Guns and democracy don't mix it seems based on today's House Higher Ed & Workforce Subcommittee

I've been swamped with my new duties as President of the United Faculty of Florida, and as such, my blog posts fell to the wayside. But what happened today in the House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee meeting has compelled me to begin writing once again. For those who didn't have the opportunity to attend the meeting or watch it on the Florida Channel, let me recap. The Subcommittee had two agenda items: a textbook affordability workshop and HB 4001, which would negate the ban on firearms on college and university campuses for concealed carry permit holders. Both of these are important topics to be sure, and each should have had its own hearing. Instead, the first one hour and 20 minutes of a two hour meeting consisted of a panel of five people (no student involvement, interestingly enough, and a McGraw Hill rep that was just there to sell online textbooks and instructional materials [who also said that the company only updates textbooks every three years unless it's a book about tax codes--any student or faculty member or parent knows that this is far from the truth]). I am very very very interested in textbook affordability, and if the goal of the meeting was really to find out why textbooks are so expensive, they could have just asked me: because the book publishing industry is a shared monopoly that makes the majority of profits from--wait for it--textbooks. I can and will write a post about this later, including the fact that the push for online textbooks puts students who do not have ready access to broadband at a disadvantage, but the second part of the meeting today is what really has me concerned.

Of course, just about everyone in the room was not there for the workshop. They were there for the guns on campus bill.  And we waited, and waited, and waited as the five panelists spoke and then Subcommittee members asked questions. And again, it's an extremely important issue. But there were two agenda items and a huge stack of appearance cards waiting (the Tampa Bay Times reported that 70 people attended). The Subcommittee chair encouraged questions for the panel, waited patiently for people to ask questions, asked many questions of her own, and let the workshop go an hour and 20 minutes, leaving only 40 minutes for a critical public policy question. They did add 15 additional minutes, but that is not nearly enough time for the members of the Subcommittee to debate and for all of the people in the room who came to speak to testify, several of whom traveled to be there. Members of the Subcommittee were discouraged from asking questions of the sponsor or the speakers, though a few did in fact ask questions. We--citizens, constituents, people directly affected by this proposed legislation--were told to speak for a minute or so, and by the end it was 10 seconds. Because there was so little time left, the dozens of people who wanted to speak could not due to what some are saying was a purposeful delay so that people couldn't speak, and if this is true, it is certainly a travesty of democracy.  

Perhaps needless to say, everyone in the room knew that the Subcommittee members had made up their minds before we ever stepped in the room and indeed passed the bill 10-3 largely along party lines (as most Tallahassee folks know, Representative Rehwinkel-Vasilinda [D] not only supports the bill but is a co-sponsor). But to silence debate in this way--for both sides of the issue--is horrifying when we are truly talking about life or death situations. 

I've heard people call this meeting a sham, and it's hard not to agree. I truly hope that the next stop in the House allows adequate time for discussion and debate. 

Guns on Campus House Higher Ed and Workforce Committee Meeting, March 18, 2015

On Wednesday, March 18, I saw firsthand again the smugness of legislators who have no idea what life is like to teach on college and university campuses dismiss our concerns and vote against the interests of so many who do: university presidents, university police chiefs, faculty organizations, and student organizations as well as the university system itself. Now, I would never proclaim to represent all faculty. Indeed, there are faculty members who think having guns on campus is a good idea, and I respect their opinion even though I don’t agree. But the resolutions passed by the United Faculty of Florida (UFF) and the FSU Faculty Senate showed that a large majority do not want guns in their classrooms. As the President of the FSU Chapter of UFF, as a professor, and as a citizen of Florida, it is my right—and obligation—to represent my colleagues who agree that guns on campus is a bad idea for so many reasons, including, as I argued, that firearms on campus will have a chilling effect on recruitment and retention of faculty and that many view the presence of guns on campus as a challenge to academic freedom and the very mission of our colleges and universities. We were told by one of the Representatives on the Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee that our perceptions do not matter (you can watch the meeting here). That smacks of arrogance and ignorance. I don’t see those same folks arguing for guns in the rooms where legislators meet. But they’ll force guns on me and my students who do not want them and who fear the consequences of guns in the classroom so that the gun lobby can continue to scare and harass people into buying more guns.

