A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 17, 2014 | Committee Room | Appropriations Education

Full MP3 Audio File

While everyone's getting to their seat, I'd like to recognize the sergeant at arms ?? Reggie Seals, Marvin Lee, John Brandon, Mike Clampett and Martha Gadson. And our pages today are Olivia Sanchez from Mecklenberg, Shaffer's her sponsor, Daniel Sanchez from Mecklenberg, Shaffer's the sponsor, Ryan Donald from Gifford, Pricey Harrison, Aggie Beets from Burke, Hugh Blackwell and Kelsey Whitehead from Wake, Michaux. We appreciate the sergeant at arms and the pages, what they do for us. One bill that was on the calendar was pulled, and the one bill that we've got left is Senate Bill 719. Anybody that has a real big sigh of relief, that's OK. Senate Bill 719 and Senator Soucek. Welcome Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We got that. Good. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well, this is a bill that is quite simply designed to present student groups, student organizations, religious and political, to be able to come up with a set of goals, of beliefs and to be able to adhere to that and choose leadership based on that. Simple example is a strong republican should not be president of the Young Democrats at a university. That type of thing. And it really goes to the first amendment, protection of freedom of speech, association, assembly. This is a bill that we have an identical bill in the House and the Senate with Representative Jones. His bill passed the House overwhelmingly, my bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and so we just have this companion bill and we're asking that it go through the House. I've spoken to students and faculty from around the district, around the state even around the country about what the concerns are and this is the bill that we put forth to address this. I'd be happy to answer any question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anybody have any questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Over here, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, I mean Pittman, I was looking, you look a lot different, Larry Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whitmire's glad of that. For motion at the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Senator, in the example that you site, that a republican should not be elected president of the Young Democrats at any community college, why do we need legislation to protect that organization from a republican president. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Perhaps I misspoke. It's not as much a concern about who they elect, but say if someone were the president and he decided I'm not going to agree with these beliefs anymore, I want to change parties, I think that he should be allowed to step down. If somebody no longer agrees either politically or with religious beliefs, I think that that's something that's fair and the right thing to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again I. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree with the sentiment there, but a bill to do that? Are you doubting that the organization internally can handle the problem of a president of the organization who suddenly doesn't share the beliefs of the organization? We need a bill for this? That's my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. In fact, because I talked to some student groups who were afraid to seek student recognition because of overactions from the administration who made them feel like they'd have to compromise their beliefs in order to become a student organization, and it was in response to them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to ask bill sponsor or staff, is there anything in here that provides an appeal process or review

Process in case someone is denied admission to the organization or required to leave the organization on these issues of their beliefs or their practices, is there a required review process so that person does not get victimized by an organization for some other reason and doesn’t have a way to ensure his or her rights to be in an organization or protected. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, I would like to refer to staff but universities have a lot of policies and procedures in place. I believe the existing ones would address anything that was brought up or was in violation of law. Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The restrictions that are placed in the bill have to do with the leadership positions but not to the general membership of the organization. So on lines 19 through 21, it relates to individuals who would serve as leaders of the organization. It does also place restrictions on the ability of the university to set determinations on internal disputes or internal ordering or their internal affairs. Anything outside of that would be subject to whatever the university has set up for recognition of student groups and their policies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman again my question is pretty specific and direct of is there a required review for these organizations if they decide to deny someone for their leadership position, or not. If they decide to put them out of the organization or refuse them the opportunity to participate, are they required as an organization on a campus, to have some kind of review process to protect the individual who might want to run for office or occupy an office? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill does not provide for any recourse for a student in the situation that you described. It’s possible the individual campus may have some recourse. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think this addresses both Representative Leubke and Representative Hall. It is really weird that you need a bill like this but there was a Supreme Court decision about 2 or 3 years ago out of California, where the California universities would not let the Christian legal society limit its officers to people who expressed typical Christian beliefs. In other words, the university was trying to tell them what Christian beliefs were. And of course this would apply to Jewish or Muslim or whatever. And for that reason, you also don’t have appeals to the university for this, these are the internal affairs of these student groups. And that’s why you would not want to have an appeal to the university as to who would be the president of the democratic students at UNC Ashville. You don’t want to have the state helping decide that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to take the opportunity to thank the bill sponsor, Senator Soucek and as he mentioned we’ve been working together on this issue for over a year now and we’ve had companion bills and I’d just like to thank you for all your good work on this. And just to reinforce what Representative Stam just said, it is a shame that we have to have bills like this. But just like recently in this committee, we passed a bill that said K through 12 students and teachers, they don’t turn in their first amendment rights at the school house gate and today we’re saying that college students don’t turn their rights in as well. It is unfortunate, but there are, I’ve spoken with enough students and enough of their parents to understand that there are problems that need to be addressed, and I thank you sir for being here today, just to carry the ball a little further in addressing them today. And my friend Representative Pittman beat me to the punch, but I do recommend this bill to my colleagues. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arne. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek, after listening to Representative Leubke and Representative Hall’s remarks, I just need some clarification. As I understand your bill, this isn’t to set the bylaws of the operational procedures of the organization, but to clarify their right to exercise their

