The Tampa Bay Times Buzz Blog and the Miami Herald both had
articles covering the Senate’s passage of Don Gaetz’s HB 7029 yesterday--- a
massive bill that has a lot of interest statewide.
Just before the Senate amended and passed this bill,
individual freedom of choice in advocacy language was inserted by Sen Stargel
as an amendment to HB 7029. The bill, as
amended, passed the Senate with notable support from Democrats Montord and
Ring.
The Miami herald article was somewhat negative in their word
choice regarding what this amendment would actually do---instead framing the
issue as one group attempting to divert taxpayer money from another, more
worthy recipient---as if this is somehow nefarious conduct. News flash—FCSBM is a 501c3 just like FSBA
is. Also, the characterization of HB
1155 and SB 1426 as “Punitive” was also a disingenuous description at best, and
a slap in the face of the Senators and Representatives that brought this
important and desperately needed legislation to the session…
From the Miami Herald article:
“Then with only
minutes’ notice, Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, successfully added an
amendment that could steer taxpayer dollars to the Florida Coalition of School
Board Members — a rival organization to the Florida School Boards Association
and whose members are more conservative, like the Republican-led Legislature. The
provision was originally part of a separate bill (HB 1155) by Stargel that was
ready for a Senate vote. That bill would have retaliated against the FSBA for
previously suing the state over a voucher-like program that Republican
lawmakers supported by barring the FSBA from using taxpayer money in future
lawsuits. Facing scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans, Stargel averted
a possible defeat on that bill by postponing a planned vote”
The subject of most of the debate prior to the passage of
the bill centered on the insertion of the individual freedom of choice
language. Most Democrats simply did not
want to see that language
inserted, and the majority of these Democrats voted against the bill. Sen Bullard made the case that the language was being inserted to politicize school board decision making. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, Sen Bullard and other members that are in the minority party of the Senate are permitted to send their taxpayer subsidized advocacy dollars to “Progressive” associations, because the majority party in the Senate respects the rights of the minority party. I guess Bullard doesn’t want school board members to have this same accommodation—which seems hypocritical to me. Senator Garcia very effectively made this same argument on the floor toward Bullard and other Democrats that still waffled on supporting the bill. Garcia totally and completely neutralized Bullard’s argument just before the Senate passed the amended bill 28-12.
inserted, and the majority of these Democrats voted against the bill. Sen Bullard made the case that the language was being inserted to politicize school board decision making. I don’t believe that to be the case. In fact, Sen Bullard and other members that are in the minority party of the Senate are permitted to send their taxpayer subsidized advocacy dollars to “Progressive” associations, because the majority party in the Senate respects the rights of the minority party. I guess Bullard doesn’t want school board members to have this same accommodation—which seems hypocritical to me. Senator Garcia very effectively made this same argument on the floor toward Bullard and other Democrats that still waffled on supporting the bill. Garcia totally and completely neutralized Bullard’s argument just before the Senate passed the amended bill 28-12.
Whether or not this bill gets over the line and becomes law,
I am proud of the fact that language respecting the individual freedom of
choice in advocacy for school board members has now passed the house twice and
the senate once.
This concept is solid, and sooner or later this concept will
be codified in law because it is the right thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment