Submitted by Betsy Muse on Sun, 09/07/2008 - 10:44pm.
We've had a couple of SNAFUs with the upgrade. That's to be expected. Thank you for hanging in there with us.
Update on fracas over LGBT protections for state workers
Submitted by Pam Spaulding on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 10:49am.
On Tuesday I discussed Equality NC's announcement that the State Personnel Commission had added protections for workers based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the 2008 State Personnel Manual.
Not long after that change went up on the state web site, the local anti-gay machinery went into high gear. Homo-obsessed House Minority Leader Rep. Paul Stam (pauls@ncleg.net) and the anti-gay bible beaters at the NC Family Policy Council publicly called for the removal of the fairness language. Because of a matter of the difference between "rules" and "policies" in the state, there's now a tussle over what this change means, as the non-discrimination policy has been adopted by the State Personnel Commission and it has not rescinded it.
In the end, the language adding the protections has been stripped from the web site over the fracas.
ENC Executive Director Ian Palmquist in an email news alert:
The process on this policy, and a related rule, has been long and involved. It's a bit complicated to explain, but North Carolina State government has both "rules" and "policies." Rules carry more weight and have more legal authority than policies, though policies are also consequential.Last summer the State Personnel Commission voted to approve the policy and also began the rule-making process for a rule on this matter. That rule was unanimously approved by the State Personnel Commission at their December meeting. In February the 10-member Rules Review Commission voted 4-2 that the State Personnel Commission did not have the statutory authority to expand the rule in this way.
Although the proposed rule could not take effect, the policy was duly adopted by the State Personnel Commission and they have not rescinded it. Therefore, the policy protecting LGBT state-workers from discrimination remains in force.
Contrary to Rep. Stam's assertions, the State Personnel Commission's actions on this policy are firmly within its statutory mandate to "establish policies and rules governing ... programs of equal opportunity," and "provide for a fair and modern system of personnel administration."
Matt Hill Comer at InterstateQ has more on Stam's garbage. We'll keep you posted on developments.
***
It's tiring to see Stam continue bleating his bigotry here in the Tar Heel State. That's why I'm pleased to let folks know that we can eject his sorry posterior out of office in exchange for an ally of LGBTs -- Ed Ridpath, who is challenging Stam for the NC House District 37. Ed's district is one of the fastest growth areas (Apex, Cary, Fuquay Varina, Holly Springs, New Hill, Willow Spring); he was one of many state candidates and elected officials who attended the 2007 Equality NC Conference. Read Ed's worldview on diversity:
From comfortably rich to desperately poor; from black, white, and every shade of brown in between; from well-educated to totally illiterate; from robustly healthy to terminally ill; from young with innocence to old with wisdom; from devoutly religious across a vast sea of faiths to completely non-religious; remotely rural to crowded urban; male and female, straight and gay in a range of gender identity and sexual orientation; political activists on the right or left to the politically apathetic and disaffected.Regardless of where a person is on any of these spectrums, they deserve respect, opportunity, and equal treatment under our laws. Additionally, it is important to expose ourselves to people who are not like us. When we do, we often find there is much we have in common with our fellow human beings.
Contrast that with Stam's outlook (he co-sponsored the state marriage amendment bill that keeps dying in committee):
The 2007 General Assembly failed to address the State Marriage Amendment - signed by a majority of House members. In 2008 we must decide whether North Carolina will allow polygamy and same-sex marriage? The issue will inevitably arise as people move here from Massachusetts.
and this:
Courts and legislators, applying common sense, have known for thousands of years that the basic building block for any society is the family. This is, by far, the best setting in which to raise children. While I know that single parents also have to raise children and I applaud those who have to do that, public policy should never intend that result as a preferred alternative. Without a marriage amendment the drumbeat for adoption by same sex couples is inevitable.
and this outrage, on his opposition to a school anti-bullying bill that included sexual orientation and gender identity:
“Under this bill, if a seven-year-old comes in dressed the wrong gender, that means they are protected,” Stam said during debate. “Then you have sexual orientation. What does that mean? Behavior, how you look at someone? They never will answer that question. Then the next line says ‘is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics.’ The effect of this bill is to create a nightmare.”