Bylaws without any interference from the college, or the community college, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, exactly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question, uh, for the bill's -- I think this, was this bill not before us about a year or so ago? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, the, this is, identical bill was passed through the House to the Senate, an identical bill was passed through the Senate to the House, we have companion bills, we're just moving forward with the Senate bills, so this is, uh, the exact language you have voted on in the main session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair. Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Uh, okay. I had some problems with it then, still do, but lemme ask, you know, I'm looking at the bills' analysis, and so, if you are not, if you don't profess the faith or mission of the organization, you cannot be, uh, you cannot hold a leadership position in the organization, but you can be a member, is that what this says? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Uh, follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Um, can you tell me what it, the other point here, resolve the organizations' disputes, so that would be, there would be no input from the university -- I served 40 years on the college campus and I'm a big supporter of students, but I also know that there are some administrative regulations that help students to do what they need to do, so does this take the universities and the colleges completely out of the process of helping to manage these student organizations? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] First of all, that is definitely not the intention of the bill to remove them from the organizational structure of the university, and I don't believe it does that. It really is just addressing when an organization has a certain set of beliefs, that they can hold those beliefs. And then they have to go through the process of application, they have to go through the governance model of the university so that it's done in good order, and is coherent with the mission of the university, but there was problems with the university injecting, infringing on the core beliefs of the organization, and that was what this was to address, so that they could profess that belief, come up with their goals, what their core beliefs are, affecting only leaders, but they would still fall under the administrative rules of the college campus and procedures. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last question. So, if the organization somehow contradicted the administrative mission of the university, how would that be impacted here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there's a problem if the university has a policy that's contradicting law. And if this was enacted into law, they couldn't have a policy that contradicted the law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I just speak on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well, I asked those questions because I think what it does, I think it would create a problem for the university. I think overall when students come to a campus, they come, in my opinion, to abide by the rules and regulations of that institution. I don't see in what you're proposing here that there would be -- and I'm curious about whether or not you have had discussion with the university while this is a bill that you say protects students, the students who reside on those campuses are part of those campuses, so I'm not sure that you've had that kind of input from those universities and colleges, and I think we need to do that, but I just have some real problems with the kinds of conflict that this kind of thing might cause on campuses, having worked with students, having supported them, and I still do, but I still think that the university's mission ought to be something that we need to conform to, even students as they attend those colleges and on those campuses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I've got a question. In reading the bill, does anything in here take the authority away from the university to grant recognition to any organization? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you repeat that question? I'm not sure I understood exactly what you were trying to -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I'm asking you is, is there anything in here that forces the university to grant recognition to any organization that wants to be on this campus? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. It doesn't force them to do anything. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up?

In the department of Concorse to develop in-house programs so that they identify companies that would use this money it requires monthly meetings by both organizations and quarterly meetings jointly to select projects to receive these funds and it requires a report beginning October of this year on the process that is implemented both commerce and DUT to make sure projects are identified and a quarterly report for those that are chosen. (Speaker changes) Section 34 30 is contingent and House bill 1099 or other similar legistation become law so this authorizes the division of aviation to use funds that are by the act to administer the requirements of that bill. Section 3431 pertains to the use of funds that are transferred as an operating subsidy to the global Transport Authority of the 1,000,000 funds transferred 250,000 are exclusively used for onsite project costs. (Speaker changes) The title is at the bottom 231 but if you but if you flip over you see a new study committee a house on me to look at the implementation the STI law lastly is the lust provision that follows money item 4 that reestablishes transfer again can't be amended until the 4. (Speaker changes) What does lust stand for? ( Speaker changes) Lust is the leaking underground storage tank program this goes to noncommercial fund. ( Speaker changes) And then the final provision in the package is JLTC recommendation and is not included in the Senate proposal however this conforms to the current contract for license production changing the materials that are specified to be used for the licenses and ID forms. (Speaker changes) Thank you Stan at this time we would like to open the floor to any questions or concerns. ( Speaker changes) Page 217 line 7 thru 11 (Speaker changes) provisions we're talking about provisions right? (Speaker changes) Baseball if you're on 2nd base have a lead off and somebody fouls my rule is you have to go and touch the back problem is if you don't do that then there is no penalty used to make a point and never go back in touch second base what happens underline 11 d.o.t for some reason which I'm sure would be a good reason doesn't get it done by September 11th I mean they say oops we're sorry but what's the penalty we've got to stick to it I mean we've got a date what forces them to follow it. (Speaker changes ) There is no penalty in that as you can see with the pre-construction additional requirements are placed in future years they do not meet a legislation directive. ( Speaker changes) Going back to the lust is this appropriation $5,000,000? (Speaker changes) The cited budget actually funded this requested out of general fund dollars but it did not restore this transfer that did exist the gasoline inspection tanks it is in the money report in item 4 and it is 3 point something million dollars if you look at the money report the amount is there in item 4 was in the senate budget but it was.

