The suppressed session vote for House speaker was an insult to citizen participation in the legislative process. Although the expected pomp of last week’s opening day speeches, recognition, fluff and ceremony were broadcast, the session in which the House speaker was elected was not.

After making a quick round at the state Capitol during my lunch break, I, like many working citizens, had to return to my office. I tuned into ‘Olelo for the 3 p.m. session, which was to broadcast the much-anticipated speaker discussion — and, to my irritation, discovered that it would not be aired after all. In fact, what played on ‘Olelo for the next hour or so was live traffic.

Thanks to the in-house TV set-up, only those in the Capitol had live viewing of the recessed 4:30 p.m. session. But what about us working folk or those on neighbor islands? When those in the Legislature work, we in the community work, too. Although the speaker vote was a public session, we who were not physically in the chamber were intentionally excluded from viewing the vote.

With the TV crew there, and no other hearings scheduled, what excuses could the public be given for not being able to watch sessions relevant and crucial to what affects them? While community members do not have a say on the Legislature’s internal organization process, we should be able to watch a public session via Web or TV. As it is already a public session, having access to watching it will not affect the internal strategy. Furthermore, public television programs should not be barred for conflict of interest.

Civic engagement relies heavily on outreach and on who is able to participate; with the current set-up, the number is quite limited. There will always be a handful of apathetic citizens, but what about those of us who care and want to get more involved but have these limitations — like a 9-to-5 job, two jobs, keiki or airfare? The majority of those who can make it to the Capitol during business hours are either paid lobbyists or retired citizens. This, combined with closed doors, also makes it intimidating or discouraging for those who want to get involved, particularly Generation-Y citizens, but don’t know how to. Based on the existing limitations, and until greater and better access is made available, the voices that make it back to "the Lege": (1) might not accurately reflect those in the community, or (2) might precisely convey their community’s concerns, but might not accurately reflect the number of citizens who feel the same way. With better access, issue awareness is raised and citizen participation is encouraged.

If we are to re-infuse civic engagement, including soliciting dialogue from Gen-Y, we need greater, more effective access to the public domain. We do not necessarily need more Web/TV coverage — but better coverage.

We need to re-examine the ethics and transparency standards we have in place, take advantage of emerging and established technological developments and apply it to establishing consistent live and easy-to-navigate archived access to all public sessions and hearings — especially the pertinent ones that affect the issues that shape our lives.