[Durham INC] Fw: NC lawmakers override another Perdue veto

Fri Jan 6 15:54:00 EST 2012

For more background, from an environmental newsletter, for those of you that had any doubts about how petty, treacherous and ugly our politics have become:

The legislature returned again on Wednesday for the sixth session of the 2011-12 biennium; this time at the behest of Governor Perdue, in response to her veto of S9 (No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty), which repealed the Racial Justice Act.  The session was "theoretically" limited to only an attempt to override the veto of S9; what actually transpired is sure to mark a pivotal point in the biennium and hinder any attempts at bipartisanship in the House chamber.  While the Senate, with its 31-19 majority, was easily able to override the veto, the House appeared not to have the numbers.  Not being able to accomplish the task they came back for, the House set their minds to other business.  Initially it appeared there was a stalemate between House leadership and the Governor’s office over the appointment of Rep. Trudi Walend (Henderson-R) to replace the retired Rep. David Guice (Henderson-R).  House leadership claimed the Governor was stalling on the appointment to keep away the necessary votes, while the Governor explained that she was waiting on proper economic disclosure paperwork, a deal was struck that the Democratic leadership would urge a quick appointment if no other votes were taken and the appointment was made.
Then things got interesting.  The House and Senate both amended their adjournment resolutions from the previous November session, claiming this was allowed during the special session because while they could bring up no other bill, the adjournment is a resolution and not a bill.  The amended resolution called for another convening of a general session after midnight on January 5th , and allowed all other vetoed bills to be brought up, including H351 (Restore Confidence in Government) aka voter ID, S709 (Energy Jobs Act) aka oil drilling and fracking, and S727 (No Dues Checkoff for School Employees), a bill the majority had accidently been caught on tape earlier in the year stating was pay back for school teachers lobbying against the budget.  After cutting off debate, and a formal constitutional protest of the new session by former Speaker Joe Hackney (Chatham-D) including a public airing of the broken deal, the House overturned the veto of S727 by the exact margin necessary, drawing two Democrats (Reps. Jim Crawford (Granville-D) and William Brisson (Bladen-D)), and with five others others absent, including Rep. Larry Womble (Forsyth-D) (absent in a near coma after a car accident), and Rep. William Wainwright (Craven-D) (who left to go to the hospital with an illness of his own), Reps. Alice Bordsen (Alamance-D), Dewey Hill (Brunswick-D) and Tim Spear (Dare-D) were also absent. The Republicans were able to get all of their absent members to the chamber that evening in time for the vote, save Rep. Ric Killian (Mecklneburg-R) (deployed overseas).  Despite the numbers advantage with absences the majority did not have the votes to overturn either the H351 or S709, although the recent actions make it clear every session an attempt will be made so stay tuned for the next session in February.
Speaker Thom Tillis (Mecklenburg-R), when questioned about the appropriateness and transparency of holding votes with no notice at 1:00 AM defended the move and called the action a “learning experience” for those standing in the way of the majority. If you want to learn more Laura Leslie has a write up on the nights events here: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/10563086/ 

Regards, pat

Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 05:09:30 -0800
From: christinebbd at yahoo.com
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: NC lawmakers override another Perdue veto

(I forgot to edit before sending... sorry!)

Hi Reyn,  I agree with you.  It was a political move, and the site I gave is agenda driven.  I don't think it was 'thinly veiled' at all, it's  obvious.  Obvious to me anyway.  But I'm aware of the other side of the story.  The same can be said about the reasons why the unions forced their teachers to pay into their system but gave them no voice as to how the money was spent.  It was done this way to obtain  power and control.  They orchestrated a political move that was agenda driven.  Isn't that what politics is all about?  The majority decides who get's their own way.

Christine Chamberlain

From: Reyn Bowman <reynbowman at gmail.com>
To: Christine Chamberlain <christinebbd at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>; inc listserv <incff> 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: NC lawmakers override another Perdue veto

That site is obviously agenda driven. What the legislature did is a very obvious political move. Teachers have the option to opt out.There are ways within the union structure to deal with retribution and if politicians believe it needed to be stronger than they should have dealt with that issue rather than a thinly veiled maneuver to eliminate ideological opposition that sets all horrible precedent.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Christine Chamberlain <christinebbd at yahoo.com> wrote:

Some of the reasoning behind the legislature's move is explained on this website (and many others as well).  
http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm

I've spoken with many, many teachers over the years.  The majority of those I've spoken to do not support the political decisions of their union officials. If a teacher voiced an opinion differing from those of the union officials, severe retribution would occur.  

A former award-winning principle from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, who now lives in Grove Park, is one of those who received retribution for pointing out corruption involving officials in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system.  This principle received national attention and an award for turning around his highschool.  Shortly after winning the award, he discovered corruption, brought it to the attention of officials... and was fired.

I fully support the legislature's move, and I hope the website I've given will shed some light on this discussion.

Christine Chamberlain

From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To: INC <inc-list at rtpnet.org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 12:41 PM
Subject: [Durham INC] Fw: NC lawmakers override another Perdue veto

The NC Gen Assembly passed legislation that prohibits union (NCAE) dues from being deducted from teachers' paychecks, thereby making it impractical to collect dues at all (they'd have to do it via paper checks submitted monthly -- an accounting nightmare). It appears there is no reason for this legislation except to undermine teachers' rights to group and lobby for their interests.

See below regarding the NCAE response (and below that is a news article summarizing the situation). If you can be in Raleigh at 3 PM today, that'd be great. 

Any chance of the INC passing a resolution that opposes this legislation? How can it be constitutional to dictate the means by which a citizen organization collects its dues? (Meanwhile, corporations' exhorbitant monetary political contributions are considered 'freedom of speech'.)

Melissa (Rooney)

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-- 
Reyn Bowman
2203 Shoreham St
Durham, NC 27707
919-381-1497
www.bullcitymutterings.com

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

_______________________________________________ Durham INC Mailing List list at durham-inc.org http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20120106/733bc6e1/attachment.html>