|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Ohio Conservative Review
Common Core
Repeal Bill ‘Sub HB 597’ a Campaign Tool, Unlike Legitimate HB 237
By Diana Fessler
In August of 2013, Rep. Thompson (R-Marietta) introduced House Bill 237
to repeal Common Core (CC) in Ohio. The bill never budged. In an
attempt to give the bill some traction, Rep. John Adams (R-Sidney)
introduced a discharge petition. The bill still didn’t budge.
Anytime during the past year, Rep. Huffman, Speaker Pro Tempore of the
House (the second highest position in the House) could have used his
high rank to advocate for a good bill, HB 237. Instead, Rep. Huffman
co-sponsored a new bill, HB 597. The new bill functionally rendered
both HB 237 and the discharge petition moot.
The new bill, HB 597, an education bill, was not assigned to the House
Education Committee. Instead, in a bizarre move, it was assigned to the
House Rules and Reference Committee — a committee chaired by none other
than Rep. Huffman [1].HB 597 sets Rep. Huffman up to tout advocacy for
anti-CC legislation when he runs for Senator Faber’s open Senate seat
in 2016.
HB 597 was a placeholder bill. By design, a placeholder bill is
deliberately void of details. HB 597 did not specify any specific
changes. A credible bill always includes the applicable sections of the
Ohio Revised Code and it shows all instances where text is being added,
repealed or otherwise altered. (Unequivocally, the placeholder tactic
should not be attributed to Rep. Thompson. It is certainly possible
that he has not seen the placeholder maneuver in action before.)
The pig-in-a-poke placeholder maneuver left theoretical supporters of
HB 597 in the peculiar situation of speaking in favor of a bill that
was void of the details necessary for informed decision-making. HB 597
is now dead. A new version of it was introduced on August 18, and its
formal name is Substitute HB 597. Unfortunately, any proponent
testimony on the original vague bill will become evidence of support
for the substitute bill, a bill that, in the end, may not be worthy of
the support of those truly opposed to CC. Accordingly, to keep
one’s name from being citied as being in support of the final bill, an
individual testifying on any version of the bill may want to testify as
an “Interested Party” rather than as a “Proponent.” [2]
The new bill (a tool for political gain) will be voted out of the House
Rules and Reference Committee because bills introduced by high-ranking
members of the House don’t die on the vine. According to Chairman
Huffman, the Full House will vote on the bill after the November
election. The timing is a strategic maneuver to delay the bill from
moving forward through the remainder of the legislative process in an
expeditious manner.
Based on the House calendar, it is likely that the vote by all 99
members of the House may take place on or about, November 19 (or even
later). Note the limited number of days (approximately 11) remaining on
the legislative calendar [3].
Next, the bill will be forwarded to the Senate. Currently, the key
players in the Senate relative to CC are President of the Senate Keith
Faber (R-Celina), and Chairman of the Education Committee Senator Peggy
Lehner (R-Montgomery County) [4]. (Neither is up for re-election this
year, and neither has shown any serious interest in repealing CC.)
Normally, once in the Senate, a bill such as Substitute HB 597 would be
assigned to the Education Committee, currently chaired by Senator Peggy
Lehner, for public hearings (one obligatory hearing for sponsor
testimony, and optional hearings for proponent and opponent testimony).
Ideally, the bill would be promptly voted out of committee and
scheduled for a full vote by the 33-member Senate. However, it is
doubtful that any bill, let alone a bill dealing with Common Core,
could make it through the Senate process in 11 days.
The only way even to begin to overcome the narrow 11-day window is for
a member of the Senate to introduce a bill to repeal Common Core, now,
so that hearings can begin, now. For the sake of discussion, let’s
presume that an anti-CC bill does pass in the Senate (as implausible as
that would be).
The probability that the House and Senate bills would match,
word-for-word is extremely low. Consequently, still within the 11-day
window, the two bills would then be sent to a Committee of Conference
for reconciliation. The six members of the committee would most likely
be the President of the Senate (Faber), the Speaker of the House
(Batchelder), the chairs of the relevant committees (Huffman and
Lehner), and two other members.
In theory, members of the Committee of Conference attempt to mesh the
two bills into one, but the result can be something quite unexpected.
Whatever changes the six members agree upon are turned into a
Conference Report and then sent back to each chamber for ratification —
potentially, in this case, with a retained poison pill, or a new one.
The ratification vote, in each Chamber, is straight up or down, no
amendments allowed.
If either chamber rejects the Committee’s new version of the bill, the
bill dies (but the record of how members voted will stand and those
votes will be touted during the 2016 elections). Accordingly, the
greatest political advantage would come from both Chambers passing an
anti-CC bill that later gets “hung up” in the Conference Committee or
fails to gain ratification in both chambers.
The second greatest political advantage, and the one most likely in
play, would come from just the House passing the bill and then letting
the clock run out.
Passage of Substitute HB 597 by the House meets an important political
objective: it ensures that specific Republicans in contested 2016
primaries will be able to portray themselves as being against Common
Core. Ultimately, some candidates, including a certain chairman, will
proclaim that they fought to repeal CC but, sadly, forces beyond their
control prevailed. Some voters will believe such claims, while others
will recognize (and remember) the manipulation and vote accordingly.
I’ll remember. Will you?
Diana Fessler is a public policy analyst. She served four terms as an
elected member of the Ohio House of Representatives and was twice
elected to serve as a member of Ohio’s State Board of Education. She is
also the author of A Report on the Work Toward National Standards,
Assessments and Certificates (precursor of Common Core) and Sex
Instruction in the Classroom.
Read this and other articles at the Ohio Conservative Review
|
|
|
|