I am so disturbed by the gun lobby and legislators’ primary argument that guns are necessary on campus so that women can protect themselves from rapists. Sexual violence is a very serious issue that must be addressed by universities and colleges as well as the community at large, but the very real consequences of sexual violence must not be used to further a political agenda for guns everywhere all the time. I cannot find any evidence that guns on campus reduce sexual assaults. And many who have experienced sexual assault do not want guns on campus.  Further, the argument is problematized by the fact that most women on campus are 17-20 years old and would not have that presumed protection, that statistics show that in 90% of sexual assault cases, the perpetrator is someone the victim knew, and that arming 21-year-olds means arming the perpetrators as well (the bill does not specify that only women can carry concealed firearms). But one of the most compelling arguments against this notion is one that was brought up by one of the speakers: the argument that women must have guns to protect themselves perpetuates the culture of rape that blames the victim: She shouldn’t have been wearing those clothes; she shouldn’t have been drinking; she shouldn’t have been out that late; and now add, she should have had a gun.  

If these legislators and gun lobbyists really care about sexual assault, they would be pounding their chests to make sure that the state government provides the necessary funds for prevention programs, not force guns on a community that does not need them and does not want them.  Representative Kerner said it well: "I refuse to believe that the policy answer, the legislative answer to the culture of sexual assault, the culture of mental health and mass shootings on our campus is arming our students with weapons.”

I am also disturbed by the fact that the bill sponsor continues to say that guns on campus will not cost anything. According to the Associated Press, in Idaho, the costs of guns on campus are staggering: “Five of Idaho's universities and community colleges say they've spent more than $1.5 million for additional security since lawmakers approved a law allowing concealed guns on campus. The Idaho Statesman reports the schools sought $1.55 million this winter plus another $2.17 million for the rest of the budget year to help with expenses. But Boise State University, Idaho State University, the University of Idaho, the College of Western Idaho and North Idaho College will likely have to absorb the costs. Gov. C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter didn't include the money in budget planning and state lawmakers are not likely to add the money. The law went into effect July 1. It allows retired law enforcement officers and holders of enhanced concealed-carry permits to bring firearms onto campus.” Since guns would still not be allowed in sporting events, will we need to install metal detectors like the ones they have on the way into the Capitol? That costs money. Additional security costs money. Ensuring that those carrying weapons have a license costs money. To hear the sponsor insist that there will be no costs is mind-blowing. 

The gun lobby and guns on campus sponsor also continuously say, “I can take my guns anywhere else so I should be able to take them on to campus, too.” But then they are forced to acknowledge that they can’t take their guns everywhere. There’s a very clear list in the statute: bars, sporting events, rooms where legislators meet, courtrooms, police stations, airports, polling places, etc. So no, you can’t take your gun anywhere, and for good reason.  Those are places where emotions can run high, where people may be intoxicated and make bad decisions when under the influence, where people are angry or desperate or both, and so on. Hey, that happens on campus, too, unfortunately, which is why campuses were excluded in the first place.

I also have to point out that in all these other states that some of the representatives referenced that allow guns on campus, 23 of them leave the decision up to the institution, and most of the seven states that allow guns on campus have limitations, like the Idaho bill. So it’s not that the case that anyone with a concealed weapons license can carry firearms anywhere on campus. But in the Florida bill, there are no limits regarding gun security measures, enhanced concealed weapons license requirements, etc., and I’ve heard that the bill sponsors will not consider any limitations. I would venture to guess that even some of those faculty members and students who support guns on campus would want some limitations—at the least, provisions about gun security. So again, this is not about making campus safe—it’s about selling more guns.

I know this sounds so bleak, but we can’t give up. We simply can’t. I’ve been hearing that people who have testified against the bill are not coming back because they feel they are not being heard, so why bother. That’s how the gun lobby wins! That and intimidation tactics. 

Do not give up—get fired up (no pun intended). We need to double our efforts. Bring more people to the meetings, have more people call and write their legislators, anything we can do to show  legislators and the public that universities and colleges do not want or need guns. We need more money for mental health and violence prevention programs, not more weapons! 

Take Action: Guns on Campus Tomorrow at 9am

TAKE ACTION

COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE

House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee

Representative Porter, Chair
Representative Raburn, Vice Chair

MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 18, 2015

TIME: 9:00 -11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Reed Hall, 102 House Office Building

HB 4005 by Representative Steube - Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms is on the agenda of this meeting.

The bill specifically deletes current provision of law prohibiting concealed carry licensees from openly carrying handgun or carrying concealed weapon or firearm into college or university facility. Current law does not prohibit the carry of a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile.

UFF opposes this legislation to allow carrying of concealed weapons on college and university campuses. UFF concurs with the vast majority of faculty, students and law enforcement that prohibiting firearms on college and university campuses, except by trained law enforcement and security officers, is an essential element of an overall campus safety plan.

The bill is also opposed by the Florida Board of Governors, the University Police Chiefs, the University Presidents, the League of Women Voters and many more organizations. At least 14 Florida newspapers have ran editorials opposing this bill!

