The showdown in the Tennessee House of Representatives yesterday over House Bill 130/Senate Bill 113 actually began before that bill came up on the agenda. Most observers would likely agree that the debate actually began when Glen Casada's House Bill 1733 came to the floor. Casada's legislation is designed to end the monopoly of the Tennessee Education Association as the only "professional association" who would have the authority to speak for teachers' interests before local school boards and other members of an education authority. In plain language, the Casada (R-Franklin) proposal is designed to insure that representation of teachers before local education authorities is no longer confined to the liberal Tennessee Education Association and its subsidiaries, but that teachers may choose the association they wish for themselves. A spirited colloquy between Casada and liberal Rep. Sherry Jones (D-Nashville) ensued in which Jones accused Casada of attempting to end "majority rule." Casada replied repeatedly that his bill was simply designed to end the monopoly of the TEA as the only organization which may represent the interests of local teachers in Tennessee.

 

Calendar and Rules Committee Chairman Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) pointed out that in the lead up to the debate on Senate Bill 113, he had received a number of supposed e-mails from teachers. "All of these e-mails had one of those confidentiality statements in the bottom of the e-mail, stating that the e-mail could be public and so forth," said Dunn "and the majority of these came during school hours. While I understand that teachers get breaks, there are so many of these e-mails during school hours that you have to wonder where they are getting the time to send them." Dunn recounted the story of a teacher in his district who posted an article from another teacher orgainization on a teacher's bulletin board. That teacher was told, Dunn recounted, "that only one organization can use that board." Dunn explained that situations like that are why Casada's bill is necessary. 

 

By the time Rep. Debra Maggart (R-Hendersonville) made it to the floor to move passage of the collective bargaining bill, members on both sides of the aisle were already in "fighting mood" as a result of the warmup on 1733. Maggart was repeatedly asked why she thought the bill was necessary, and she said that Tennessee test scores and basic education system hadn't improved in nearly three-and-a-half decades, so something had to change. What Maggart did not say, but many supporters of the legislation knew, was that the only way to give parents a greater say in their children's education was to end the power of the union, which this bill does.

 

Much of the debate was drawn out because of a series of amendments-which Maggart repeatedly had to move to the table. One amendment, which was offered by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner (D-Nashville) basically undid the entire bill. Several other amendments exempted Tennessee's major metropolitan counties, including Shelby and Davidson, which also would have made the bill worthless, since those poor-performing and heavily-unionized districts-Memphis and Nashville-are a big reason why the State's education system is seen to be in such a rut. 

 

It was pleasing to see that there was actually a debate in the House Chamber, as opposed to the mere rediculous question-and-answer format that has prevailed by default for years that often makes debate in the General Assembly look like a television quiz show as opposed to a substantive parliamentary body. Yesterday's proceedings produced real debate with passionate pleas from both sides, something Tennesseans should see more of. The debate dragged on for so long, however, that it was limited first to five minutes per speaker, then to two minutes each. House Democratic Leader Craig Fitzhugh (D-Ripley) bemoaned that debate was being limited at all. Someone should have responded to Fitzhugh with the truth, which was that no one wanted to be at the Capitol until 3:00AM, and that carrying on debate past a certain point would simply act as a cheap Democratic attempt to filibuster the bill when they didn't have the votes to carry out the real thing. 

 

When the debate finally ended and the roll call was taken over six hours after one of the most memorable days in the recent history of the Tennessee House, the vote went much as observers had expected. The saga of Senate Bill 113 is not over, however. Now it must go to conference committee, and that means that there is likely to be another debate and vote before the first session of the 107th General Assembly adjourns.

 

 

SB0113 by Johnson - FLOOR VOTE: AS AMENDED PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 5/19/2011

Passed

          Ayes...............................................59

          Noes...............................................39



          Representatives voting aye were: Alexander, Brooks H, Brooks K, Butt, Carr, Casada, Cobb, Coley, Dean, Dennis, Dunn, Elam, Eldridge, Evans, Faison, Floyd, Forgety, Gotto, Halford, Hall, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Holt, Hurley, Johnson C, Johnson P, Keisling, Lollar, Lundberg, Maggart, Marsh, Matheny, Matlock, McCormick, McDaniel, McManus, Miller D, Montgomery, Niceley, Pody, Powers, Ragan, Rich, Sanderson, Sargent, Sexton, Shipley, Sparks, Swann, Todd, Watson, Weaver, White, Williams R, Wirgau, Womick, Madam Speaker Harwell -- 59.

          Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Bass, Brown, Campbell, Camper, Cooper, Curtiss, DeBerry J, DeBerry L, Favors, Fitzhugh, Ford, Gilmore, Hardaway, Harmon, Harrison, Jones, Kernell, McDonald, Miller L, Moore, Naifeh, Odom, Parkinson, Pitts, Pruitt, Ramsey, Richardson, Roach, Shaw, Shepard, Sontany, Stewart, Tidwell, Towns, Turner J, Turner M, Williams K, Windle -- 39.