• WCCO’s Pat Kessler raised the “who’s a journalist question” Monday night, noting that the access battle is a bipartisan issue. He interviews The UpTake’s Jason Barnett and Minnesota Democrats Exposed’s Michael Brodkorb about their disappointment that the DFL majority seems opposed to “more transparency, more bloggers in, more access to the process,” as Brodkorb put it.

• WCCO’s Esme Murphy strikes the same chord, then posts the Society of Professional Journalists’ statement on yesterday’s proceedings:

“It’s our understanding the first three of the proposed rules are already tossed out, which is a good thing since they triggered the strongest response. However, SPJ is concerned about the rules that continue to try to narrow the definition of what a journalist is and who should be allowed to document the workings of state government.

The Minnesota Legislature does the people’s work during committee meetings and formal House and Senate floor sessions. Minnesota SPJ understands the difficulty in maintaining decorum and a productive environment in such open, public forums. However, this is precisely the job legislators were elected to do. Public scrutiny comes with the office. SPJ takes the position that transparency is the only way elected representatives can maintain credibility with their constituents. As such, the best approach is one that adheres to the most noble aspects of the First Amendment that recognizes the need for openness and accountability from government.

It’s difficult to understand why the proposed rules place conditions on what should be a simple process of access. SPJ prefers to define ‘journalist’ in the broadest of terms and we believe it’s time for the legislature to do the same. The public loses whenever elected officials choose to exclude people who wish to document what happens in a public meeting, working on public policy in a public space. If there is an issue of decorum, safety or logistical space, elected leaders have appropriate methods in place. Rather than create additional rules that imply a person’s credentials will be issued based on where a person works or how long a person will be reporting at the Capitol, SPJ would encourage legislative leaders to lessen the rules to allow more people to report in new and innovative ways to reach more of the public. The Legislature should establish equitable rules for all media, with no bias awarded anyone based on medium, method or viewpoint. If this proposal reflects the Legislature’s attempt to do that, they have missed the mark.”

• TPT’s Mary Lahammer expresssed “great outrage” over the House rules that limit “where, when and what [the media] could record in a public building involving publically elected people.” She writes, “True the media landscape is changing and that makes a lot of us fearful too, but fear never leads to good decision making.”

• MPR’s Bob Collins writes of the “big chill at the Capitol,” noting that there’s “virtually no reasonable case to be made that inviting a few bloggers in to inspect the workings of elected officials would cause an undue burden on the lawmakers who, for the record, asked for the job.”

House Rules Committee Chair Tony Sertich didn’t let the committee take up the proposal because the amendment’s current official sponsor, Deputy Minority Leader Steve Smith, wasn’t present. Sertich — who warned in a floor debate this month that the rule change would open access to “www.anybody.com” — said he’d consult with Smith and “we will be coming forward with something on the bill.”

To at least one interested observer, that smacked of legislative run-around. ”There’s procedural gimmicks that have been put in place for the purpose of not seriously resolving this,” Shawn Towle of Checks and Balances told a group of online media workers after the committee adjourned.

“I’ve got to take that back,” Towle continued. “They’re going to seriously resolve it, but it’s going to be on their time, not on our time.”

Towle said it wasn’t clear how or when the proposed amendment — which would insert the words “online media” into existing House rules on press credentials to achieve parity across print, broadcast and Web-based media — will get a public hearing.

Is the question, with its attendant First Amendment issues, ripe for a hearing in a court of law? “As soon as I find a lawyer” who wants to make a reputation with the case, Towle said.

Note: Minnesota Independent’s Paul Demko requested press credentials today. I requested permission from House Sergeant-at-arms Sandy Dicke to record today’s hearing on video but was turned down.

She cited fairness issues with allowing one online media outfit access without rules in place. And she’s been part of discussions that remain unresolved about how to let online media cover the House. Hang-ups include concerns about crowding, noise and lack of institutions to provide the House with recourse in the case of “bad information.”

“We understand that online could be the only media in the future,”  Dicke said.

What else isn’t allowed in committee hearing rooms besides online media cameras? Sandwiches. A spectator in the gallery seating was quietly eating one when a legislative staffer in a crisp white shirt approached and appeared to inform him of a House ban on food. Perhaps because of a subclause for cases like this in which less than 50 percent of the sandwich remains, the man was allowed to wolf down the rest. Within 10 minutes, the committee adjourned for lunch.