Each year I bring up a new gripe about a rule, policy, or procedure of the West Virginia Legislature.

Last year, it was the over-use of originating bills by committees. It seems this year, lawmakers got the memo and have cut down on the use of originating bills, though that could change between when you read this column and when the session ends March 11.

This year, I have a gripe with the House of Delegates rule allowing for public hearings on bills under certain circumstances.

I can already hear some of you. In fact, I complained about the public hearing rule on Twitter which brought out some productive feedback (yes, I said Twitter produced some productive feedback. It’s rare, but it does sometimes happen). Most of those who chimed in support the House public hearings, but even some of those people admit they are not always useful.

Let me be clear: I support public feedback and input in the legislative process. You should be letting your lawmaker or lawmakers who represent you know how you feel on a bill or resolution. You should be emailing, writing letters, calling and even visiting the Capitol and meeting with your lawmakers. Even if you didn’t vote for them, they represent you. They might disagree with you, but many do think about your perspectives going forward.

And in concept, I have no quarrel with the House public hearings. But in practice, I only find them useful to my reporting in pulling quotes from bill supporters and detractors.

First of all, anyone can write a letter to a House committee chairman and request a public hearing on a bill (hat tip to Delegate Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, who corrected me as I thought the process to request a public hearing was more involved than that). This is obviously something the public is unaware of, otherwise there would probably be more public hearings than there currently are.

Now that you know, feel free to write to a committee chairman and request a House public hearing for a bill pending in their committee. They can’t refuse your request. Heck, it’s probably a good way to slow down other bills you don’t want to see on a committee agenda by tying up committee members and staff for a public hearing on some other bill.

Secondly, almost always the request for a House public hearing comes from someone who opposes the bill, meaning most of the attendees who come to speak at the public hearing come to speak against the bill. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a sign-up sheet three pages deep with names of people speaking against the bill while the sign-up sheet for those speaking for the bill only has two or three names.

I certainly believe that opposing voices need to be heard, especially now that there are only 15 Democratic lawmakers in the entire building. But if you’re trying to gauge the mood of the public on a bill, I just don’t think that public hearings really give you an idea of where the public stands one way or another.

But OK, the public hearings are mostly people who oppose the bill and likely people who didn’t vote for most of the committee’s Republican lawmakers and are most certainly on polar-opposite sides politically. It’s important for the Republican supermajority to hear those voices too, right? Of course, but sometimes I wonder if attendees are genuinely trying to inform lawmakers about issues affecting a political minority or simply being performative for social media clicks and fundraising.

Screaming at the Republican natcons can certainly get you attention and accolades from people already on your side, but I question the power of such outbursts to persuade people and that’s really my problem. Both sides of the political spectrum have given up on persuading people to support their position on an issue or at least taking their disagreements into consideration.

It’s easy to write off the Republican supermajority and say they are set on passing bills you believe to be bad. But even Moses had to keep going before Pharaoh and asking for the Hebrews to be freed. Pharaoh kept hardening his heart, but eventually he agreed (of course, that was after a series of plagues hit Egypt). Point being, the goal of speakers at House public hearings should be trying to sway lawmakers.

By the way, it doesn’t mean you’ll win. You’ll lose more often than not. Or your efforts might help make bad legislation less bad. Or you may just change the heart and mind of a single legislator.

Take the vote in the Senate Health Committee last week on the gender affirming care ban bill. Sure, it made it out of the committee, but not before the Senate Republican Majority Leader, Dr. Tom Takubo, tried to amend the bill several times to address the harm he believed it caused.

He didn’t have an epiphany; he was contacted by concerned citizens and fellow medical professionals who raised a number of legitimate issues with banning medication gender affirming care for adolescents. As a result, he tried to amend it to address those concerns. All of his amendments failed, but most failed on 7-7 ties.

Takubo was likely for the bill, but he heard from its opponents who worked to persuade him and he acted on their behalf. If Takubo, the leader of Republicans in the state Senate, can be persuaded, then other Republicans can be persuaded on things if you try.