What Can You Do:
Contact the committee members listed below and urge their NO VOTE for HB 4005!!

Chair:                                           District                                    Tallahassee
Porter, Elizabeth W. [R]               (386)719-4600                        (850)717-5010
Vice Chair:
Raburn, Jake [R]                          (813)653-7097                        (850)717-5057
Democratic Ranking Member:
Rehwinkel Vasilinda, Michelle [D]  (850) 717-5009                   (850) 717-5009

Cortes, Robert "Bob" [R]               (407)659-4818                        (850)717-5030
Edwards, Katie A. [D]                   (954)838-1371                        (850)717-5098
Gonzalez, Julio [R]                        (941)480-3560                        (850)717-5074
Hutson, Travis [R]                         (386)446-7644                        (850)717-5024
Jacobs, Kristin Diane [D]                (954)956-5600                     (850)717-5096
Kerner, Dave [D]                           (561)641-3406                        (850)717-5087
Nuñez, Jeanette M. [R]                  (305)227-5119                        (850)717-5119
Perry, W. Keith [R]                        (352)264-4040                        (850)717-5021
Plasencia, Rene "Coach P" [R]       (407)207-7283                      (850)717-5049
Rodrigues, Ray Wesley [R]             (239)433-6501                      (850)717-5076

Guns on Campus Senate Committee Meeting March 16, 2015

Today, the Senate Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding SB 176, the guns on campus bill that would repeal the prohibition on concealed firearms on campus.  Despite the appearance of campus police chiefs, I’d say three times as many opponents than proponents, representatives from student, faculty, and administration, concerned citizens, and so on, the bill still passed along party lines.  The proponents? The gun lobby and a few students from Students for Concealed Carry at FSU. There were a couple more pro-gun speakers, but because the committee ran out of time (because they drilled opponents of the bill but not the proponents), I didn't catch their affiliation. And because it was obvious that the vote would be another party line vote, the chair of the committee allowed one proponent and then one opponent to speak, creating a false sense of objectivity on a bill that had many many more opponents than the other side.

It was obvious that many of the Republicans on the committee had already had their minds made up based on the aggressive way they questioned the first speaker, a student who represents FSU’s SGA. The student was absolutely fabulous—articulate, calm, poised, and intelligent—despite the pointed, pro-gun and often inappropriate questions asked of him (he came to represent the SGA, who voted unanimously to oppose the guns on campus bill, not as an expert on statistics or gun evidence). I can almost see treating someone paid to do this for a living this way, but definitely not a student who is trying to tell these folks who WE ELECT what students think about the bill because students do not feel that their voices are being heard. 

Of course, the NRA lobbyist received no questions—and she didn't wait to see if there were any questions because she knows whose bread the gun lobby butters.

One senator repeatedly said that if he had evidence, he’d vote the other way, but when it was given to him, he acted as though the speaker was speaking in tongues.  Look, it wouldn't matter if we walked in with a U-Haul full of evidence; those who voted for the bill were not going to be convinced otherwise.  And here’s the rub: PROPONENTS SHOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, NOT THE OPPONENTS WHO WANT THE STATUS QUO! Yes, I’m yelling. It’s infuriating. But seriously, those who want to change the status quo should be providing the evidence to explain why the law should be repealed. Why are we on the defensive all of the time against moneyed interests? Why do the experts have to bring irrefutable evidence but the gun lobby doesn't?

I can’t tell you how impressive it was to see the university police chiefs and several officers sitting in the front row, and every single one of them opposed guns on campus. They are the experts here. Pediatricians spoke against the bill. They are the experts here. One student spoke, but no faculty, no staff, no one from administration were able to speak because they ran out of time.  They told us we had an opportunity to speak at the next committee stop. But then, we were admonished for not providing evidence despite the fact that at least a dozen or more people were ready to speak and would likely provide that information.

I ask you—why not eliminate the prohibition on guns in rooms where the Legislature meets? If you are going to force this on universities and colleges that do not want it, why not pass the legislation regarding their own house before imposing it on ours? Serve as a role model for others? It’s so incredibly hypocritical.

Well, we don’t have long to wait to speak again. The House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee will hear the bill this Wednesday at 9:00 am in Reed Hall (102 HOB).  The list of committee members can be found here. 

I really think we need to pack the room. And call their offices. And drop by their offices if you can. These are our representatives. They need to hear from us.

Since the ranking Democrat on the committee—Rep. Rehwinkel Vasilinda—is the representative for many of us in Tallahassee, be sure to let her know what you think as well: (850) 717-5009. Her voting record on guns can be found here. 

