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.