Today is the 135th day of the 82nd session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes and the Senate returns from recess at 9:00 am.
It was a red-letter day for Equality Texas yesterday. Two of the bills on their legislative agenda, HB 1942 by Diane Patrick (R-Arlington) and HB 1386 by Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) were passed by the Senate. Both bills are designed to give schools tools to combat bullying and teen suicide. The House must now concur with changes the Senate made to the bills. HB 1942, which passed first, is on the "items eligible" calendar in the House, a list of bills passed by the Senate on which the House must take action. House rules require that members have 24 hours to review Senate amendments before the vote to concur takes place. Since the amendments to HB 1942 were distributed to House members late last night it is not eligible for consideration until 9:20 this evening. The amendments for HB 1386 have yet to be distributed, that will likely happen today.
Today is the last day the House can consider Senate Bills on second reading. The state constitution requires that bills be "read" on three separate days in both the House and Senate. (they don't actually read the whole bill, just the bill number and a short description called the "caption.") After first reading in the House the bill is referred to one of the House committees. If the committee likes the bill and recommends it to the House the bill is then read a second time, after which the entire House may debate it and vote on it. If the bill passes it is then read for the third time, debated and voted on again. (There's an exception to today's deadline - bills on the "local and consent calendar," a list of noncontroversial bills that received unanimous support in committee, don't have to be considered on second reading until tomorrow).
Unfortunately SB 205 by John Whitmire (D-Houston) is not on the schedule for today, nor is SB 66 by Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo). SB 205 would have expanded and clarified the requirements of school districts student codes of conduct in relation to anti-bullying policies. SB 66 would have closed a loophole that prevents school districts from expelling students who transferred to the district in the same academic year, even for egregious behavior problems. Portions of SB 205 were included in HB 1942, but it's a shame to see these two bills die so close to the finish line.
Wayne Christian (R-Center), who previously amended HB 1 (the budget) to include a provision requiring Texas universities that have LGBT resource centers to equally fund "family and traditional values centers," is rumored to be looking for a Senate bill he can similarly amend. Christian's amendment to the budget was removed by the Senate. He prefiled an identical amendment, and one that would prohibit LGBT resource centers from being housed in state buildings, to SB 1811, one of a series of "fiscal matters" bills that compliment the budget. SB 1811 was debated by the House last Friday, when the debate went past midnight Simpson and several other members withdrew amendments dealing with education on the assumption that they could be added to SB 1581, another fiscal matters bill that deals specifically with education funding. Yesterday SB 1581 came up on second reading in the House but was killed by a "point of order" (an objection that the bill was not considered win accordance with the rules of the House).
If Christian is looking for another vehicle for his amendments SB 8, which is on today's schedule, may be his last chance. It's one of the last "fiscal matters" bills still waiting for House approval, but it deals with Health Care - a very different subject than education. If Christian offers his amendments to SB 8 they should be very susceptible to a point of order based on House Rule 11 Sec. 2 which requires amendments to be on the same subject as the original bill.
A Texpatriate attempting grad school in Chicago
Showing posts with label SB 205. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SB 205. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Day 107: The Senate, or how to ignore the rules while following them
Today is the 107th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10, the Senate at 11. Several good pieces of legislation passed both bodies yesterday, but contentious bills under consideration today will undoubtedly slow the process and make for a late evening for lawmakers. LQ's analysis of the day in House is HERE, this is what's going on in the Senate:
The Texas constitution requires bills to be "read" in each chamber on three separate days, but the Senate notoriously disregards this requirement: After first reading bills are sent to committee then, if the committee approves, they are sent back to the whole Senate and placed on one of several "calendars," lists of different kinds of bills to be considered on second reading. The senate has a rule requiring bills to be considered in the order they are voted out of committee, however Senators may place their bills on the "intent calendar," a list of bills to be considered out of order if 2/3 of the Senate agrees to set aside that rule. After the 2/3 vote the bill is then debated, potentially amended (within certain limits) and then voted on again.
Then, and this is where things get interesting, the Senate routinely votes to set aside the constitutional requirement to read bills on three separate days and goes ahead and takes the vote on third reading the same day. So that's four votes (bring up out of order, vote on second reading, vote to set aside three day requirement, vote on third reading) in quick succession, all on the same bill.
Yesterday the Senate passed on second and third reading SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), making it the first anti-bullying bill of the session to get out of the chamber it originated in. The bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of the student codes of conduct that school districts are required to create(read LQ's original analysis of SB 205).
SB 205 was on the intent calendar, so it needed the support of 2/3 of the Senators to pass the first of the four votes. All of the Senators except Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) and Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) voted to bring the bill up out of order. There was no debate on SB 205 and no Senator wished to amend it so the vote to pass it on second reading was taken and it passed, 30 to 1 with only Nelson voting against. That's 2 votes down, 2 to go.
Next the Senate voted to set aside the constitutional requirement to read bills on three separate days. Both Birdwell and Nelson voted against setting aside the rule as did Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio). Wentworth, however, has a long history of consistently voting against bypassing the three day reading requirement. It's easy to understand why. While capitol insiders view the Senate's routine ignoring of a constitutional requirement as a matter of course, just the way business is done; outsiders are often shocked to hear that the constitution could just be ignored. Wentworth explains it this way:
After the vote to dispense with the three day rule (vote 3 of 4) SB 205 passed on 3rd reading, 29 to 2 with both Birdwell and Nelson voting "nay." The bill now goes to the House where it will likely be sent to the House Committee on Public Education, which two weeks ago approved HB 1942, the big anti-bullying compromise bill that contains provisions similar to those in SB 205 (read LQ's analysis of HB 1942).
The Senate is expected to take up the state appropriations bill (HB 1) either today or tomorrow, including it's requirement, added via amendment by Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center), that state universities which have a LGBT resource center equally fund a "Center for Family and Traditional Values." The American Independent has an interesting analysis of the Christian amendment, stating that since almost all LGBT resource centers, including those at Texas A&M and UT Austin, are funded by student fees, not state funds, the mandate to equally fund family and traditional values centers would not apply. A spokesperson for the UT Austin Gender and Sexuality Center confirms that their funding comes from student fees.
SB 723, the anti-trans-marriage bill, still sits, like an unexploded ordinance, on the Senate's schedule but is unlikely to be voted on this week.
The Texas constitution requires bills to be "read" in each chamber on three separate days, but the Senate notoriously disregards this requirement: After first reading bills are sent to committee then, if the committee approves, they are sent back to the whole Senate and placed on one of several "calendars," lists of different kinds of bills to be considered on second reading. The senate has a rule requiring bills to be considered in the order they are voted out of committee, however Senators may place their bills on the "intent calendar," a list of bills to be considered out of order if 2/3 of the Senate agrees to set aside that rule. After the 2/3 vote the bill is then debated, potentially amended (within certain limits) and then voted on again.
Then, and this is where things get interesting, the Senate routinely votes to set aside the constitutional requirement to read bills on three separate days and goes ahead and takes the vote on third reading the same day. So that's four votes (bring up out of order, vote on second reading, vote to set aside three day requirement, vote on third reading) in quick succession, all on the same bill.
Yesterday the Senate passed on second and third reading SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), making it the first anti-bullying bill of the session to get out of the chamber it originated in. The bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of the student codes of conduct that school districts are required to create(read LQ's original analysis of SB 205).
SB 205 was on the intent calendar, so it needed the support of 2/3 of the Senators to pass the first of the four votes. All of the Senators except Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) and Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) voted to bring the bill up out of order. There was no debate on SB 205 and no Senator wished to amend it so the vote to pass it on second reading was taken and it passed, 30 to 1 with only Nelson voting against. That's 2 votes down, 2 to go.