Committee Meeting Re Secrecy Bill, March 10, 2015

On March 10, the House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee heard the secrecy bill, HB 223 (companion to SB 182). Again, despite the fact that all of the folks who spoke or waved their time were opposed to the bill, it passed 9-1, with Representative Rehwinkel Vasilinda as the only no vote (and she nailed it in debate!).

I learned a few important things from this meeting, and a few things I knew were evidenced once again: a) more often than not, it appears that the legislators who speak for this bill either didn't read it or didn't read it carefully because they keep saying things that simply aren't correct (e.g., one Representative said that the decision to determine finalists would be in the sunshine, but according to the bill, it would not be); b) It is true, as one of the smartest people I know noted, that rather than legislators’ default position being convince me that the bill is good for the people, the default position is you are going to have a helluva time convincing me to vote against my colleague; c) Legislators seem to think that they know better than the people who actually have first-hand experience with and know an awful lot about the issue or issues at stake; d) At least one legislator thinks that the idea that universities are democratic institutions is “silly,” and that while it’s nice that faculty and students think they should have a seat at the table, the decision is not ours to make (this one did, as WFSU’s Capital Report stated, leave me dumbfounded).

I also found it interesting that one legislator tried to use one of my articles about the FSU presidential search as evidence for the need for secrecy. Anyone who followed my blog or saw my articles in the NEA literature knows damn well that I never suggested that secrecy would be beneficial. But I think what he was referring to was the fact that I said that headhunter Bill Funk argued that no one would apply because then-Senator Thrasher was the front-runner—but then I explained in great detail why that was hogwash. Perhaps he Googled me as I was speaking and only skimmed the first paragraph or two of the article. That tells us all something.

Another interesting statement was that this bill isn't a secrecy bill. It's a confidentiality bill that actually allows for more sunshine because the public has 30 days to vet the finalists. Huh?

Look, this bill isn't about the public interest or attracting more sitting presidents to apply for university positions. It is about keeping us in the dark so we can't complain, allowing for the manipulation of the search process. And it appears that this bill will benefit all those legislators who want a cushy university or college president position after they leave the Legislature. That seems to be a giant conflict of interest if you ask me. But what do I know. I'm just a faculty member.

Guns on Campus will be heard Monday, March 16, at 2!

TAKE ACTION (Action Alert from UFF)

COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE

Senate Higher Education Committee

Senator Stargel, Chair
Senator Sachs, Vice Chair

MEETING DATE: Monday, March 16, 2015

TIME: 2:00 -3:30 p.m.

PLACE: 412 Knott Building

SB 176 by Senator Evers - Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms is on the agenda of this meeting.

UFF opposes this legislation to allow carrying of concealed weapons on college and university campuses. UFF concurs with the vast majority of faculty, students and law enforcement that prohibiting firearms on college and university campuses, except by trained law enforcement and security officers, is an essential element of an overall campus safety plan.

The bill is also opposed by the Florida Board of Governors, the University Police Chiefs, the University Presidents, the League of Women Voters and many more organizations. At least 14 Florida newspapers have ran editorials opposing this bill!

What Can You Do:
Contact the Committee members listed below and urge their NO VOTE for SB 176!!

                                                                                District                                  Tallahassee
Chair:
Senator Kelli Stargel (R)                                    (863)668-3028                        (850)487-5015
Vice Chair:
Senator Maria Lorts Sachs (D)                           (561)279-1427                        (850)487-5034

Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R)                        (239)338-2570                        (850)487-5030
Senator Oscar Braynon, II (D)                            (305)564-7150                        (850)487-5036
Senator Don Gaetz (R)                                        (850)897-5747                        (850)487-5001
Senator Arthenia L.  Joyner (D)                          (813)233-4277                        (850)487-5019
Senator John Legg (R)                                         (813)909-9919                        (850)487-5017
Senator Joe Negron (R)                                       (772)219-1665                        (850)487-5032
Senator David Simmons (R)                               (407)262-7578                        (850)487-5010

Or, if you are in Tallahassee, please attend this meeting, fill out an appearance card, and either plan to speak at the Committee meeting or waive your time in opposition if you so choose.

Secrecy Bill will be heard in the House on Tuesday morning

COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE: House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee

Representative Porter, Chair
Representative Raburn, Vice Chair

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, March 10, 2015

TIME: 9:00 -11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Reed Hall, 102 House Office Building

HB 223 -- Public Records and Meetings/Combee -- Postsecondary Education Executive Search is on the agenda of this meeting.

