|
Tel.: (860)
354-3590 |
|
|
Cell: (203)
206-4282 |
Email: info@nheld.com |
|
Fax: (860) 354-9360 |
Web: www.nheld.com |
Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson, Executive Director
SB 162 Update 03/06/08
Here is what we know so far:
Many legislators, both Democrat and Republican, have expressed their support for Proposed Substitute Bill #162, containing the language as originally proposed by Rep. O’Neill. Among those sponsoring and supporting it are:
Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist., Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, 86th Dist., Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, 69th Dist., Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, 55th Dist., Rep. Richard F. Ferrari, 62nd Dist., Rep. Ruth C. Fahrbach, 61st Dist., Rep. Al Adinolfi, 103rd Dist., Sen. Robert J. Kane, 32nd Dist., Rep. Patricia M. Widlitz, 98th Dist., Sen. Dan Debicella, 21st Dist., Rep. Anne L. Ruwet, 65th Dist., Rep. Richard Roy, 119th Dist., Rep. Lawrence G. Miller, 122nd Dist., Rep. Elizabeth B. Ritter, 38th Dist., Rep. Shawn T. Johnston, 51st Dist., Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich, 101st Dist., Rep. Anthony J. D'Amelio, 71st Dist., Rep. Jason W. Bartlett, 2nd Dist.
The bill was unanimously given a joint favorable vote in the Select Committee on Children and was referred to the Education Committee.
In the Children's Committee, here were the legislators that supported and approved this bill in the original language proposed by Rep. Arthur O’Neill: Sen. Meyer, Rep. McMahon, Sen. Harp, Rep. Mioli, Sen. Freedman, Rep. Ruwet, Rep. Giuliano, Rep. Mushinsky, Rep. Thompson, J. (Rep Truglia was absent).
The Education Committee’s deadline for voting on it, if it is raised by the Chairmen for a vote in March 19, 2008. If the Chairmen do not raise it, the bill “dies’ in Committee.
Senator Thomas Gaffey and Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, co-chairmen of the Education Committee, while promising they would meet with Rep. O’Neill to discuss whether they will raise the bill, so far, have delayed having that meeting.
At this time there are no scheduled Education committee meetings to vote on or to raise bills. Their last meeting was February 22nd.
Constituents of Gaffey and Fleischmann have written and called asking them to support the bill. Fleischmann sent out the same noncommittal standard form letter to all those who inquired merely thanking them for contacting him and saying nothing else. Gaffey did respond to one constituent’s inquiry; Liz DePalma’s. He contacted her by telephone seemingly expressing his support for the bill by indicating he didn’t think there would be “any problem” with it in the Education Committee. When Liz wrote him back asking him to clarify whether that meant he would raise the bill in the Education Committee and urge its adoption, however, Gaffey, so far, has refused to respond at all. (See email correspondence at the end of this document.)
Meanwhile, the State Education Commissioner, Mark McQuillan, has provided Rep. O’Neill with a copy of a proposed bill that would substantially change Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-184. It is attached to this document in its entirety. Essentially, the bill as proposed by Commissioner McQuillan does not include the language as proposed by Rep. O’Neill. Instead, it includes the mysteriously changed language that we saw prior to the public hearing on SB 162! In addition, the McQuillan bill would substantially alter Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-184 in other substantive ways, including in ways relating to the provision of “equivalent instruction”. It interjects the phrase, “equivalent instruction” in places in the statute where the phrase currently does not exist. Please read the proposed McQuillan bill in its entirety (posted on the NHELD website). NHELD offers the following comments regarding the Commissioner McQuillan’s proposed bill:
1. The issue is not how parents “withdraw” their children. The issue is whether school districts MUST ACCEPT the withdrawal when it is given. That is why a change in the law concerning the “Duties of Local Boards of Education” (CGS Sec. 10-220) must be made instead of a change in the law concerning the “Duties of Parents” (CGS Sec. 10-184). Parents have been following the law. School districts have not.
2. The Department of Education had an opportunity to attend the public hearing before the Select Committee on Children and object to the change to CGS Sec. 10-220. They did not do so. The Department of Education had an opportunity to attend the public hearing and urge the amendment of Senate Bill #162 as proposed by Rep. O’Neill. They did not do so.
3. A reasonable inference can be made from the bill now being proposed by Commissioner McQuillan, since parts of it are identical to the mysteriously changed language of Senate Bill #162 that we saw just prior to the public hearing: (1) that Commissioner McQuillan already had the language written that he wanted to propose prior to the Select Committee on Children’s public hearing; (2) that it was given in some fashion to the Legislative Commissioner’s office, and, (3) the Legislative Commissioner’s office mistakenly, (or not), drafted it into Senate Bill #162, before the Department of Education was ready to release it. A reasonable inference also could be made that the language in Commissioner McQuillan’s bill, as released by the Legislative Commissioner’s office, was released prior to the public hearing as some sort of “trial balloon”.