use that to bar, and that to me is the biggest issue. I would encourage a fix of that if you're trying to get it exactly what you say and then I think, maybe, ??. That would be my thought on it. Right now, because I view that as the exclusion clause, maybe unintentionally, I think that's the problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I think Representative Glazier's correct on A of that it does allow a university to not have any clubs but if it does have clubs it cannot discriminate on certain bases. So that's the correct answer to Representative Michaux. But I would disagree with changing sub 2 and the reason is this, whereas typically just someone being a member is not going to affect the organization. When I was at Chapel Hill there were lots of student groups. I could not believe how many student groups were getting money and my first foray into politics was moving that they all be cut by about 50%. So I got booted off that committee, campus governing held. I won by write-in by the way, only five people voted for me. But here's my point, there are so many student groups that have very small membership that the easiest thing in the world to do for a competing group to just show up and take over. I don't know the current, there was a time there when we could have easily taken over the Campus Democrats just by showing up one day and out-voting them 5-1 'cause there was so few of them. And that's probably true of the Campus Republicans at other times. So you need to have some ability to control, make sure that your membership are actually people that are in support of your organization as opposed to there to sabotage it. There are groups there with five people or six people and some fraternity could say, "let's have fun and go destroy this group next week. Just show up and vote them all out." So I would not think it would be wise to put any amendments on this bill that we've passed unanimously before and that has obviously been written not by laypeople but by some constitutional lawyer from somewhere. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not sure I understand how the institution can recognize certain organizations, student organizations, and not others. How do you, do they have their own policies or? If you can't discriminate can the KKK go to Chapel Hill and organize and become an organization? How does that work? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All the universities, well I should say I haven't visited every university but I looked at App State for an example, and they have policies on student organizations. I've got theirs here about how they apply for recognition and there are lots of different things, safety, if they're breaking federal law. There are certain things, you can't have a bunch of people who, say, want to be butchers and want to walk around cleaving meat with large meat cleavers. I'm coming up with an absurd example but if it's public safety or against the law they definitely have the ability to recognize and not recognize. This was just talking about internal beliefs, that a university may have a different set of ideals or beliefs than the student organization and they shouldn't be allowed to tell a student that they can't exercise their first amendment rights. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've got a quick question and then I want to comment. Is this bill restricted to just our State Universities or this is public and private universities alike? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good question. It is state universities and community colleges. We did look, and when I spoke to some of the private schools, and I think because they are, we have a tax funded system, we have, I think we're either authority over them, a private school, a private organization has greater ability to determine exactly what their policies are. In fact when I, I believe it was Duke University, I spoke to students there, they've got this issue there but I didn't put it to them because that's a private organization and I was giving them greater flexibility to, just like I want a student organization to be able to have their beliefs and be able to recognize those private organizations, a private school should be able to do the same. So no, it does not extend to them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a brief comment on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have an ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, you want to comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a comment on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, you got it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that this is probably a good thing. I understand some of the

the reservations but,honestly, working with some public universities dealing with political work and the students there have been really really, the administration has had a hard time dealing with democrats coming in or republicans coming in and it's a state university and this is a democratic university and they've had a hard time, and I'm not going to mention the name of the institution, actually carrying out some of their duties or what they want to do. I think the crux of it is that universities have a problem with political or religious because they want to separate from it because they are fearful of it. They're fearful of people Christians and they're fearful of politics but that does not mean that you don't have those organizations and the students there are not allowed to exercise their first amendment right. And I think that we're always going to have to keep clarifying these type of languages because regardless of what's on the first amendment and regardless of what we see on the constitution we continue to see day in and day out, year after year after year people's rights being trampled because of the fear. And so I think that if we can continue to clarify I think we would be better off as a state and as a nation if we can clarify what actually people's rights are instead of leaving that up to administrations and folks to say we're going to deny you this barbecue we're in fear of it. So, I commend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, ready for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir, I move to file a report a committee substitute to senate bill 719 unfavorable to the original. If I'm reading this correctly it says committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's the second edition, OK? [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, whatever we got right here in front of us I move favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You rule the motion to a favorable report. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The aye's have it and the motion's scared. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman I would like Representative Jones to handle this on the house floor if he could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If he's willing to do that I'll. That concludes the business that we had in our committee and the committee is adjourned.