The bill does the following:

  *   Creates an exemption from Florida's public records and open meetings laws for any personal identifying information of an applicant for state university or Florida College System (FCS) institution president, provost, or dean;
  *   Exempts the applicant's name from public disclosure in records or during meetings held for the purpose of vetting applicants. The bill requires release of the list no later than 10 days before the date of the meeting at which a final action or vote is to be taken;
  *   Requires that the final interviews be open to the public.

The UFF Senate voted unanimously to oppose this legislation!

What You Can Do:
Contact the committee members listed below and urge their NO VOTE for HB 223!
If in Tallahassee, attend this meeting!

Chair:                                                  District                                    Tallahassee
Porter, Elizabeth W. [R]                   (386)719-4600                        (850)717-5010

Vice Chair:
Raburn, Jake [R]                               (813)653-7097                        (850)717-5057

Democratic Ranking Member:
Rehwinkel Vasilinda, Michelle [D]  (850) 717-5009                       (850) 717-5009

Cortes, Robert "Bob" [R]                  (407)659-4818                        (850)717-5030
Edwards, Katie A. [D]                      (954)838-1371                        (850)717-5098
Gonzalez, Julio [R]                           (941)480-3560                        (850)717-5074
Hutson, Travis [R]                            (386)446-7644                        (850)717-5024
Jacobs, Kristin Diane [D]                 (954)956-5600                        (850)717-5096
Kerner, Dave [D]                              (561)641-3406                        (850)717-5087
Nuñez, Jeanette M. [R]                     (305)227-5119                        (850)717-5119
Perry, W. Keith [R]                           (352)264-4040                        (850)717-5021
Plasencia, Rene "Coach P" [R]         (407)207-7283                        (850)717-5049
Rodrigues, Ray Wesley [R]              (239)433-6501                        (850)717-5076

Committee Meeting for the Secrecy Bill, March 4, 2015

The Florida Senate continued its push this week to take university job searches for presidents, provosts, and deans out of the sunshine so that these critical decisions could be made in the backrooms and cocktail bars of state politics.  SB 182 would exempt portions of the search process from Florida’s cherished Sunshine and open records laws. More below.

***
I would like to think that I understand the policy-making process, for I teach and research in this area. I really thought I could never be surprised by the process, for I’m a critical scholar who analyzes the role that money and politics play in decision-making regarding public policy. But I have found in the last few weeks that it’s all actually worse than I thought.

On Wednesday, seven people stood up and opposed the secrecy bill (SB 182) in the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee meeting (funny that such a committee would want to hide information from the public so that folks aren't held accountable), but it was extremely clear to me after listening to the questions legislators asked and the comments that the legislators made that their positions were based on incomplete or inaccurate information. This is very troubling because there’s no way to correct the misconceptions (whether they are intentional or not) if you've completed your testimony.

So I plan to do it here.

Senator Hays, the sponsor of the bill, asked a speaker who was not directly involved with the FSU presidential search how many people applied for the FSU president position, so that question wasn't answered. I should have answered it in my testimony, but I had so much else to say that I didn't think of it until I sat back down (I really hate it when that happens). If I’m not mistaken, the answer was 39—that is, once the search was “reset” and the Presidential Search Advisory Committee (PSAC) picked a hard deadline, more people applied, many at the deadline as often happens in Sunshine searches. But another speaker who was outlining the problems with the FSU search noted that 8 people applied before the search consultant recommended that only one candidate, who, incidentally, had not applied yet, be vetted (after further research, I think the number was actually 12).  That, my friends, is the number that Senator Hays then used to suggest that his bill was necessary so that more people apply.  That number instead of the 39 people who did apply once the search was opened back up, a list that was whittled down to the 11 people who made the shorter list, and then down to the final 4 candidates who were invited to campus to interview. I hate to say it but I think he should have known the number of candidates who applied since this is his bill that he says is necessary because more and better-qualified candidates will apply (and I gotta say, I feel sorry for all of those great presidents, provosts, and deans who were actually hired in the Sunshine; I’d be pretty offended if I were them).

There was also a lot of confusion about testimony regarding the FSU PSAC meeting in which consultant Bill Funk told committee members that they should only vet one candidate.  One Senator tried to school the speaker by saying Boards of Trustees (BOT) are governed under a completely different part of the Sunshine Law than what Hays’ bill was referring to. I am not really sure what he was talking about, and neither does First Amendment Foundation President Barbara Petersen, as BOT meetings and presidential searches are held under the same Sunshine Law standards (i.e., Art I, § 24(b) Fla Const. according to my sources).