4. It is clear that, until this time, in accordance with the appropriate manner as set forth in the rules of the legislature, Commissioner McQuillan did not want to publicly state the Department of Education’s opposition to Senate Bill #162, but, yet again, McQuillan and the Department chose to act in a more devious manner behind the scenes to effect changes in the language of this bill. Their actions speak volumes.
5. Legislators should take note that the behavior of the Department of Education regarding this issue is indicative of the manner in which the Department has conducted itself throughout the past in attempting to act behind the scenes to coerce people into complying with its wishes. The Department of Education has acted behind the scenes to encourage school districts to compel parents into complying with demands with which they are not required by law to comply. The Department, now, is acting behind the scenes seemingly to object to Senate Bill #162 (even though the Department, to date, has not publicly objected to it), and to encourage legislators to adopt it. Their actions only serve to confirm the testimony of parents at the public hearing. Why else did they not publicly object to the bill at the public hearing and propose its amendment at that time?
6. After the language in Senate Bill #162 was mysteriously changed, many legislators, from both sides of the aisle, voiced their dissatisfaction with the change when they testified at the public hearing and urged the Committee to support the language in Senate Bill #162 as it originally was proposed by Rep. O’Neill. All of the members of the public who testified at the hearing also denounced the mysteriously changed language and urged the Committee to support the language as it originally was proposed by Rep. O’Neill. The Committee then voted to reject the mysteriously changed language and to adopt the language as it originally was proposed by Rep. O’Neill. The language should remain as it originally was proposed.
7. Not one person testified against the bill, as it originally was proposed, at the public hearing. Not one legislator, not one member of the public.
8. The Department of Education has a vested interest in changing the language so that it can continue to interpret it in any way that suits its purposes and so that it can continue to encourage local school districts to threaten, coerce, or otherwise manipulate parents into doing what the Department and the school district wants.
9. The Commissioner McQuillan’s proposed bill will do nothing to end the current controversy. Indeed, it will fuel still more controversy and waste of taxpayer dollars.
10. A clear message should be sent from the legislature to Commissioner McQuillan and the Department of Education to end their wasteful and unethical practices, to end any abuse of authority, and to end the nightmare of improperly reporting parents to DCF.
11. A clear message will be sent to Commissioner McQuillan and the Department of Education, as well as to the school districts, if the very simple language of Senate Bill 162, as it originally was proposed by Rep. O’Neill, is adopted: i.e., when parents send a letter of withdrawal to the school district, the school district must accept it and consider the child withdrawn.
12. A clear message will be sent to Commissioner McQuillan, the Department of Education, as well as to school districts, if the language as proposed by Commissioner McQuillan is adopted: i.e., continue to interpret the law any way you choose, continue to make subjective demands on parents, and when parents object, continue to report them to DCF.
13. We want to end the dispute; the Department of Education apparently does not.
14. There can be no agreement to change the language in Senate Bill #162, and there can be no agreement to change the language in CGS Sec. 10-184.
As of this time, we do not know if, or when, Commissioner McQuillan’s bill will be proposed. The Commissioner could ask the Education Committee, through the Chairmen, Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann, to raise this bill. We don’t know if he will, and we don’t know whether Senator Gaffey and Rep. Fleischmann will agree to raise it if he does make the request. The possibility does exist, however.
It is extremely important for all parents to make their views on this known to Senator Gaffey, Rep. Fleischmann, the members of the Education Committee, and to their own Senators and Representatives. Now is the time to act. We need to let them know that we do not want this bill altered in any way and that the original language proposed by Rep. O’Neill must remain as is. The Education Committee’s deadline for raising and giving a joint favorable recommendation for bills is March 19, 2008. If you do contact your legislators, please let us know how they respond. We will keep you informed as to any further activity on this legislation.
See below for Liz DePalma’s correspondence with Senator Gaffey.
From: Liz DePalma <liz.depalma@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed,
05 Mar 2008 18:32:13 -0500
To:
<suecox98@yahoo.com>, <pamelapuch@yahoo.com>
Conversation:
Important homeschool rights issue...please take the time to act on this and
pass it along thanks!!!
Subject:
Important homeschool rights issue...please take the time to act on this and
pass it along thanks!!!
