OCCUPY-WICHITA FORUM

Hopefully we're all well along in developing our written and/or oral testimony.

I've been to a lot of these things - more addressing other areas, than MC - and have

seen and made mistakes enough.

Here are some observations for consideration...

Three minutes will pass so fast it'll make your head spin, if it isn't already.

Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. Find out how long it takes to state your case

if you speak at a mildly rapid pace.  If what you've prepared takes too long,

pare it down.  When any one of us runs long, the rest of us have even less

time.  (Note: we, or at least I, don't know exactly how many people will register

on our side for testimony.  A lot of contributors means less time for each; few

people means more time.)

One thing we can't totally prepare for is questions from committee members, which could

encroach on the 3-minute spiel we'd intended.

If you're asked a question, answer as briefly as possible.  If the full answer would

require a lot of time, just say "a proper answer to this question would take more time

than we have today, but if you'll give me your contact information later, I'll definitely

provide you with a complete response."  Or just refer them to your written testimony,

if the question is addressed in that.

In the same vein, if they ask a question you can't answer, don't sit and squirm and make something up.

Just say "I'm not prepared to fully answer that question at this time, but if you'll give me

your contact info...etc etc."

Avoid responses that seem to be critical of the questioner him/herself.

Try to keep it impersonal.

Instead of saying "your question makes some wrong assumptions,"

you could say "this question does come up sometimes, but I think it's based

on some incorrect assumptions."

If you're not sure exactly what the question is asking, just say "I'm not sure I understand 

the question.  Is it asking ....., or does it mean.....?"  Again, it's "the" question,

not "your" question!  (Also, by identifying ambiguities or contradictions within the question

in this manner, you can cast doubt on its validity without actually saying as much.)

Avoid openly displaying irritation, scorn, or frustration.  Keep your cool, 

be polite.  If your own competence or motives are somehow challenged, don't get defensive.

This is their house, and we have to play by their rules.

If any member is led to think you think he/she is stupid or unreasonable,

he/she will reject you and your positions - because every one of them firmly believes

that he/she is smart and sensible!

We're testifying on behalf of a specific bill - HB 2330.

It would be very awkward to be asked questions about the bill itself,

if we haven't read it recently.

Read the damn bill.  You don't have to be a lawyer to form some

impressions of its contents, and you don't have to memorize

the individual sections.  But if you happen to disagree with some

aspect of the bill, don't share that with the committee.  We need to present

something like a unified front.

People in the audience must behave.  Laughs, sneers, eye-rolling, and

snorts of derision are more likely to insult the members (who take themselves

very seriously under these circumstances) than to convey an effective message.

Think of this kind of like a church service.  Reverence, decorum, and respect for the institution are expected,

even if we disagree with some of the opinions (and frank ignorance) on display.

Remember - in the hearing chamber, committee members hold all the cards, all the power to give or deny to us

what we're seeking.  Under these circumstances, we don't dare stage a confrontation,

and we can't ''hold their feet to the fire" or "demand" anything.  That's just not how the game

is played.  Committee hearings are not the place to try to change the rules.

One thing that doesn't work well at all is to tell legislators "you should do this

because it's the right thing to do."  Even though few of them worship at the altars of Reason

and Consistency, they like to pretend they base decisions on evidence.

Don't assume that our cause is self-evidently correct and righteous.  Many committee members

don't currently share that outlook, and the denialist opposition will give them plenty of

reasons not to.

Don't waste time attacking the self-serving motivations, ($) conflicts of interest,

or sincerity of the denialists.  This will be perceived as blaming the messenger,

which some will interpret as an indication that we lack good arguments of our own.

If you have waded through this list of suggestions, I hope you've found something useful.

See you next Tuesday, I hope.