Further, the speaker wasn't talking about a BOT meeting, so she clarified that she was talking about a PSAC meeting. Senator Ring, the chair of the Committee, then stated that the FSU PSAC meeting she discussed would have been an open meeting according to Hays’ bill. This is also incorrect. The bill would indeed exempt any meeting in which candidate names are discussed. It is not until the final decision is made that the names of the finalists would be made public. I wish he would have known that since he wholeheartedly supported the bill.

Senator Ring also suggested that faculty (beyond those on the search committee, I think he meant to say) didn't need to be involved in the process because the president needs faculty more than the faculty needs the president.  I would like to think this is true but it’s not. I had tried to explain the concept of shared governance, but I’m not sure my point was heard. And everyone knows that the president is the most visible part of the university (and he/she makes a helluva lot more money than the faculty, that’s for sure, but not even close to as much as the football coach. Ah, priorities).

He also said that half a dozen people testifying is not a public outcry, so obviously people do not see this bill as a problem. Well, that’s insulting to those of us who made the effort to come to the meeting to speak, and I know for a fact that calls came into Senators’ offices, but alas, I've been told that some Senators do not actually have staff log the calls. This is absolutely appalling to me.  We are told to call and register our concerns with our legislators—the people who we elect to do our business—but no one is paying attention in some offices? This is absurd to me! They are supposed to be doing the people’s work—in the Sunshine! Seems to me that the number of calls and emails supporting or opposing bills should be public record. This is not to say that calls don't matter--keep calling!

It is also important to note that we said that the United Faculty of Florida Senate unanimously passed a resolution opposing the bill. I guess I have to say that we actually represent many thousands of faculty members and graduate assistants in Florida. That, to me, is a public outcry! But, alas, the room wasn't full of faculty—probably because they were working and don’t all live in Tallahassee!—and the bill passed 4-1 with Senator Bullard as the only opposing vote.

I am an academic. Facts matter. Data matter. Logic matters. Making cogent arguments matter. I expect that others would agree, especially legislators making decisions every day that clearly affect our public institutions and the people of Florida. And rational people can debate the issues and come to an agreement—or not. And that's okay. But that is not the case here. Not by a long shot. None of this matters. It’s only about relationships, power, and wealth. More than once I've heard that the reason a legislator would vote for a problematic bill is because the sponsor asked him or her to do so. Not facts, not data, not logic, not arguments, not even the public speaking out against the idea.

Based on my experiences talking with folks about this bill and hearing what supporters of the bill say, especially legislators, it has finally become crystal clear to me that this insidious bill is not about the public interest. This bill is about governor-appointed BOTs being able to make backroom deals to promote the candidates that the powers that be want without the pesky public, including faculty, students, parents, alumni, and concerned community members, asking questions or making comments or talking to the press. It’s much easier and less messy to manipulate the process if no one is watching.

Secrecy Bill is on the Agenda Wednesday

COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE

GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Senator Ring, Chair

Senator Hays, Vice Chair

MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 4, 2015

TIME: 1:00 -3:00 p.m.

PLACE: James E. "Jim" King, Jr. Committee Room, 401 Senate Office Building

CS/SB 182 by Higher Education / Hays-Public Records and Meetings/Postsecondary Education Executive Search is on the agenda of this meeting.

The bill does the following:

* Creates an exemption from Florida's public records and open meetings laws for any personal identifying information of an applicant for state university or Florida College System (FCS) institution president, provost, or dean;
* Exempts the applicant's name from public disclosure in records or during meetings held for the purpose of vetting applicants. The bill requires release of the short list no later than 10 days before the date of the meeting at which a final action or vote is to be taken;
* Requires that the final interviews be open to the public.

What Can You Do: Contact the committee members listed below and urge their NO VOTE for CS/SB 182!!

Chair:                                                                                          District            Tallahassee
Senator Jeremy Ring (D)<http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/S29> (954)917-1392 (850)487-5029

Vice Chair:
Senator Alan Hays (R)<http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/S11> (352)742-6441 (850)487-5011

Senator Dwight Bullard (D)<http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/S39> (305)234-2208 (850)487-5039

Senator Jack Latvala (R)<http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/S20> (727)793-2797 (850)487-5020

Senator John Legg (R)<http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/S17> (813)909-9919 (850)487-5017

My testimony (as prepared) for SB 176 Feb. 2015

Chairman Evers, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. And Chairman Evers, thank you again for meeting with us earlier today and your willingness to listen to our concerns.

I oppose this bill because I do not believe that guns on campus will make any of us safer. I was a high school teacher in Colorado Springs, Colorado, when the Columbine tragedy occurred, and I have been following school shootings ever since, including the shooting on the FSU campus. This bill concerns me and many of my colleagues greatly.

