VCC Spring 2021

V irginia C apitol C onnections , S pring 2021 6 “I need to speak to a bill, but I’m not allowed into the committee room. Can someone let me into the meeting?” “We can see you, but we can’t hear you. We will need to move on to the next speaker.” “Sorry, but your voice is garbled, and we can’t understand you.” “My hand was up to ask a question, but no one saw me and I wasn’t able to speak.” “Are you here in the committee room? We are ready to consider your bill, but you aren’t visible.” In the not-too-distant legislative past, the aforementioned comments would have horrified transparency advocates, halted committee meetings, and generated severe consternation from citizens, lobbyists, legislators, and the media. The pandemic-induced virtual reality of the 2021 General Assembly session, however, normalized this dialogue. Although many American workers long-ago acclimated to Zoom meetings, the unique nature of the legislative process posed unusual challenges that quickly became apparent this year. On January 13, 2021, theVirginia General Assembly convened for a “regular” session like none other in the historyof ourCommonwealth. While the Senate of Virginia gathered in the Science Museum, the House of Delegates met via Zoom to begin an unprecedented virtual legislative session. The Capitol remained shuttered to the public due to COVID-19 precautions, and citizens were likewise prohibited from entering legislative offices in Richmond. Gone were the throngs of advocates, the cheers and yells from Bell Tower crowds, the lobbyists lurking in the halls, and the whir of social activities that are hallmarks of Virginia’s legislative session. Face-to-Face Interactions are Critical By Delegate Amanda Batten While many legislators hoped the scope of legislation would remain modest during this virtual session, such was not the case. Marijuana legalization and repeal of the death penalty made headlines, but those high-profile bills often eclipsed other legislation that will affect the lives of Virginians. Discussion of these weighty issues immediately revealed the shortcomings of the House’s virtual reality. Legislators disappeared from camera during critical votes, and citizens and legislators alike were often unable to testify (or view testimony) due to technological problems. The relegation of stakeholders to small on-screen boxes diminished the quality of communication and analysis. Anyone with social media accounts is surely unsurprised; in a virtual environment, individuals often make accusations or statements that would never be made so boldly in-person. Similarly, in an online legislative world, the veneer of civility can be thin at best. After all, one won’t encounter a colleague (or any stakeholder) in the House chamber or at a legislative reception. Gone are the niceties of small talk that generate camaraderie and collaboration. Text messages, emails, and calls can be easily ignored, and the convenience of a mute button helps suppress unwanted commentary. In short, the virtual legislative session often seemed to harden party lines and stifle open communication. On the bright side, a rare bit of bipartisan agreement emerged amongst many constituents: virtual legislating is not healthy for either public input or public policy. Fortunately, glimmers of silver linings became apparent as the session progressed. Due to the virtual format, House members were permitted to carry only seven bills this year, and Senate members were limited to twelve. This restriction forced legislators to prioritize, thereby minimizing duplicative bills and effectively reducing the hours spent in committee deliberations. (In full Continued on next page Burke’s Garden V I R G I N I A T A Z E W E L L C O U N T Y Visittazewellcounty.org