Hi Sue and
Pamela,
Feel free
to share this with people that you know in these towns : the 13th
district:
Below is my
correspondence with Senator Gaffey Co-Chair of the Education Committee. This is the next committee that the proposed
homeschool bill will go to.
Gaffey is
in no hurry to answer me as he told me he only received one other call besides
mine. He will take notice if enough
people contact him.
Points Deb
from NHELD suggested:
Please urge
people in his area to flood him with emails and calls asking him to please
support the passage of proposed bill #162 LCO#2246
Specifically
asking what course of action that he will take regarding proposed bill #162
LCO#2246.
Also
requesting from him the date that this proposed bill will be acted upon within
the Education Committee.
I called
him in
have to
give his position and will hopefully support our homeschool freedom.
I also sent
him an attachment of the map showing areas of abuse from DCF and school systems
and the proposed bill's language.
Anyone
wishing to contact me feel free to pass along my email. He works for us as you said Sue, and we
should contact him when we his constituents have issues or concerns.
Here is his
contact information and the area he serves the 13th district:
At the
State Capitol:
In
Senator
Thomas P. Gaffey
13th District
Room 3100, Legislative Office Bldg.
64C
Tel:
(203) 634-3068
email: gaffey@senatedems.state.ct.us
(the
correct email is gaffey@senatedems.ct.gov )
email: tom@tomgaffey.com
Take care
ladies!
Liz
Dear Senator Gaffey,
>
>
> There are a number of homeschooling families
in your > district that are awaiting to hear your official position
regarding the concerns that we
>
discussed on the telephone on Feb 25. I emailed you on Feb. 28, some questions
that needed clarification after our phone conversation. I have also
> left
messages at your
>
> What course of action will you take regarding
proposed bill #162 LCO#2246?
> What
date will this proposed bill be acted upon within the Education Committee?
>
> I hope that we as parents, who are committed
to home educate our children,
> can
count on you to support our freedom to do so.
>
> Thank you for a reply.
>
> Sincerely,
> Liz DePalma
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Liz DePalma
<liz.depalma@sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:51:07 -0500
> To: <gaffey@senatedems.ct.gov>
> Conversation: Reply requested
> Subject: Reply requested
>
> Dear Senator Gaffey,
>
> I have appreciated your support back in March
of 2002 in regards to the homeschooling freedom petition that you since signed
at my request.
>
> Thank you for phoning me on Tuesday evening
to discuss my concerns about school officials and DCF harassing parents who
merely wish to withdraw their
> child from public school to home educate
them. I was glad to hear that you viewed the hearing with the Children's
Committee which I attended on February
>
19,2008. I agree with you that the testimony by Isabelle from Windsor Locks
> was
particularly upsetting as were each story after story that I listened to.
>
> It was a pleasure to see my local
Representative, Al Adinolfi there to testify to the dedication and success of
home schoolers and his support of
> the
Proposed Bill #162 LCO#2246, as did many other representatives and senators
throughout the state and across party lines.
>
> Tom, thank you for your willingness to hear
about the Proposed Bill #162 LCO#2246.
To clarify, when you mentioned that you do not have a
>
problem with it, am I correct to assume that when it arrives in the Education
Committee you will publicly support it, educate and encourage your fellow
>
colleagues about the importance of this bill, thus garnishing their support and
it's ultimate approval?
>
> I met Rep. Fleischmann and personally handed
him the information on this important bill on February 19. I left copies for you with your aide, Robin.
> I trust that you have a good working
relationship with Representative Fleischmann and that you will share the
concerns of homeschoolers with him
> and the importance of his support. I left him a map indicating the areas in
> our state that harassment has taken
place. I have attached one for your
reference as well as the proposed bill's language.
>
> As you mentioned in our conversation, it is
reasonable. Am I correct to
> assume
that it should not be a problem with it passing through the education
>
committee? As we discussed, parent's
sending a certified letter withdrawing
> their
child from public school in order to home educate them, should suffice.
>
> You are in a very important position as the Co-chair
of the Education Committee, having the ability to assist many families
throughout the state
> that are not asking for anything, no
government money, just to be left alone
> to educate their children, in peace. Thank you for you efforts on the behalf of
all of these families.
>
> In closing, I am in contact with many
constituents from your district and they are pleased to hear that we are in
touch with one another regarding this.
> I do
not wish to misquote you, so I thank you for clarifying the course of action
that you will take regarding proposed bill #162 LCO#2246. I am
also requesting from you the date that this
proposed bill will be acted upon within
> the
Education Committee.
>
> Thank you for a reply to my questions and for
all of the beneficial work that you will do and have done in the past for the
children of our state.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Liz DePalma
>
>