In fact, the Florida State University chapter of the United Faculty of Florida passed a resolution opposing this legislation because an increase in deadly firearms on campus will not enhance the safety of our students, faculty, or staff because of the potential increase in collateral damage, accidental shootings, and confusion regarding who the aggressor is in a given situation.

Lieutenant Matthew Rushton of the Bridgewater State University Police Department recently contacted me supporting the faculty union’s opposition to the bill. I would like to read part of his email because it demonstrates some of the major concerns universities and colleges have regarding guns on campus. He said, “Responding officers are faced with making life and death decisions; determining who is an aggressor, who is just trying to flee the scene, and who is looking for help.  All of these groups will typically run at the police as they enter the scene, and are faced with them quickly advancing for a variety of reasons, placing police officers in a position to make a life or death decision in mere seconds.  Having unknown members of the campus community potentially armed will not only lead to confusion for responding officers, but students, staff and others.  Most are not trained in the same active shooter techniques and are not proficient in the use of a firearm against a fluid target.”

With all due respect to the people supporting this bill, I think it is important to note that student organizations such as FSA, faculty organizations that have taken a position, all 12 public universities, the university police chiefs, and the university system itself are all opposed to this change. So I humbly ask all of you here to vote no on this bill and not impose this change on a community that does not need it and does not want it.

My testimony on SB 182 Feb 2015

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I would like to thank Senator Hays and his staff for being open and listening to my concerns and their willingness to work with us. 

I oppose this bill, though, because secrecy is not in the best interest of our universities and colleges, especially when it comes to choosing the leadership, and the Florida State University chapter of the United Faculty of Florida passed a resolution opposing this bill as well. Florida has strong Sunshine Laws, and should be proud of them, and any exemption to those laws should be unequivocally compelling and narrowly construed. However, there is no real compelling interest here, not enough to exempt the public from records requests and meetings regarding president, provost, and dean searches. While I understand the argument that sitting presidents may not apply because they don’t want their home institutions to know, why would we want a leader who is not open with the faculty, students, staff, alumni, and the people of the state of Florida?

Further, last year, both presidential searches at the two preeminent universities—Florida State University and University of Florida—resulted in strong, well-qualified candidates, this despite the controversy surrounding the FSU search. This included a provost at a peer institution, an interim president from UAB, and the chancellor of the Colorado system who had been president at other institutions, among several other qualified candidates who interviewed for the short list. UF’s short list included a sitting president of a university in the Netherlands, a provost at the Ivy League university Cornell, and a provost at the prestigious NYU.  That’s not to mention all of the excellent presidents, provosts, and deans who have led our institutions of higher learning over the years and who were hired in the sunshine.

An open, honest, transparent search that allows for stakeholder input, including faculty, staff, students, alumni, parents, and community members, and allows for accountability is essential for many reasons, including the ability to vet candidates and ask important questions that the search committee may not ask, especially as the search committees are appointed and not necessarily representative of the university or college community. The taxpayers generously provide for our public colleges and universities, and deserve the right to know how those dollars are being spent and how major decisions that affect these public institutions are made, if they want to know. Faculty should also have a say in these matters, as faculty governance remains one of the hallmarks of great universities.

Searches in the sunshine are not good or bad; experienced and respectable search firms know that such searches are just different, and they know how to recruit strong, well-qualified candidates. Not knowing why the finalists for a presidential position were chosen over the others is a secret that universities and colleges cannot afford and should avoid. I am humbly asking you to vote no to SB 182.

Secrecy and Presidential Searches will be heard Monday

On Monday, February 16, the Senate Higher Education Committee will hear SB 182, which would exempt president, provost, and dean searches from public record and meeting requirements. Considering our recent presidential search process, exempting such searches from Sunshine Laws will lead to even less transparency, openness, and active participation from multiple stakeholders. I encourage you to testify at the Committee meeting scheduled from 4-6pm in 412 Knott Building. If you cannot make it to the meeting but still want your voice heard, feel free to contact the Committee.

Guns on Campus will be heard Monday

On Monday, February 16, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hear SB 176, which would allow persons over 21 years of age who have a concealed weapons permit to carry their weapon on college and university campuses. The Committee meets from 4-6pm in 37 Senate Office Building.  I encourage those who are concerned about this bill to plan to testify at this committee meeting. If you are unable to do so but want to have your voices heard, you can contact the members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

Resolutions

I'd like to thank our sister UFF chapters for passing resolutions opposing concealed weapons on campus and opposing donor donations with strings attached, including the UFF-University of Florida chapter: http://www.uff-uf.org/

Other chapters are considering these resolutions as well.