Next the Senate voted to set aside the constitutional requirement to read bills on three separate days. Both Birdwell and Nelson voted against setting aside the rule as did Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio). Wentworth, however, has a long history of consistently voting against bypassing the three day reading requirement. It's easy to understand why. While capitol insiders view the Senate's routine ignoring of a constitutional requirement as a matter of course, just the way business is done; outsiders are often shocked to hear that the constitution could just be ignored. Wentworth explains it this way:
"Because in my judgment no circumstance exists in this case to justify the extraordinary act of suspending a requirement of the Texas Constitution. The suspension of this Constitutional Rule has the direct and immediate effect of denying the people of Texas knowledge and notice of the passage of this measure until it has already been finally passed on third reading. Were we to have followed the requirement of the Texas Constitution, third reading and a vote on [SB 205] would have occurred on the next legislative day, allowing for Texans to have learned through news reports of our second reading vote exactly what we had tentatively passed. Third reading and a vote on the next legislative day would also have allowed our professional staff an opportunity overnight to make sure any amendments passed on second reading are technically correct."Wentworth's objection to setting aside a portion of the constitution should not be read as opposition to the bill or indifference to the victims of bullying.
After the vote to dispense with the three day rule (vote 3 of 4) SB 205 passed on 3rd reading, 29 to 2 with both Birdwell and Nelson voting "nay." The bill now goes to the House where it will likely be sent to the House Committee on Public Education, which two weeks ago approved HB 1942, the big anti-bullying compromise bill that contains provisions similar to those in SB 205 (read LQ's analysis of HB 1942).
The Senate is expected to take up the state appropriations bill (HB 1) either today or tomorrow, including it's requirement, added via amendment by Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center), that state universities which have a LGBT resource center equally fund a "Center for Family and Traditional Values." The American Independent has an interesting analysis of the Christian amendment, stating that since almost all LGBT resource centers, including those at Texas A&M and UT Austin, are funded by student fees, not state funds, the mandate to equally fund family and traditional values centers would not apply. A spokesperson for the UT Austin Gender and Sexuality Center confirms that their funding comes from student fees.
SB 723, the anti-trans-marriage bill, still sits, like an unexploded ordinance, on the Senate's schedule but is unlikely to be voted on this week.
Day 107: The House
Today is the 107th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10, the Senate at 11. Several good pieces of legislation passed both bodies yesterday, but contentious bills under consideration today will undoubtedly slow the process and make for a late evening for lawmakers. Here's what's going on in the Senate, this is what's happening in the House:
The Texas constitution requires bills to be "read" in each chamber on three separate days (the whole bill isn't read, just the bill number and a very brief description, called the "caption"). After the first reading bills are sent to committee for consideration. The second reading is the first opportunity for members to debate or amend the bill on the floor, after which it is voted on. Continued debate is allowed after the third reading but amendment of the bill requires a 2/3 vote. After debate on third reading (and potentially amendment) the whole chamber votes on the bill again. If the bill passes on third reading it is then sent to the other chamber for further consideration.
HB 1666 by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) expands the states current law against posting on social media sites with the intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person" to include non-social media sites like youtube and blogger. The bill sailed through the House on third reading yesterday, 141 to 1. Freshman Rep. John V. Garza (R-San Antonio) was the lone "nay" vote as even David Simpson (R-Longview), who opposed the bill on second reading voted "yea." It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
HB 2229 by Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) passed the House on second reading after initially being tabled. The bill makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee. Texas has a program that provides medication assistance to low-income HIV-positive people. The Advisory Committee is made up of people who are on the ground dealing with the day-to-day functions of the program and is designed to provide real world input. Earlier this year the committee was dissolved when Department of State Health Services Commissioner, Dr. David Lakey, failed to renew it. It has since been reformed after public outcry. Coleman's bill seeks to prevent future commissioners from doing something similar.
HB 2229 seemed poised to pass until an amendment was added by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) creating a pilot needle exchange program. Texas has had needle exchange programs in the past and they are a proven way to reduce the transmission of HIV and other blood born diseases. However many House Republicans oppose such programs arguing that, by providing clean needles to IV drug users, the state is condoning drug use. The House voted on HB 2229 and it failed to pass, 53 to 89.
After talking with their colleagues Coleman and McClendon struck a compromise. A motion was made to reconsider the vote, McClendon withdrew her amendment, and the vote was taken again. This time HB 2229 passed on second reading, 104 to 36. It is on the schedule to be considered on third reading to today.
Also today, the House is scheduled to begin debate on the contentious issue of redistricting. The state constitution requires that the legislature redraw the House and Senate district borders every ten years in response to the U.S. census. HB 150 by Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton) will redraw the House borders. Solomons' proposal seeks to solidify the current Republican super-majority in the House. The committee hearings on the bill have been heated, with representatives of Hispanic and African American groups claiming that Solomons has purposefully divided their communities and lessened their voting power. The current House borders also dived the historic the "gayborhoods" of Montrose in Houston and Oaklawn in Dallas (Read LQ's Texas House Districts Divide Queer Main Street).
It should be a prime day for House floor watching, if you're so inclined you can watch the whole thing unfold HERE.
The Texas constitution requires bills to be "read" in each chamber on three separate days (the whole bill isn't read, just the bill number and a very brief description, called the "caption"). After the first reading bills are sent to committee for consideration. The second reading is the first opportunity for members to debate or amend the bill on the floor, after which it is voted on. Continued debate is allowed after the third reading but amendment of the bill requires a 2/3 vote. After debate on third reading (and potentially amendment) the whole chamber votes on the bill again. If the bill passes on third reading it is then sent to the other chamber for further consideration.
HB 1666 by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) expands the states current law against posting on social media sites with the intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person" to include non-social media sites like youtube and blogger. The bill sailed through the House on third reading yesterday, 141 to 1. Freshman Rep. John V. Garza (R-San Antonio) was the lone "nay" vote as even David Simpson (R-Longview), who opposed the bill on second reading voted "yea." It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
HB 2229 by Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) passed the House on second reading after initially being tabled. The bill makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee. Texas has a program that provides medication assistance to low-income HIV-positive people. The Advisory Committee is made up of people who are on the ground dealing with the day-to-day functions of the program and is designed to provide real world input. Earlier this year the committee was dissolved when Department of State Health Services Commissioner, Dr. David Lakey, failed to renew it. It has since been reformed after public outcry. Coleman's bill seeks to prevent future commissioners from doing something similar.
HB 2229 seemed poised to pass until an amendment was added by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) creating a pilot needle exchange program. Texas has had needle exchange programs in the past and they are a proven way to reduce the transmission of HIV and other blood born diseases. However many House Republicans oppose such programs arguing that, by providing clean needles to IV drug users, the state is condoning drug use. The House voted on HB 2229 and it failed to pass, 53 to 89.
After talking with their colleagues Coleman and McClendon struck a compromise. A motion was made to reconsider the vote, McClendon withdrew her amendment, and the vote was taken again. This time HB 2229 passed on second reading, 104 to 36. It is on the schedule to be considered on third reading to today.
Also today, the House is scheduled to begin debate on the contentious issue of redistricting. The state constitution requires that the legislature redraw the House and Senate district borders every ten years in response to the U.S. census. HB 150 by Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton) will redraw the House borders. Solomons' proposal seeks to solidify the current Republican super-majority in the House. The committee hearings on the bill have been heated, with representatives of Hispanic and African American groups claiming that Solomons has purposefully divided their communities and lessened their voting power. The current House borders also dived the historic the "gayborhoods" of Montrose in Houston and Oaklawn in Dallas (Read LQ's Texas House Districts Divide Queer Main Street).
It should be a prime day for House floor watching, if you're so inclined you can watch the whole thing unfold HERE.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Day 106: Cyber-Bullying, HIV Medication and Unfunded Mandates
Today is the 106th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. Both the House and Senate reconvene at 11 am. Today marks the beginning of the final fourth of session. With just five weeks to go the already harried pace of session is only going to accelerate.