Contribute here so that Ed can unseat bigot Paul "Skip" Stam.
- Pam Spaulding's blog
- Login or register to post comments
thanks for this post
- - - - -
Ed Ridpath is awesome!
Here's the beauty of this. We aren't just getting rid of Stam. We have an amazing candidate to replace him with. We know Ed. He's one of us. We know he will represent the people of his district with integrity and with a clear understanding of what needs to be done to move this state forward.
Pam, thank you for this post.
Thanks for the cross-post from the Blend!
As I commented at Pam's House, another problem with all this far-right sound and fury against protecting NC State Employees from discrimination, is that the power of the office could be used for the folks in the district and in our state - you know, roads, schools, public health and safety, etc. Or even making State Employees lives better. This is real government waste to spend cycles where it is not needed and take it away from where it is.
And yes, I do have a BIG reporting deadline Saturday - I will need more help to unseat the Republican Minority Leader.
---
Ed Ridpath
www.EdRidpath.com
Old picture
And by the way, I have lost at least 2 pounds since that picture was taken (gained it back, too - thanks to BBQ!)
---
Ed Ridpath
www.EdRidpath.com
hey,
at least you'll always look a hell of a lot better than Skip Stam :)
"Bullying," Laws, Rules and Policies
I think I already alluded to the conversation about the bullying law on the house floor (bust me, Frank!), but it sure did stick with me to hear these guys stand up, take their microphones and make these absolutely ridiculous statements to denounce the idea that bullying a kid for his perceived sexual orientation was a problem that needed to be addressed. It was one of those dicussions that caused me to feel angry NOT just at the fact that a position opposing this provision was being stated, but that these men, many of whom HAD to know better, were so smug -- even joking -- about the matter.
But to go back a bit to the relationship between law and rule or rule and policy. There's a thin, wobbly, sometimes indiscernible line between what is enforceable in policy v. rule or law. In all my years of trying to understand the relationship among these critters, the best I've been able to manage is that for any rule, a person has to have specific statutory authority. This is in part because the Rules Review Commission is inclined to be extremely conservative in its interpretaion of any regulation. The whole purpose of the RRC was originally, and to a great extent remains, to discourage environmental rules that were deemed inconvenient to big business (i.e. ,the "HomeBuiders Association," one of the most powerful lobbies in NC).
Over time, I haven't noticed the composition of the RRC becoming more "progressively" inclined, even as the difficulties for any regulatory agency to establish *any* regulations have increased.
Given this long-entrenched characteristic of the RRC, it is not surprising that a rule that derived from policy and that does not have specific statutory authority for the principle that the rule would enforce would be DOA.
The staff of RRC, who are two attorneys, both of whom are quite conservative idealogically, would put the kabosh on this effort to make a rule from a policy even before it reached the table of the Commission itself.
The Independent covered the RRC in a very, very insightful piece published about two years ago. But I don't think anyone paid much attention. RRC is a part of state bureaucracy, and people think "bureacracy," shrug their shoulders and turn away.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Paging Robin Anderson - leadership please!
As Chair of the State Personnel Commission, candidate Robin Anderson is in a position to help in this matter.
If she does not push her body to continue protecting LGBT workers, perhaps voters should throw their support to Mary Fant Donnan in the Labor Commissioner primary.
But the RRC . . .
isn't going to let those rules go through no matter who is sitting at the head of the table at the State Personnel Commission. The lawyer working with the State Personnel Commission on this issue is one of the best they've got -- SHARP as hell -- but the way the RRC looks at this matter pretty much ties the Chair's hands. And of course, even if RRC had let those rules go through, they would be sent to the General Assembly, where Stam can't wait to get his hands on them.
I assume he's already got some legislation drafted to clarify that this policy decision is beyond the scope of authority granted to the State Personnel Commission. The battle is going to have to be fought there at the General Assembly.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Then we'll just have to fight it at the GA.
And get Ed Ridpath elected.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
There ya go ~
I think Ed's time to serve has definitely arrived.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I agree!
Now to persuade 50% + 1 of my neighbors, one door at a time.
---
Ed Ridpath
www.EdRidpath.com
You certainly have my support
and you'll have my money once the primaries are over. A bit tapped out at the moment.
