supported this original amendment when it passed the House, and had it been offered on the appropriations

« 이전계속 »