In the broad conversation on legislation designed to combat cyber-bullying HB 1666, by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) has largely stayed under the radar. By law created in 2009 it is illegal in Texas to create a fake profile on a social network site with the intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person." HB 1666 would expand this prohibition to include other, non-social networking, sites. The original legislation creating this law was written by former Republican Representative Brian McCall and passed with broad bi-partisan support, mostly due to McCall's descriptions of little old ladies being taken in by MySpace scams. But the law might also make schoolyard bullies think twice before setting up fake web pages or profiles designed to humiliate their peers and the logical expansion of its reach to non-social networking sites is welcomed. HB 1666 is scheduled to be debated on the House floor today.
Also scheduled in the House today is HB 2229 by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston). HB 2229 would make permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee. Texas has a program that provides medication assistance to low-income HIV-positive people, which is managed by the Texas Department of State Health Services. The Advisory Committee is made up of Doctors, Pharmacist, Nurses, Care Providers and low-income HIV-positive people in the program. It's designed to provide input from people who are on the ground dealing with the day-to-day functioning of the program.
Earlier this year the Department of State Health Services Commissioner, Dr. David Lakey, declined to renew the Advisory Committee when the rule creating it expired. After a massive outcry from Texans he eventually reappointed the committee and they had their first meeting on April 1st. Coleman's bill is designed to prevent future commissioners from taking similar steps and simply creates in the statute what is already happening. HB 2229 was voted out of committee with only one member objecting (Rep. Van Taylor (R-Plano)). Continuing to do what is already being done doesn't cost the the state anything extra, and allowing people who are directly affected by a program to have input in how it functions makes since.
Over in the Senate SB 205 is on the Intent Calendar (a list of bills Senators intend to bring up for a vote), as is HB 1:
SB 205, by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) is one of several anti-bullying bills filed this session. Currently school districts must create student codes of conduct which are designed, in part, to discourage bullying. Whitmire's bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of those codes, while still allowing a great deal of leeway for the district (read LQ's original review of SB 205).
HB 1 is the budget. Each regular session versions of the budget are filed in both the House and the Senate as HB 1 and SB 1. The two bodies alternate whose version eventually winds up being the "real" budget, but both have an opportunity to edit and change it. This is a House budget year so HB 1, in some form, will likely become the budget for the State of Texas for the next two years.
When the House was creating the budget Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center) stuck an amendment on it that requires public universities that have GLBT resource centers to also create, and equally fund, a "Center for Family and Traditional Values." (read LQ's analysis of the floor debate on the amendment). The student Senate at Texas A&M has already passed a resolution supporting funding its "Center for Family and Traditional Values" by cutting the GLBT resource center's budget in half. Given the tight budget at public universities and that Christian did not provide and additional funding as part of his mandate, it is likely that, if the amendment becomes law, other schools will be forced to similarly defund, or eliminate completely, their GLBT resource centers. Which, I'm certain, was Christian's intention. (The full text of the budget is HERE, the Christian amendment is on page 459)
The amendment must be removed in the Senate, which will likely tackle HB 1 this week, or it will become law. After the Senate passes it's version of HB 1 a "conference committee" made up of House and Senate members will meet to hash out compromises between the two bodies' versions of the bill. The conference committee is only permitted to make changes to portions of the budget that are different between the two versions. So if the budget passes the Senate with the Christian amendment still intact the conference committee will be unable to do anything to remove it. This is the last chance, at least for the next two years, for Texans to defend this important campus resource from an unfunded mandate designed to deprive queer college students of one of the few places on campus specifically designed to meet their needs.
You can find the contact information for your Senator HERE.
SB 723, the anti-trans-marriage bill, is still on the Senate's General Calendar, but it is unlikely that it will be voted on this week.
In the broad conversation on legislation designed to combat cyber-bullying HB 1666, by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) has largely stayed under the radar. By law created in 2009 it is illegal in Texas to create a fake profile on a social network site with the intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person." HB 1666 would expand this prohibition to include other, non-social networking, sites. The original legislation creating this law was written by former Republican Representative Brian McCall and passed with broad bi-partisan support, mostly due to McCall's descriptions of little old ladies being taken in by MySpace scams. But the law might also make schoolyard bullies think twice before setting up fake web pages or profiles designed to humiliate their peers and the logical expansion of its reach to non-social networking sites is welcomed. HB 1666 is scheduled to be debated on the House floor today.
Also scheduled in the House today is HB 2229 by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston). HB 2229 would make permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee. Texas has a program that provides medication assistance to low-income HIV-positive people, which is managed by the Texas Department of State Health Services. The Advisory Committee is made up of Doctors, Pharmacist, Nurses, Care Providers and low-income HIV-positive people in the program. It's designed to provide input from people who are on the ground dealing with the day-to-day functioning of the program.
Earlier this year the Department of State Health Services Commissioner, Dr. David Lakey, declined to renew the Advisory Committee when the rule creating it expired. After a massive outcry from Texans he eventually reappointed the committee and they had their first meeting on April 1st. Coleman's bill is designed to prevent future commissioners from taking similar steps and simply creates in the statute what is already happening. HB 2229 was voted out of committee with only one member objecting (Rep. Van Taylor (R-Plano)). Continuing to do what is already being done doesn't cost the the state anything extra, and allowing people who are directly affected by a program to have input in how it functions makes since.
Over in the Senate SB 205 is on the Intent Calendar (a list of bills Senators intend to bring up for a vote), as is HB 1:
SB 205, by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) is one of several anti-bullying bills filed this session. Currently school districts must create student codes of conduct which are designed, in part, to discourage bullying. Whitmire's bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of those codes, while still allowing a great deal of leeway for the district (read LQ's original review of SB 205).
HB 1 is the budget. Each regular session versions of the budget are filed in both the House and the Senate as HB 1 and SB 1. The two bodies alternate whose version eventually winds up being the "real" budget, but both have an opportunity to edit and change it. This is a House budget year so HB 1, in some form, will likely become the budget for the State of Texas for the next two years.
When the House was creating the budget Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center) stuck an amendment on it that requires public universities that have GLBT resource centers to also create, and equally fund, a "Center for Family and Traditional Values." (read LQ's analysis of the floor debate on the amendment). The student Senate at Texas A&M has already passed a resolution supporting funding its "Center for Family and Traditional Values" by cutting the GLBT resource center's budget in half. Given the tight budget at public universities and that Christian did not provide and additional funding as part of his mandate, it is likely that, if the amendment becomes law, other schools will be forced to similarly defund, or eliminate completely, their GLBT resource centers. Which, I'm certain, was Christian's intention. (The full text of the budget is HERE, the Christian amendment is on page 459)
The amendment must be removed in the Senate, which will likely tackle HB 1 this week, or it will become law. After the Senate passes it's version of HB 1 a "conference committee" made up of House and Senate members will meet to hash out compromises between the two bodies' versions of the bill. The conference committee is only permitted to make changes to portions of the budget that are different between the two versions. So if the budget passes the Senate with the Christian amendment still intact the conference committee will be unable to do anything to remove it. This is the last chance, at least for the next two years, for Texans to defend this important campus resource from an unfunded mandate designed to deprive queer college students of one of the few places on campus specifically designed to meet their needs.
You can find the contact information for your Senator HERE.
SB 723, the anti-trans-marriage bill, is still on the Senate's General Calendar, but it is unlikely that it will be voted on this week.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Day 101: It's Still Yesterday in the Senate, Coleman Removes Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression from Asher's Law
Today is the 101st day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House is recessed until 8:00 am, the Senate until 9:00 am. That both houses are "recessed" is interesting, it means than, technically, when they reconvene they will still be on the previous legislative day.
When the Senate recessed yesterday neither SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), which would clarify and expand the student codes of conduct that school districts must adopt (Read LQ's analysis of SB 205); nor SB 723, Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) which would effectively ban marriage between two people of the opposite sex if one of the partners is transgender (Read LQ's explanation of SB 723) had reached the floor. Since the Senate will be on the same legislative day when they return from their recess this morning they could, potentially, bring up those two bills.