"Hampton Dellinger would make a great Lieutenant Governor." - Al Gore.
If Robin Anderson won't stand up to Rep. Stam now...
...what will she do as Commissioner of Labor?
After the 10-member Rules Review Commission voted 4-2 to reject the rule in January, the rule has remained on the RRC agenda every month as a follow-up matter because the State Personnel Commission has not responded (!)
So, for four months Chairwoman Anderson has had her tail between her legs. The policy has even been removed from the agenda of the State Personnel Commission after being listed on their public agenda.
I don't blame Anderson for the RRC's actions, but she is certainly responsible for the SPC's actions.
The RRC will do whatever Senator Rand and Speaker Hackney tell them to do. Basnight and Rand appointed Anderson to the State Personnel Commission. She knows where to go for help. She's not doing it.
Not buying it
Why would she not support a rule she voted for? Robin has proven herself to be a fighter. I don't think it's fair to lay this at her feet.
I don't know anything about what influence Rand & Hackney would have with the RRC, but if they wanted to push this issue, they would just go through the legislative process.
This looks like a swipe by someone with an agenda.
Since January, Anderson hasn't fought for this policy.
There absolutely is an agenda - for the State Personnel Commission to stand by its worker protection policy and not be shouted down by the likes of Skip Stam.
The RRC is appointed by the leadership of each chamber, so Hackney and Basnight/Rand have considerable influence.
I am eager to see a fight from Anderson and her colleagues on this matter. As is stands now, they have sent an agency spokesperson out to apologize for a "mistake on the web site."
Spokespersons don't make policy. The Commission does. It is at their (and her) feet. They can own the policy or backtrack on it.
It doesn't work that way
You think you know how it works -- but you're wrong.
Basnight does know how to pull strings, but he's pretty damned selective about doing it. And if you think Joe Hackney is going to call and put pressure on any of his appointees to change their perspective, you really don't know Hackney. It's shrewder, in any case, for both of them to work within their direct spheres of influence, the General Assembly. That's where the fight is going to be.
To try to suggest that any of this can be laid at Anderson's feet shows a misconception of how the rulemaking process works.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
No misconception, just inaction by Anderson and the SPC
You were wrong about the origin of the Rules Review Commission, and you're wrong about this.
The RRC was created in the mid-80s by the Democratic legislative leadership to check the power of Republican Gov. Jim Martin. At the time, creation of the RRC had little to do environmental issues.
What's shrewder is for Anderson to get behind the policy publicly, so all can rally to her side for the May 6 primary. Why is she waiting? Anderson won't pay a price for it in November. Cherie Berry is no favorite of the conservative Republicans.
The fight on this is now at the policy/rule (commission) level - not at the statutory (legislative) level. The SPC can resubmit the policy to RRC for them to approve. Any attempt by Rep. Stam or others to disapprove the rule would be DOA at the legislature.
My apologies to everyone else for these hyper-bureaucratic posts, but this is where the rubber meets the road. Here is where these little known candidates learn to lead or learn to take passes on making good policy.
Brunette and I are probably on the same page on the larger issue, just perhaps not the incremental methods to get there. So thanks for your support too, Brunette.
To recap
She
Voted
For
The
Rule
On BlueNC, that may be a no-brainer. In the RestOfNC, that's a gutsy move. It sounds like you're frustrated at the status of things, but I think we need to stop beating up on our allies, and find a way to push for some political will at the legislature.
Got distracted
I meant to reply much earlier but got WAY distracted. I guess that's a good day~
You're right, the original incarnation of the RRC was in the 80's under Martin, but IT HAD NO TEETH. NONE. NADA. Very little changed.
In the 90's, however, the APA was amended; in fact it was practically rewritten by the Homebuilder's Association for the VERY reasons I stated earlier, and has pretty much served that purpose ever since. The RRC prior to the drastic changes in the law in the 90's and since (it has only gotten worse), is what gives most state agencies that are trying to protect the environment or public health the biggest headaches.
Again, blaming Robin Anderson for the 'tude of the RRC -- over which she has NO control whatsoever, is absurd. I stand by my original remarks -- with the point taken about how the RRC was originally developed.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke