

U.S. Senate Handbook - cwal37
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/14/senate-handbook-secret-rules/15500339/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-0tUL4YwcKDxuRj8ogVTV3g

======
cwal37
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-
chamb...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/09/the-empty-
chamber?currentPage=all)

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.

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

~~~
privong
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
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
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.