HB 1386 (Asher's Law) by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) was heard in the House Public Health Committee last night; well, technically this morning. The Public Health Committee hearing went into the wee small hours of the morning, and by the time Coleman's bill was brought up it was 4:10 am. Coleman told the committee that he was working on a "committee substitute" which was not yet available. The filed version of HB 1386 requires that school districts not discriminate against students on the basis of "the actual or perceived ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin of the employee, student, or student's parent." Coleman indicated that his committee substitute would remove the enumerated list from the non-discrimination policy in his bill, but did not indicate if the entire non-discrimination requirement would be removed. LQ is working to get a copy of the committee substitute.
When the Senate recessed yesterday neither SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), which would clarify and expand the student codes of conduct that school districts must adopt (Read LQ's analysis of SB 205); nor SB 723, Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) which would effectively ban marriage between two people of the opposite sex if one of the partners is transgender (Read LQ's explanation of SB 723) had reached the floor. Since the Senate will be on the same legislative day when they return from their recess this morning they could, potentially, bring up those two bills.
HB 1386 (Asher's Law) by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) was heard in the House Public Health Committee last night; well, technically this morning. The Public Health Committee hearing went into the wee small hours of the morning, and by the time Coleman's bill was brought up it was 4:10 am. Coleman told the committee that he was working on a "committee substitute" which was not yet available. The filed version of HB 1386 requires that school districts not discriminate against students on the basis of "the actual or perceived ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin of the employee, student, or student's parent." Coleman indicated that his committee substitute would remove the enumerated list from the non-discrimination policy in his bill, but did not indicate if the entire non-discrimination requirement would be removed. LQ is working to get a copy of the committee substitute.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Day 100: Two Important Bills on Senate Intent Calendar
Today is the 100th day of the 82nd regular legislative session of the Texas Legislature. The House will reconvene at 10:00 am, the Senate at 11:00.
Two bills important the the LGBT community are on the Senate "intent calendar" today (a list of bills the Senate intends to vote on): one pretty good bill, and one horrifically maleficent bill. The good bill, SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), would clarify and expand the student codes of conduct that school districts must adopt. Whitmire's intention is to help schools establish policies and procedures that would prevent bullying before it starts and prevent teen suicide (Read LQ's analysis of SB 205).
On the other hand, SB 723, Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) would effectively ban marriage between two people of the opposite sex if one of the partners is transgender (Read LQ's explanation of SB 723). The bill has been on the intent calendar for the last two days but has not been brought up for a vote. If it is not considered today Williams will have to place it back on the intent calendar for next week. The deadline for doing that is 4:00 pm today.
Senate rules require bills to be considered in the order they are voted out of committee, but the Senate hardly ever follows that rule. Instead they file a bill at the front of the line (called the "blocker bill") and everyone agrees not to vote on it. This means that in order for any bill that was filed after the blocker bill to be considered the Senate must take a vote to "set aside" their own rules and take up the bill "out of order." Senate Rule 22.02 says that the vote to set aside the rules requires a 2/3 majority of the members present. Effectively this requires 2/3 of the Senate to support a bill before it ever comes up for a vote. There are 31 Senators: 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans. In order for a bill to receive the 20 votes it needs to be brought up out of order at least one of the Democrats must support it.
I reported yesterday on the Dallas Voice's Instant Tea Blog that on-line rumors were suggesting Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) who represents much of Dallas' historic "gayborhood" of Oaklawn would break party lines and support the bill. His office has denied the rumors and states that he will vote against SB 723.
So that's 1 down, 11 to go. The biggest concern right now is Sen. Carlos Uresti (R-San Antonio). Uresti sits on the Senate Education Committee, which heard SB 723. He voted "present, not voting" on the committee vote to send SB 723 to the whole Senate for consideration. Because Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Southside Place) was not in the room at the time of the committee vote Uresti could have killed the bill in committee with a "Nay" vote. This doesn't necessarily mean he supports the bill. The Senate is an extremely civil place (particularly when compared with its more raucous sibling, the House); professional courtesy is of the utmost importance. In general, a committee chair will not bring a bill up for a vote unless they are confident that it has sufficient support to pass. If Uresti knew that the bill would pass a vote of the entire committee he may have decided to vote "present, not voting" out of respect for his colleagues' desires.
The good news is that even if Uresti votes "present, not voting" on the vote to take up SB 723 out of order it will still fail if the other Senate Democrats vote against it. In fact, the entire Democratic delegation could vote "present, not voting" and the bill would fail, since there would still be only 19 "yea" votes out of 31 senators present. Likewise Uresti could be absent from the vote, and if the other Democrats hold the line the vote would fail (19 is still less than 2/3 of 30).
Equality Texas has issued an urgent action alert, urging people to e-mail Senator Uresti and tell him to oppose the bill. It is also important that all of the Texas Democratic Senators hear from both constituents and non-constituents telling them to "oppose SB 723." Contact information is available HERE.
HB 1386 (Asher's Law) by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) will be heard this morning by the House Public Health Committee in their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:00 am. The bill is named after 13 year old Asher Brown who committed suicide last fall after enduring years of abuse and harassment in school. Asher's parents, David and Amy Troung, will testify before the committee. HB 1386 is perhaps the most thoughtful, well considered and comprehensive of the anti-bullying bills passed this session - and is extremely unlikely to pass - mostly because it dares to recognize the existence of queer kids. The bill requires that school districts not discriminate against students on the basis of "the actual or perceived ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin of the employee, student, or student's parent." (Yes, it is currently perfectly legal for schools to discriminate against their queer students.) It also, in its introduction, says that:
House Public Health Committee
Lois Kolkhorst, Chair
(512) 463-0600 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0600 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Lois.Kolkhorst@house.state.tx.us
Elliott Naishtat, Vice-Chair
(512) 463-0668 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0668 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Elliott.Naishtat@house.state.tx.us
Carol Alvarado
(512) 463-0732 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0732 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Carol.Alvarado@house.state.tx.us
Garnet Coleman (HB 1385 author)
(512) 463-0524 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0524 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Garnet.Coleman@house.state.tx.us
Sarah Davis
(512) 463-0389 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0389 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Sarah.Davis@house.state.tx.us
Veronica Gonzales
(512) 463-0578 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0578 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Veronica.Gonzales@house.state.tx.us
Susan King
(512) 463-0718 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0718 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Susan.King@house.state.tx.us
Jodie Laubenberg
(512) 463-0186 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0186 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Jodi.Laubenberg@house.state.tx.us
Dr. Charles Schwertner
(512) 463-0309 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0309 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Charles.Schwertner@house.state.tx.us
Vicki Truitt
(512) 463-0690 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0690 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Vicki.Truitt@house.state.tx.us
Dr. John Zerwas
(512) 463-0657 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0657 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
John.Zerwas@house.state.tx.us
Two bills important the the LGBT community are on the Senate "intent calendar" today (a list of bills the Senate intends to vote on): one pretty good bill, and one horrifically maleficent bill. The good bill, SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), would clarify and expand the student codes of conduct that school districts must adopt. Whitmire's intention is to help schools establish policies and procedures that would prevent bullying before it starts and prevent teen suicide (Read LQ's analysis of SB 205).
On the other hand, SB 723, Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) would effectively ban marriage between two people of the opposite sex if one of the partners is transgender (Read LQ's explanation of SB 723). The bill has been on the intent calendar for the last two days but has not been brought up for a vote. If it is not considered today Williams will have to place it back on the intent calendar for next week. The deadline for doing that is 4:00 pm today.
Senate rules require bills to be considered in the order they are voted out of committee, but the Senate hardly ever follows that rule. Instead they file a bill at the front of the line (called the "blocker bill") and everyone agrees not to vote on it. This means that in order for any bill that was filed after the blocker bill to be considered the Senate must take a vote to "set aside" their own rules and take up the bill "out of order." Senate Rule 22.02 says that the vote to set aside the rules requires a 2/3 majority of the members present. Effectively this requires 2/3 of the Senate to support a bill before it ever comes up for a vote. There are 31 Senators: 12 Democrats and 19 Republicans. In order for a bill to receive the 20 votes it needs to be brought up out of order at least one of the Democrats must support it.
