During these sessions bill files became confetti and were strew about the legislative chambers creating a scene not unlike Times Square on New Years Eve. This is before my time and also before Senator Rome's time. Many members of the legislature reportedly conducted last minute business in varying states of intoxication. These sessions were unruly, Some members were alleged to be completely oblivious to what was being passed into law. Live coverage of adjournment night was provided for the first time in 1969. While legislation did move at a fast pace, the decorum was markedly improved over the preceding adjournment nights. There was no confetti. The relative order was symbolic of the improvement in decorum that has characterized all sessions since "the people's windowTM was opened. But more important is the knowledge that television has been a constructive force which has resulted in greater public understanding of the decisionmaking process that affects the public well-being. Through television, each individual has been given the opportunity to hold his or her representatives accountable for their stewardships of the power to make laws. You do not need me to tell you that government in general and some of its institutions in particular are held in low esteem by the American people. Opening the Halls of Congress to television coverage can help reverse this situation. I would urge you to consider the possible reward of such coverage. Not only would you promote a better awareness of Congress as an institution; not only would you establish a platform which would increase the effectiveness of your communication with the American people; but you will probably find that TV coverage will bring about some reforms which will actually improve the lawmaking process. Your substance, your effectiveness, your image can only improve. In Connecticut, I think we can point to some real positive reforms that were brought about at least in part by our coverage. I will leave it to the distinguished members of our legislature here today to comment further on that. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my testimony, and I turn it over to Mr. Ogle. [The prepared statement of S. Anders Yocom, Jr., follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF S. ANDERS YOCOM, JR. 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 begin by showing you a short tape recorded just a few weeks ago in the House of Representatives at the Connecticut State Capitol. I do not think it is necessary or particularly useful for you to have an under standing of the issue that was under discussion that day. What I hope you wil derive from this tape is a sense of the "look" of the coverage and the interes potential. One point that could easily be overlooked, but which is illustrated by tha tape, is the placement of cameras. Our leadership has been very cooperative i allowing placement of cameras on the floors of each house. This kind of access has real benefit to all concerned, as it provides the mos aesthetically pleasing and efficient communication between legislator and viewe One should always have the opportunity to look directly into the eye of another when engaged in conversation-not at the tops of heads. This seems like a small point, but I wanted to make it while the image from the Connecticut House of Representatives is still in your mind. I hope you will be liberal in your approval of camera placement should television coverage of Congress be realized. No one questions the fact that in its present state of technology with bulky cameras and bright lights, television introduces an artificial atmosphere to any institution or event that it is covering. Television lighting often makes a room look abnormal (although sometimes more pleasing). The lights can be annoyingly bright, and they generate heat that can be bothersome in areas where there is poor air conditioning. (The legislative chambers have no air conditioning.) To the individual member of the General Assembly television coverage brings a certain measure of discomfort. But human beings (including legislators), being what they are, like to be in the camera's eye. In the camera's presence some members of the General Assembly have had a tendency to speak from the floor longer and more often than they otherwise would, sometimes to the annoyance of the leadership and other members. Some argue that this human tendency can work to the advantage of the articulate, vociferous "showboater" among the membership and to the detriment of those who are outwardly quiet, but perhaps thoughtful and persuasive behind the scenes. Some argue that the camera is intimidating to a few naturally shy legislators. However, with each day, with each debate covered by television, the artificiality of the presence of the cameras is reduced. When the members become aware that their speeches do not always show up on the air; when the leadership and peer pressure began to work on those who abuse their speaking privileges for the sake of being on television; when members begin to understand the way TV can make an unprepared or insincere speaker look exactly that way, the cameras become more and more like the furnishings and assumed a silent, positive effect. A small step taken by CPTV at the request of the leadership was the removal of the tally lights which indicate which camera is recording at any given time. This accommodation was designed to remove the incentive to "perform" while the camera was "on". Given sufficient television coverage over an extended period of time, the individuals who are the subject of the coverage begin to come across as they really are. Insincerity has a way of showing through on television. Yet sincere, well informed members are portrayed accurately. Most importantly, the members become humanized-that is animated persons, not printed or spoken portraits of persons whose integrity is subject to interpretation by third parties. The legislator who has an important message to bring to the public knows that he usually can gain unfiltered access to the public through interviews and/or statements from the floor. Television can and does transmit exactly what the individual legislator (and his opponents) want the people to hear, without the interpretation of an intermediate human being who may with all due integrity function as an interpreter for another medium. Because of television's positive potential and demonstrated effect, the members of the General Assembly have been very cooperative in dealing with CPTV staff and in tolerating minor annoyances such as bright light and heat. To veteran students of the legislative process in Connecticut, the most visible change in the process attributable to television is the change in decorum. This has been especially evident on adjournment night. Many long-time observers recall adjournment night as a time for revelry and merriment which began prior to actual adjournment and continued on afterward into the night. During these sessions bill files became confetti and were strewn about the legislative chambers creating a scene not unlike Times Square on New Years Eve. Many members of the legislature reportedly conducted last minute business in varying states of intoxication. These sessions were unruly. Some members were alleged to be completely oblivious to what was being passed into law. Live