The FSU chapter resolutions can be found here: uff-fsu.org

Additional reasons why guns have no place on campus

So I’ve been doing a little digging, and it appears that calls for repealing bans on firearms on campuses began in earnest after the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007. The shooter killed 32 students and faculty members and injured 17. The shooter purchased one gun online and another in a gun shop. He also had a history of mental health issues, according to news reports, but that didn’t stop him from buying a gun. So what if students on Virginia Tech’s campus were able to carry firearms into their classrooms. What would the scene look like? Who would be shooting who? What would the collateral damage look like?

As a 2012 article in University Business notes, “even with superior marksmanship training, law enforcement officers in a live fire scenario hit their intended targets only around 25 percent of the time.” And a 2013 editorial in the San Antonio Express-News states, “Even trained police officers can miss their mark. An analysis of incidents between 1998 and 2006 from the RAND Center on Quality Policing found officers hit their mark 30 percent of the time when a suspect wasn't firing back. In a gunfight, accuracy dropped to 18 percent. In 2012, police shot a gunman at the Empire State Building, but also injured nine bystanders. Would college students or faculty do better?” That is an extremely important question.

I think it is also important to note that the legislation in question here in Florida is awfully similar to model bills created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) with the help of the NRA in 2008. So Corporate America voted to support a bill that would allow guns on campuses. The argument that it is our God-given right to carry guns (not sure when God gave us that right) falls a bit flat when one considers who actually benefits from such legislation. Certainly not educators or students. Rather, it’s the gun industry. And it spends a lot of money to make sure people buy guns and to ensure that regulation encourages us to buy guns.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that in 2014, gun lobbyists spent quite a few bucks:

Top Lobbying Clients, 2014
Client/Parent Total
National Rifle Assn $3,360,000
National Assn for Gun Rights $3,080,000
National Shooting Sports Foundation $3,070,000
Gun Owners of America $1,451,994
Citizens Cmte for Right Keep & Bear Arms $501,488

Look, I don’t care if you want to own a gun, but I don’t want it in my classroom. Cultivating a safe learning environment is difficult to do when we have to worry if other people in the room have a loaded weapon in their pocket. Too many bad things can happen, as the Harvard School of Public Health and others have found.

Concealed weapons have no place on campus

I am quite concerned about HB 4005, which would repeal the ban on concealed weapons on campus, and I know I am not the only one. I've heard from faculty members at FSU and across the state. Even President Thrasher, a big Second Amendment supporter, has publicly opposed the bill, including at a UFF-FSU luncheon, and was instrumental in stopping the bill in 2011. The UFF-FSU chapter overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing the legislation, which was also read during testimony at the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee that heard the bill on January 20:

Be it resolved that we, the Executive Council of the United Faculty of Florida-Florida State University, oppose proposed legislation that would allow concealed weapons on university campuses. We support the arguments and evidence suggesting that an increase in deadly firearms on campus will not enhance the safety of our students, faculty, or staff because of the potential increase in collateral damage, accidental shootings, and confusion regarding who the aggressor is in a given situation.

I know there are faculty members on our campus who support the bill, but as one who has studied school shootings since 1999, I personally find the arguments that suggest more guns on campus deter crime do not outweigh the concerns raised about campus safety by campus police, students, faculty, parents, and university presidents. To expect a student with a concealed weapon to shoot and presumably kill an active shooter is unacceptable and irresponsible. Police and military have how much more training compared to a 21-year-old with a permit to carry a concealed firearm? It seems to me that a "good guy," as Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, called concealed weapons permit holders, could have serious psychological issues after shooting another human being or after confronting with a decision in a life or death situation. And what if the "good guy" misses and shoots an innocent bystander? What if the "good guy" misses and the "bad guy" then shoots the "good guy"? And what if the police show up and see two people with guns; who do they disarm? The good guys don't always wear white hats and badges and the bad guys don't always wear black hats like they do in Westerns. There isn't time to ask, only to react. There are way too many disastrous consequences.

It also seems to me quite disingenuous for legislators to expect faculty and students to feel safer not knowing who has a gun in their classrooms when firearms are prohibited in any meeting of the Legislature. Or in any courthouse. Or bars. Or in lots of places. Because the potential danger outweighs the potential threat.

I'm all for discussions about campus safety, but introducing more guns on campus--and not knowing who is carrying those guns--is not the solution.

Despite the fact that 15 people spoke against the bill and 4 spoke for it at the January 20 hearing, the bill passed the subcommittee along party lines: 8-4. I will post information about the next hearing as soon as I know when it is scheduled. I encourage faculty and others concerned about the bill to plan to attend and have your voices heard.