I reported yesterday on the Dallas Voice's Instant Tea Blog that on-line rumors were suggesting Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) who represents much of Dallas' historic "gayborhood" of Oaklawn would break party lines and support the bill. His office has denied the rumors and states that he will vote against SB 723.
So that's 1 down, 11 to go. The biggest concern right now is Sen. Carlos Uresti (R-San Antonio). Uresti sits on the Senate Education Committee, which heard SB 723. He voted "present, not voting" on the committee vote to send SB 723 to the whole Senate for consideration. Because Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Southside Place) was not in the room at the time of the committee vote Uresti could have killed the bill in committee with a "Nay" vote. This doesn't necessarily mean he supports the bill. The Senate is an extremely civil place (particularly when compared with its more raucous sibling, the House); professional courtesy is of the utmost importance. In general, a committee chair will not bring a bill up for a vote unless they are confident that it has sufficient support to pass. If Uresti knew that the bill would pass a vote of the entire committee he may have decided to vote "present, not voting" out of respect for his colleagues' desires.
The good news is that even if Uresti votes "present, not voting" on the vote to take up SB 723 out of order it will still fail if the other Senate Democrats vote against it. In fact, the entire Democratic delegation could vote "present, not voting" and the bill would fail, since there would still be only 19 "yea" votes out of 31 senators present. Likewise Uresti could be absent from the vote, and if the other Democrats hold the line the vote would fail (19 is still less than 2/3 of 30).
Equality Texas has issued an urgent action alert, urging people to e-mail Senator Uresti and tell him to oppose the bill. It is also important that all of the Texas Democratic Senators hear from both constituents and non-constituents telling them to "oppose SB 723." Contact information is available HERE.
HB 1386 (Asher's Law) by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) will be heard this morning by the House Public Health Committee in their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:00 am. The bill is named after 13 year old Asher Brown who committed suicide last fall after enduring years of abuse and harassment in school. Asher's parents, David and Amy Troung, will testify before the committee. HB 1386 is perhaps the most thoughtful, well considered and comprehensive of the anti-bullying bills passed this session - and is extremely unlikely to pass - mostly because it dares to recognize the existence of queer kids. The bill requires that school districts not discriminate against students on the basis of "the actual or perceived ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin of the employee, student, or student's parent." (Yes, it is currently perfectly legal for schools to discriminate against their queer students.) It also, in its introduction, says that:
"youth who have or are perceived to have a certain sexual orientation are subject to pervasive discrimination, bullying, harassment, intimidation, and violence that puts their physical and mental health at risk;"While the Public Health is probably the most queer-friendly committee in the House right now, Republican members will likely balk at creating the non-discrimination policy, arguing that it creates "special classes" of people. Which is, of course, ridiculous as I have yet to meet a person who does not have a race, a national origin, a gender identity or any of the other attributes included in the policy (other than disability). It's important that the Committee hear from Texans who support this legislation. Please contact the Public health committee and ask them to pass HB 1386 with the non-discrimination policy intact:
House Public Health Committee
Lois Kolkhorst, Chair
(512) 463-0600 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0600 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Lois.Kolkhorst@house.state.tx.us
Elliott Naishtat, Vice-Chair
(512) 463-0668 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0668 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Elliott.Naishtat@house.state.tx.us
Carol Alvarado
(512) 463-0732 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0732 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Carol.Alvarado@house.state.tx.us
Garnet Coleman (HB 1385 author)
(512) 463-0524 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0524 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Garnet.Coleman@house.state.tx.us
Sarah Davis
(512) 463-0389 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0389 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Sarah.Davis@house.state.tx.us
Veronica Gonzales
(512) 463-0578 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0578 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Veronica.Gonzales@house.state.tx.us
Susan King
(512) 463-0718 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0718 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Susan.King@house.state.tx.us
Jodie Laubenberg
(512) 463-0186 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0186 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Jodi.Laubenberg@house.state.tx.us
Dr. Charles Schwertner
(512) 463-0309 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0309 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Charles.Schwertner@house.state.tx.us
Vicki Truitt
(512) 463-0690 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0690 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Vicki.Truitt@house.state.tx.us
Dr. John Zerwas
(512) 463-0657 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (512) 463-0657 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
John.Zerwas@house.state.tx.us
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Day 95: Bullies and Tommy Williams (is that redundant?)
Today is the 95th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The Senate reconvened at 8 am, the House will reconvene at 10 am.
SB 205, by Sen. John Whitmire (D - Houston) will be heard this morning in the Senate Education Committee. Currently school districts must create student codes of conduct which are designed, in part, to discourage bullying. Whitmire's bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of those codes, while still allowing a great deal of leeway for the district (read LQ's original review of SB 205).
Equality Texas reports that SB 723 by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), was voted out of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee at a quick meeting at Sen. Harris' desk yesterday. SB 723 would eliminate a court ordered "sex change" from the list of identifying documents acceptable for applying for a marriage license. The bill is a blatant attack on the trans community. The next step will be for the bill to be placed on the intent calendar (a list of bills the Senate "intends" to vote on). Before that happens Williams will want to be sure he has the support of two thirds of the Senators. Because of a quirk of Senate Rules at least two thirds of the Senate must vote to begin debate on a bill. Currently the Republican majority in the Senate is one vote short of having two thirds of the seats. This means that for SB 723 to advance at least 1 Democratic Senator will have to support it.
If you believe that transgender people deserve the same dignity and respect as the cisgender population please call these Democratic Senators and tell them to oppose SB 723:
Mario Gallegos (512) 463-0106
Wendy Davis (512) 463-0110
Rodney G. Ellis (512) 463-0113
Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
Carlos I. Uresti (512) 463-0119
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
Royce West (512) 463-0123
Leticia R. Van de Putte (512) 463-0126
Eduardo A. (Eddie) Lucio, Jr. (512) 463-0127
José R. RodrÃguez (512) 463-0129
SB 205, by Sen. John Whitmire (D - Houston) will be heard this morning in the Senate Education Committee. Currently school districts must create student codes of conduct which are designed, in part, to discourage bullying. Whitmire's bill specifies requirements for the anti-bullying portions of those codes, while still allowing a great deal of leeway for the district (read LQ's original review of SB 205).
Equality Texas reports that SB 723 by Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), was voted out of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee at a quick meeting at Sen. Harris' desk yesterday. SB 723 would eliminate a court ordered "sex change" from the list of identifying documents acceptable for applying for a marriage license. The bill is a blatant attack on the trans community. The next step will be for the bill to be placed on the intent calendar (a list of bills the Senate "intends" to vote on). Before that happens Williams will want to be sure he has the support of two thirds of the Senators. Because of a quirk of Senate Rules at least two thirds of the Senate must vote to begin debate on a bill. Currently the Republican majority in the Senate is one vote short of having two thirds of the seats. This means that for SB 723 to advance at least 1 Democratic Senator will have to support it.
If you believe that transgender people deserve the same dignity and respect as the cisgender population please call these Democratic Senators and tell them to oppose SB 723:
Mario Gallegos (512) 463-0106
Wendy Davis (512) 463-0110
Rodney G. Ellis (512) 463-0113
Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
Carlos I. Uresti (512) 463-0119
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
Royce West (512) 463-0123
Leticia R. Van de Putte (512) 463-0126
Eduardo A. (Eddie) Lucio, Jr. (512) 463-0127
José R. RodrÃguez (512) 463-0129
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
House Public Education Committee Passes Bullying Legislation
The House Public Education Committee has "reported favorably" on the committee substitute to HB 1942 by Rep. Diane Patrick (R-Arlington). Technically committees do not pass legislation, but instead issue reports to the whole body on whether the legislation is a good idea, by reporting favorably the committee is recommending that the House pass HB 1942. A "committee substitute" is a way to amend a bill in committee by completely replacing it with another bill on the same topic. In the case of HB 1942 the committee substitute is the result of negotiations by the sub-committee on bullying and incorporates elements of several other bills that have been filed this session.
When compared to HB 242 (The Strama/Davis big bully bill) the committee substitute for HB 1942 (or CSHB 1942) is far less comprehensive. Strama's bill, as originally filed, did four major things:
However, that definition only applies to section 25, which gives school districts the ability to transfer the victims of bullying to other classes or campuses. There are other sections of the education code which talk about bullying, but they do not have their own definitions.
CSHB 1942 fixes this by redefining bullying for the entire code (including Sec 25.0342) as
The next step in the process will be for the "Calendars Committee" to place CSHB 1942 on the House's schedule. The House divides bills into seven calendars, depending on what the bill does. Different calendars are heard on different days and the Calendars Committees determine which bills go on which calendars. The Public Education Committee recommended CSHB 1942 be placed on the General State Calendar, which is reserved for non-emergent bills that have a statewide impact but only effect some citizens (in this case students). CSHB must be debated on the House floor before midnight on May 12 in order to move on to the next step in the process: Senate consideration. Last session similar legislation (HB 1324 by Strama (D-Travis Co)) failed to pass because it didn't make this deadline (for more information read LQ's Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part II).
Once CSHB 1942 reaches the floor there will be an opportunity to amend it. With such a carefully crafted compromise, however, it's likely that Democratic members who find fault with the bill will be encouraged to not attempt to make it better. The best hope for improving this legislation (for instance fixing that whole and/or issue) is for members to speak privately with Rep. Patrick and the bill's co-authors (Shelton, Strama, Eissler and Guillen) about any desired changes before CSHB 1942 reaches the floor. If Patrick is agreeable a "friendly amendment" can be offered to fix any issues without subjecting the bill to prolonged debate which might endanger it.
CSHB 1942 incorporates ideas from a number of bills filed this session, including HB 24, HB 195, HB 224/SB 242, SB 42 and SB 205 and is the result of compromises designed to appease a majority Republican committee and a majority Republican Legislature (10 of the 11 committee members voted in favor of the bill, including 5 Republicans and the bill's principal author, Diane Patrick is a Republican). By removing any recognition of sexual orientation (let alone gender identity and expression) as a motivating bias for bullying, and by removing any suggestion that administrators have a responsibility to respond to off-campus bullying the crafters of this compromise have made it more appealing to the majority of legislators. Although it will likely face some opposition on the floor it is likely to pass, provided that there is still enough time left in the session.
When compared to HB 242 (The Strama/Davis big bully bill) the committee substitute for HB 1942 (or CSHB 1942) is far less comprehensive. Strama's bill, as originally filed, did four major things:
- Require that all staff, teachers, parents and students receive training on how to identify and prevent bullying;
- Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
- allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations; and
- Require school districts to annually report instances of bullying to the state, enumerating the report by motivating bias including sexual orientation, but not gender identity and expression.
- Require that school health curriculums include information on how to "effectively address awareness, prevention, identification, and resolution of and intervention in bullying," but would not require training for staff, teachers or parents (the bill says that districts "may" provide training for teachers, but does not require it);
- Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
- Allow school administrators to address cyberbullying, but only if it "occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district;"
- Not require any state-level reporting on instances of bullying; and
- Further clarify the requirements of anti-bullying policies schools must adopt in their Student Codes of Conduct.
"'bullying' means engaging in written or verbal expression or physical conduct that a school district board of trustees or the board's designee determines: (1) will have the effect of physically harming a student, damaging a student's property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to the student's person or of damage to the student's property; or (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive enough that the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student." (emphasis added)
However, that definition only applies to section 25, which gives school districts the ability to transfer the victims of bullying to other classes or campuses. There are other sections of the education code which talk about bullying, but they do not have their own definitions.
CSHB 1942 fixes this by redefining bullying for the entire code (including Sec 25.0342) as
"bullying" means engaging in written or verbal expression, expression through electronic means, or physical conduct that occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district and that: (1) has the effect or will have the effect of physically harming a student, damaging a student ’s property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to the student ’s person or of damage to the student ’s property; (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive enough that the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student; (3) exploits an imbalance of power between the student perpetrator and the student victim through written or verbal expression or physical conduct; and (4) interferes with a student ’s education or substantially disrupts the operation of a school. (emphasis added)The use of the word "and" in the proposed new definition (instead of the word "or") means that, to be considered bullying, the behavior will have to meet every criteria in the definition. Under this definition if a bully threatens to harm a student in a severe and pervasive way that exploits an imbalance of power and interferes with a student's eduction, but isn't persistent about it, it wouldn't count as bullying. If a bully physically harms a student in a severe, persistent and pervasive way that substantially disrupts the operation of the school, but administrators do not perceive an imbalance of power, it wouldn't count as bullying. The use of the word "and" where previously "or" was used weakens the existent protections in the code.
The next step in the process will be for the "Calendars Committee" to place CSHB 1942 on the House's schedule. The House divides bills into seven calendars, depending on what the bill does. Different calendars are heard on different days and the Calendars Committees determine which bills go on which calendars. The Public Education Committee recommended CSHB 1942 be placed on the General State Calendar, which is reserved for non-emergent bills that have a statewide impact but only effect some citizens (in this case students). CSHB must be debated on the House floor before midnight on May 12 in order to move on to the next step in the process: Senate consideration. Last session similar legislation (HB 1324 by Strama (D-Travis Co)) failed to pass because it didn't make this deadline (for more information read LQ's Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part II).
Once CSHB 1942 reaches the floor there will be an opportunity to amend it. With such a carefully crafted compromise, however, it's likely that Democratic members who find fault with the bill will be encouraged to not attempt to make it better. The best hope for improving this legislation (for instance fixing that whole and/or issue) is for members to speak privately with Rep. Patrick and the bill's co-authors (Shelton, Strama, Eissler and Guillen) about any desired changes before CSHB 1942 reaches the floor. If Patrick is agreeable a "friendly amendment" can be offered to fix any issues without subjecting the bill to prolonged debate which might endanger it.
CSHB 1942 incorporates ideas from a number of bills filed this session, including HB 24, HB 195, HB 224/SB 242, SB 42 and SB 205 and is the result of compromises designed to appease a majority Republican committee and a majority Republican Legislature (10 of the 11 committee members voted in favor of the bill, including 5 Republicans and the bill's principal author, Diane Patrick is a Republican). By removing any recognition of sexual orientation (let alone gender identity and expression) as a motivating bias for bullying, and by removing any suggestion that administrators have a responsibility to respond to off-campus bullying the crafters of this compromise have made it more appealing to the majority of legislators. Although it will likely face some opposition on the floor it is likely to pass, provided that there is still enough time left in the session.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Enumerated List to be Dropped from Bully Bill Reporting Requirement
The Dallas Voice reports that the reporting requirement proposed by the "big" anti-bullying bills (HB 224, SB 245) will be amended so that the provision that school districts file annual reports on instances of bullying in enumerated categories will now only require a report - with the specifics to be determined by the Texas Education Commission (TEA).
(HB 224 has been filed in the House, SB 245 in the Senate. The bills are nearly identical. It is common practice to file the same legislation in both the House and the Senate. Doing so allows bills to be considered by both sides simultaneously which can speed the process of a bill becoming a law. Since the Texas Legislature only meets every other year for 140 days speed is crucial in passing any law.)
HB 224 (by Strama (D-Travis County)) currently would require districts to specify in their annual reports if instances of bullying were based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability of the victim. SB 245 (by Davis (D-Fort Worth)) requires the same enumerated report but adds gender identity and expression to the list. (Strama filed this same bill last session, also without gender identity and expression, but added it to the list of attributes in committee).
In addition to the reporting requirements both bills would require school staff, administrators, students and volunteers to attend training on how to identity and respond to bullying, would allow bullies to be transferred to different classrooms or campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred) and would allow administrators to address cyber-bullying under limited conditions.
Neither bill currently contains a provision prohibiting schools from discriminating against teachers or students on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.
Lets face it, removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement will make these good bills less good -- there is no getting around that. But (and it's an extremely ambivalent "but") the proposed change to these bills dramatically increases the chances of the legislature doing something to address the issue of bullying this session.