coverage of adjournment night was provided for the first time in 1969. While legislation did move at a fast pace, the decorum was markedly improved Over the preceding adjournment nights. There was no confetti. The relative order was symbolic of the improvement in decorum that has characterized all sessions since "the people's window" was opened. But more important is the knowledge that television has been a constructive force which has resulted in greater public understanding of the decision making process that affects the public well-being. Through television, each individual has been given the opportunity to hold his or her representatives accountable for their stewardships of the power to make laws. You do not need me to tell you that Government in general and some of its institutions in particular are held in low esteem by the American people. Opening the halls of Congress to television coverage can help reverse this situation. I would urge you to consider the possible reward of such coverage. Not only would you promote a better awareness of Congress as an institution; not only would you establish a platform which would increase the effectiveness of your communication with the American people; but you will probably find that TV coverage will bring about some reforms which will actually improve the lawmaking process. Your substance, your effectiveness, your image can only improve. In Connecticut, I think we can point to some real positive reforms that were brought about at least in part by our coverage. I will leave it to the distinguished members of our Legislature here today to comment further on that. Thank you. Chairman METCALF. Mr. Ogle, we are pleased to have you as the anchorman. DAVID B. OGLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE CONNECTICUT ASSEMBLY MANAGEMENT, GENERAL David B. Ogle, the chief administrative officer and staff director for the Connecticut State Legislature, assumed that position in January, 1970. From 1966 to 1968 he served as a research analyst for the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate. A graduate of the College of Wooster (Ohio), he received a Master's degree in political science from Rutgers University in 1966. Mr. Ogle has served as a special consultant to three state legislatures and has authored books on the subject of strengthening state legislatures. Mr. OGLE. Over the past several years, I have had opportunities for association with several of our State legislatures in either a staff or a consultant capacity. One of the conclusions that I have drawn from this experience is that the television media has tremendous potential as a tool for increasing public awareness and public understanding of the accomplishments, activities, and problems of its elected representatives. In its 1971 study that ranked the 50 State legislatures on their potential for effective performance, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures concluded that "No single step is likely to do more in the short run, both to raise the level of legislative performance and to make citizens more acutely aware that their legislature does matter in their lives, than live coverage of important hearings and floor debates." My experience in Connecticut over the past 4 years convinces me of the validity of this statement. During this period, we have taken many steps in the direction of upgrading the quality of the Connecticut General Assembly: Such things as the development of a full-time professional staff, a restructuring of our committee system, extensive ont-of-session work, more equitable compensation, and the elimination of executive session committee meetings. As a result of these actions, we now have a legislature that is far better equipped to deal with the problems that face our State. And our legislators are much better informed and more able to attempt to develop solutions to these problems. But none of these structural improvements have contributed in any significant way toward bringing our State legislature any closer to the people. This has been accomplished through Connecticut Public Television's extensive live coverage of our legislature's activities. As a result of this coverage, the people of Connecticut are unquestionably more aware than ever before of their legislature as an institution and of their individual representatives as people. It is quite apparent to me that television has helped to humanize our legislature. It brings the people of Connecticut right into the senate and house chambers. And the senate and house chambers are brought right into the people's living rooms. Citizens see their legislators as real live persons-faces that they can remember when they read stories about those legislators in the newspaper. And of course, our individual legislators generally approve of such coverage, for with it there in no middleman interpreting their statements for their constituents. It is not an unreasonable assumption that public confidence in a legislative body should increase in roughly direct proportion to the degree of awareness that its constituents have of its members and of their activities. And public confidence is, of course, an important ingredient in the effective performance of any legislative body. This is not to imply that the level of public confidence in the Connecticut General Assembly is far out of line with the public confidence levels of other legislative bodies at the State or national level. I am only saying that I feel it to be significantly higher than it would be if Connecticut Public Television did not provide such extensive live coverage of our legislative hearings and floor proceedings. I do not have any statistics or polls to support this belief. It is just an impression that I have drawn from observing, listening, and talking to people in various parts of our State over the past 4 years. On the national level, there are recent polls that seem to demonstrate most graphically the role that television can play in creating greater public confidence in government through greater familiarity with its participants. A Gallup poll last fall showed that the seven members of the Senate Watergate Committee had individual positive ratings of between 68 and 84 percent. This contrasts sharply with recent polling results in which the public was asked to rate the legislative branch of government as a whole. In short, our experience in Connecticut appears to demonstrate that live television coverage of legislative proceedings and activities can make a major contribution toward increasing public awareness of, and therefore public confidence in, the legislative branch of government. Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Ogle. Certainly, Senator Weicker from Connecticut is not unknown to the people all over the United States as a result of television coverage. Congressman Cleveland? Representative CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend this particular panel, as they have given us some most constructive information. In fact, they have actually given us as much hard information as all of the previous panelists, and they have shown us what actually happened in a real situation. There will probably be some technical questions, about where the cameras were placed, and so forth, but because of the time limitations, I will not go into that at any great length. |