Let's, just for a second, pretend that instead of one bill in the House and one bill in the Senate that each did four things (training, transfers, cyber-bullying, reporting), we had four bills in the House and four bills in the Senate that each did one of those things. (Actually, bills that only tackle parts of this issue have been filed in both the House and Senate, such as Rep. Guillen's HB 24 which only addresses cyber-bullying and Sen. Whitmire's SB 205 which only covers the training requirement.) If 3 of those 4 bills (say... training, transfers and cyber-bullying) became law and the other one didn't it would be a major victory and would go a long way toward helping queer Texas school children. We would be upset the 4th one didn't pass, we would continue to fight for it, but getting 3 of the 4 through would be an accomplishment.
The situation at hand isn't even a case of a 3/4 victory since the reporting requirement will still be in the bill, albeit drastically and mournfully watered down. Plus, unlike a hypothetical situation where the reporting requirement was removed, we will not have to wait two years for the next legislative session to fight for an enumerated policy. By putting the decision of how exactly the reporting requirement will work on the TEA this bill would be granting the TEA what is called "rule-making authority".
Texas laws work on a three-tier system:
I suspect Equality Texas, which announced the proposed changes to the bills, is going to receive a lot of criticism about this. (Some of which is warranted, given that the bills are being weakened.) I hope, however, that people notice what didn't happen:
The two bills (HB 224 and SB 245) differed from each other by only 5 words - "and gender identity and expression". I spoke with a staffer in Strama's office a couple of months ago asking why Strama did not include those words in his bill this session (since he added them in committee last session). The staffer was a consummate professional, which means she would never make a statement about a bill that her boss hadn't already approved, but I got the distinct impression that Strama left those 5 words off because he thought his bill had a better chance without them.
Over and over again the queer community has seen the lobby organizations that claim to represent us all throw the transgender community under the bus when it became politically expedient. It would have been very easy for Equality Texas to have done the same in this situation. Instead, they worked with Sen. Davis to be sure she understood why her Senate companion needed to include those 5 words and they continued to work to educate Rep. Strama about why his bill needed to do the same.
In a way (a very strange, very conflicted way) I'm glad to see "sexual orientation" removed from HB 224. I don't want to fight for a bill unless I can fight alongside by trans brothers and sisters. Personally, if those 5 words aren't included I don't want the two words that protect me ("sexual orientation") included either.
HB 224 and SB 245 were never perfect, they're not even the best anti-bullying bills filed this session (see HB 1386). Removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement takes these bills, which were always the middle ground, and makes them weaker. But... we are dealing with the lives of children here. If all that gets through this legislature (this very conservative, very Republican legislature) is a single section of these two bills we will have improved those lives.
It's not enough, it is so not enough, and we must fight for more... but right now, as you're reading this, there is a 14 year old queer kid who is contemplating suicide because his teachers don't know how to see the pain that he is in. If we can help that kid, and the thousands of others like him, have a school that is even a fraction more aware of his predicament we have to do it.
(HB 224 has been filed in the House, SB 245 in the Senate. The bills are nearly identical. It is common practice to file the same legislation in both the House and the Senate. Doing so allows bills to be considered by both sides simultaneously which can speed the process of a bill becoming a law. Since the Texas Legislature only meets every other year for 140 days speed is crucial in passing any law.)
HB 224 (by Strama (D-Travis County)) currently would require districts to specify in their annual reports if instances of bullying were based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability of the victim. SB 245 (by Davis (D-Fort Worth)) requires the same enumerated report but adds gender identity and expression to the list. (Strama filed this same bill last session, also without gender identity and expression, but added it to the list of attributes in committee).
In addition to the reporting requirements both bills would require school staff, administrators, students and volunteers to attend training on how to identity and respond to bullying, would allow bullies to be transferred to different classrooms or campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred) and would allow administrators to address cyber-bullying under limited conditions.
Neither bill currently contains a provision prohibiting schools from discriminating against teachers or students on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.
Lets face it, removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement will make these good bills less good -- there is no getting around that. But (and it's an extremely ambivalent "but") the proposed change to these bills dramatically increases the chances of the legislature doing something to address the issue of bullying this session.
Let's, just for a second, pretend that instead of one bill in the House and one bill in the Senate that each did four things (training, transfers, cyber-bullying, reporting), we had four bills in the House and four bills in the Senate that each did one of those things. (Actually, bills that only tackle parts of this issue have been filed in both the House and Senate, such as Rep. Guillen's HB 24 which only addresses cyber-bullying and Sen. Whitmire's SB 205 which only covers the training requirement.) If 3 of those 4 bills (say... training, transfers and cyber-bullying) became law and the other one didn't it would be a major victory and would go a long way toward helping queer Texas school children. We would be upset the 4th one didn't pass, we would continue to fight for it, but getting 3 of the 4 through would be an accomplishment.
The situation at hand isn't even a case of a 3/4 victory since the reporting requirement will still be in the bill, albeit drastically and mournfully watered down. Plus, unlike a hypothetical situation where the reporting requirement was removed, we will not have to wait two years for the next legislative session to fight for an enumerated policy. By putting the decision of how exactly the reporting requirement will work on the TEA this bill would be granting the TEA what is called "rule-making authority".
Texas laws work on a three-tier system:
- First and foremost is the state constitution; its authority supersedes any other state law (but must comply with federal law). In order for the constitution to be amended 2/3 of both the House and Senate must approve a proposed amendment to be placed on a statewide ballot and then a majority of voters must vote for it.
- Next is statute and code, statute and code must comply with the state constitution (and federal law) but supersede all other state law. The Legislature may amend statute and code by a majority vote in both houses. The governor then has an opportunity to veto any proposed changes.
- Finally, at the bottom of the totem pole, is rule. Rule is created by state agencies. In order to create rules the agency must be authorized to do so by statute or code. Rules must comply with the state constitution and statute and code (as well as federal law).
I suspect Equality Texas, which announced the proposed changes to the bills, is going to receive a lot of criticism about this. (Some of which is warranted, given that the bills are being weakened.) I hope, however, that people notice what didn't happen:
The two bills (HB 224 and SB 245) differed from each other by only 5 words - "and gender identity and expression". I spoke with a staffer in Strama's office a couple of months ago asking why Strama did not include those words in his bill this session (since he added them in committee last session). The staffer was a consummate professional, which means she would never make a statement about a bill that her boss hadn't already approved, but I got the distinct impression that Strama left those 5 words off because he thought his bill had a better chance without them.
Over and over again the queer community has seen the lobby organizations that claim to represent us all throw the transgender community under the bus when it became politically expedient. It would have been very easy for Equality Texas to have done the same in this situation. Instead, they worked with Sen. Davis to be sure she understood why her Senate companion needed to include those 5 words and they continued to work to educate Rep. Strama about why his bill needed to do the same.
In a way (a very strange, very conflicted way) I'm glad to see "sexual orientation" removed from HB 224. I don't want to fight for a bill unless I can fight alongside by trans brothers and sisters. Personally, if those 5 words aren't included I don't want the two words that protect me ("sexual orientation") included either.
HB 224 and SB 245 were never perfect, they're not even the best anti-bullying bills filed this session (see HB 1386). Removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement takes these bills, which were always the middle ground, and makes them weaker. But... we are dealing with the lives of children here. If all that gets through this legislature (this very conservative, very Republican legislature) is a single section of these two bills we will have improved those lives.
It's not enough, it is so not enough, and we must fight for more... but right now, as you're reading this, there is a 14 year old queer kid who is contemplating suicide because his teachers don't know how to see the pain that he is in. If we can help that kid, and the thousands of others like him, have a school that is even a fraction more aware of his predicament we have to do it.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Day 22: Senate Bills Start to Move
Today is the 22nd day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10 am, the Senate at 11.
The Senate began referring bills to committee yesterday, SB 42 (transfer of cyberbullies), SB 66 (transfer student loophole) and SB 205 (anti-bullying policy) have all been referred to the Committee on Education, which has its first hearing this morning, as has SB 245, the big anti-bullying bill sponsored by Sen. Davis.
The Senate Committee on Education will likely form a subcommittee to deal with these bills when it meets today. The subcommittee will then hold a public hearing and report its findings to the whole committee. With only 118 days left this session it's important that that happens as soon as possible. I expect the subcommittee to offer a substitute (a way of amending the bill by replacing it completely with a new bill) that incorporates ideas from some or all of the four Senate bills that have been filed on the subject.
We still do not have committee assignments in the House. Until that happens all of the House bills are in limbo waiting to be referred to committee.
It's pre-kindergarten day at the capitol! There are a number of events, including a model pre-K classroom in the basement (it's not as creepy as it sounds). Also, Texas CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) will be meeting with lawmakers today and a rally of people opposed to paddling children will be held this afternoon at 3 pm. With all the events centered around children's well-being it's a good day to call your elected officials and remind them about the importance of anti-bullying legislation. You can find the contact information for your representatives HERE.
The Senate began referring bills to committee yesterday, SB 42 (transfer of cyberbullies), SB 66 (transfer student loophole) and SB 205 (anti-bullying policy) have all been referred to the Committee on Education, which has its first hearing this morning, as has SB 245, the big anti-bullying bill sponsored by Sen. Davis.
The Senate Committee on Education will likely form a subcommittee to deal with these bills when it meets today. The subcommittee will then hold a public hearing and report its findings to the whole committee. With only 118 days left this session it's important that that happens as soon as possible. I expect the subcommittee to offer a substitute (a way of amending the bill by replacing it completely with a new bill) that incorporates ideas from some or all of the four Senate bills that have been filed on the subject.
We still do not have committee assignments in the House. Until that happens all of the House bills are in limbo waiting to be referred to committee.
It's pre-kindergarten day at the capitol! There are a number of events, including a model pre-K classroom in the basement (it's not as creepy as it sounds). Also, Texas CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) will be meeting with lawmakers today and a rally of people opposed to paddling children will be held this afternoon at 3 pm. With all the events centered around children's well-being it's a good day to call your elected officials and remind them about the importance of anti-bullying legislation. You can find the contact information for your representatives HERE.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
State Senate Adopts Rules
The Texas State Senate has officially adopted its rules for the 82nd legislature. The Senate rules are similar to the House with the most notable exception being that the Senate is required to consider bills in the order they are filed, while the House may consider them in almost any order they see fit.
Of course the Senate never actually follows that rule. Instead they take a vote to set aside the rule to take up bills out of order. Since a vote to set aside the rules requires two-thirds of the Senate this effectively creates a requirement that all bills in the Senate must have two-thirds of the Senators support (or, at least, lack of opposition) to pass.
Sen. Dan Patrick had campaigned in the lead up to the adoption of rules to remove this particular operational quirk, but was unsuccessful. However, the Senate did choose to maintain the loophole added last year that allows legislation about voter identification to bypass the 2/3 vote. (Last session this voter suppression loophole created bedlam when Democratic leaders in the House slowed the process to a crawl to prevent the passage of the Senate's voter suppression legislation.)
The Senate's rules lay out the committee structure for the Senate. Now that the Senate has committees the next step is for Lt. Governor Dewhurst to appoint chairs and members of those committees. Only after that is done can the Senate get down to the process of actually considering legislation.
Queer Texans will want to watch carefully to see who is appointed to the Senate Education Committee, which will almost certainly be given the duty of hearing several anti-bullying bills which have already been filed (SB 42, SB 66, SB 205, and SB 245). Of particular interest is SB 245 by Sen. Davis (D-Fort Worth). SB 245 is, by far, the most comprehensive of the bills filed thus far and is likely to serve as the "water bearer" for any Senate action on bullying.
(To save time both House and Senate Committees will often condense several bills on a single topic into a kind of super-bill which contains elements of all of the proposals, this super-bill is known as the "water bearer" and carries the bill number of one of its component bills, usually the most comprehensive. SB 245 is likely to be the "water bearer" not only because of its scope, but because Sen. Davis has been very vocal in her support for anti-bullying legislation.)
The Senate has adjourned until Monday, so we will not know the committee chairs or members until then.
Meanwhile in the House the rules debate is on-going. Earlier it had seemed likely that we would see rules adoption this week, but the capitol scuttlebutt is that it is more likely to come on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Of course the Senate never actually follows that rule. Instead they take a vote to set aside the rule to take up bills out of order. Since a vote to set aside the rules requires two-thirds of the Senate this effectively creates a requirement that all bills in the Senate must have two-thirds of the Senators support (or, at least, lack of opposition) to pass.
Sen. Dan Patrick had campaigned in the lead up to the adoption of rules to remove this particular operational quirk, but was unsuccessful. However, the Senate did choose to maintain the loophole added last year that allows legislation about voter identification to bypass the 2/3 vote. (Last session this voter suppression loophole created bedlam when Democratic leaders in the House slowed the process to a crawl to prevent the passage of the Senate's voter suppression legislation.)
The Senate's rules lay out the committee structure for the Senate. Now that the Senate has committees the next step is for Lt. Governor Dewhurst to appoint chairs and members of those committees. Only after that is done can the Senate get down to the process of actually considering legislation.
Queer Texans will want to watch carefully to see who is appointed to the Senate Education Committee, which will almost certainly be given the duty of hearing several anti-bullying bills which have already been filed (SB 42, SB 66, SB 205, and SB 245). Of particular interest is SB 245 by Sen. Davis (D-Fort Worth). SB 245 is, by far, the most comprehensive of the bills filed thus far and is likely to serve as the "water bearer" for any Senate action on bullying.
(To save time both House and Senate Committees will often condense several bills on a single topic into a kind of super-bill which contains elements of all of the proposals, this super-bill is known as the "water bearer" and carries the bill number of one of its component bills, usually the most comprehensive. SB 245 is likely to be the "water bearer" not only because of its scope, but because Sen. Davis has been very vocal in her support for anti-bullying legislation.)
The Senate has adjourned until Monday, so we will not know the committee chairs or members until then.
Meanwhile in the House the rules debate is on-going. Earlier it had seemed likely that we would see rules adoption this week, but the capitol scuttlebutt is that it is more likely to come on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Monday, November 15, 2010
SB 205 - Require Schools to Create Anti-Bullying Policies
SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire would require all public schools in Texas to adopt a comprehensive anti-bullying policy. The bill is exhaustive in the detail it prescribes for the policy, but does allow each school district to tailor its policy to the specifics of its students.
The bill lays out 13 things that each district's policy must address, the policy must:
The best solution would be for Whitmire's policy requirement to be amended onto Davis' bill. Most of the time each half of the legislature (House and Senate) only sends one bill on a topic to the other for consideration. Since these two bills were introduced in the Senate it would be best if they were combined in the Senate. Senators Davis and Whitmire will need to work together to create the best synthesis of the two.
The bill lays out 13 things that each district's policy must address, the policy must:
- prohibit bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, and intimidation
- describe the behavior expected from students
- lay out the consequences of bullying - specifically allowing counseling or referral to anti-bullying services
- include a procedure for reporting bullying, including anonymous reporting
- encourage students and employees to report bullying
- layout a procedure for investigating bullying
- describe how a school district will respond to confirmed bullying
- prohibit retaliation against people who report bullying
- have a rule against intimation of witnesses and victims of bullying to prevent reporting
- describe how a school district will respond to retaliation for reporting or intimation of witnesses or victims
- specify how the policy will be publicized
- specify that publicization of the policy must state that it applies both on campus and at off campus school sponsored events
- identify which school officials are responsible for implementing the policy
The best solution would be for Whitmire's policy requirement to be amended onto Davis' bill. Most of the time each half of the legislature (House and Senate) only sends one bill on a topic to the other for consideration. Since these two bills were introduced in the Senate it would be best if they were combined in the Senate. Senators Davis and Whitmire will need to work together to create the best synthesis of the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)