Legislators finally do right thing

(PNI) Every now and then, the most astonishing things happen. Pigs take flight, Phoenix freezes over on the Fourth of July, and the most improbable of all? The Arizona Legislature does a good thing.

I know. Amazing, right?

It's hard to believe, but there it is, House Bill 2204.

It's a simple bill, really. It says that a city (or county or state) will continue to pay a portion of the health-insurance costs for the families of its fallen police officers, firefighters and correctional officers.

The bill was prompted, in part, by Glendale's treatment of Cindy Jones. Her 25-year-old husband, Glendale Officer Brad Jones, was killed in the line of duty in October 2011, leaving her with two young children. The city continued the family's health insurance for a year, as required by law.

Several months after his death, Cindy approached city officials to ask if they would continue paying the premiums after the year was up, or at least give her the employee rate -- the one the family would be paying if her husband were still alive.

"Brad's no longer here," she told me a few months ago. "I still have to provide for my kids, not just five years from now, not just 10 years from now, but until they're the age of 18. For me, that's a big worry."

In response, the city offered her the retiree rate: $688 a month, and that's after a subsidy from the police pension fund is applied. That's about 21/2 times what the family would be paying if Officer Jones hadn't been shot to death one night while answering a call to assist a probation officer.

Glendale's incoming mayor, Jerry Weiers, told me in December that he would work on changing the city's policy once he took office. Six weeks into his term, he has followed through on that pledge. As a result, he says Glendale will now pick up the entire insurance tab for the family of any employee who is killed while performing his or her job.

"Doing the right thing is not always hard to do," he told me. "It's just a matter of making people understand it's the right thing."

Which brings us to the Legislature, where the right thing is so often elusive. But not, apparently, this time. At least, not for most of our leaders.

Rep. Bob Robson's HB 2204 would require cities, counties, the state and private prisons to continue offering insurance at the employee rate to the families of law-enforcement officers who die in the line of duty. It would continue until the surviving spouse either remarries or is eligible for Medicare and until the children are grown.

The bill sailed through the Public Safety, Military and Regulatory Affairs Committee on a unanimous vote and cleared the House last week on a 54-5 vote. It now heads to the Senate.

The five who opposed it are Reps. Steve Smith of Maricopa, Carl Seel of Phoenix, Darin Mitchell of the bare mattress, Adam Kwasman of Oro Valley, and Steve Montenegro of Avondale. All five happen to members of Constantin's Army, led by my favorite right-wing Republican Party operative, Constantin Querard.

What they have against police officers' widows, I do not know.

Smith is the legislator with some of the silliest bills going nowhere this year. Among them is one bill to suspend all federal firearms laws and another to reimburse ex-Sen. Russell Pearce for his recall expenses.

I tried calling Smith to find out why he found it unacceptable to use public funds to insure the widows and children of fallen police officers but a moral imperative to use public funds to reimburse Pearce for his non-existent recall expenses. Alas, Smith didn't return my call.

Robson says the bill is simply the right thing to do. He was on the Chandler City Council in 1999 when Officer James Snedigar was shot and killed in a SWAT raid. Officer Snedigar was the first Chandler police officer killed in the line of duty, and Robson says it was an easy call to continue his family on the employee insurance plan.

"We expect these people to do extraordinary things," he told me. "The least we owe them was this."

He's right. It is the least we owe them, and good for him and his colleagues for doing it.

Well, he and 53 of his colleagues, that is.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@ arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Stanton was right to criticize SB 1070 fiasco

(PNI) Regarding "Stanton should explain SB 1070 remark" (Opinions, Saturday):

The letter writer feigns surprise that Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton did not want to be associated with Senate Bill 1070.

The mayor at a recent meeting had asked that event planners not hold that law "against the rest of us," who he pointed out are "normal." The writer asks the mayor to explain "what the hell" he meant by those remarks.

Let me try.

That law was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by several courts. It damaged the Republican Party's standing with Latino voters.

And it brought shame and ridicule upon the state that the letter writer professes to love so much.

Not wanting to be associated with such a fiasco sounds pretty "normal" to me.

-- Michael Salcido,

Phoenix

Enough handgun blather

Laurie Roberts' column Sunday, "Kristi's suicide a story of gun laws' failure," is another sad example of the media's righteous single-mindedness on this important topic.

So, gun laws, the police, the court system and numerous others are to blame that a severely depressed woman killed herself with a handgun.

Really?

As a father, my heart truly goes out to Kristi's parents. It really does.

That said, this tragic story isn't about a "failure" of gun laws.

Does any rational person doubt for one minute that this person would not have taken her life some other way had she not had a gun?

Maybe we should ban buses because she might have stepped in front of one. Sometimes, just sometimes, people are responsible for their own irrational actions.

Surmising that Kristi would still be with us today if we had no guns around is both naive and blatantly untrue.

Perhaps we wouldn't have obesity in this country if they would just stop manufacturing forks.

If the media really want a reasonable discussion about gun control, stop publishing doggerel like this.

Enough already!

-- Thomas J. Salerno,

Phoenix

No school is totally safe

Regarding "A plan to protect schools" (Opinions, Dec. 31):

The letter writer's suggestions may seem to have some merit -- armed guards, volunteers, classroom doors made of steel, etc. However, I have one question: What happens when the kids go out for recess/lunch and the perpetrator is but a short distance away? It would be like shooting ducks in a pond.

We can do many things and spend a lot of money doing the above. But if the evil wish to do harm, they will succeed. We might make it a bit more difficult, but they will succeed, at least some of them.

If you do away with guns, knives will then be the weapon of choice, along with baseball bats, cars, acid, anthrax in envelopes, etc. Those who are determined to do harm, will.

It's a terrible shame, but that's life, folks, and there's not much more that can be done unless you wish to lock yourselves up in a cave and spend your life scratching for whatever the land provides.

Good luck doing that.

--Barbara Woltz, Surprise

Say prayer for Newtown

So, I am watching the news and see all the stuff people are sending to Newtown, Conn. What happened is beyond sad, but no matter how many gifts you send, it can't replace what they lost.

Maybe we should think of sending those gifts to someone who lost similar things. I think the people in Connecticut would agree. And use your prayers for Newtown.

--Nick Conant, Humboldt

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Comparison of Pending Right to Work Legislation (ContributorNetwork)

The first day of a new legislative session in Indiana was halted because most of the Democratic state representatives decided to stay home from work and prevent a quorum, according to the New York Times. The Republican majority had planned to introduce "right to work" legislation, making Indiana the 23rd state to permit voluntary union membership. A similar amendment may soon be on the ballot in Ohio, according to the Toledo Blade.

Indiana

Governor Mitch Daniels favors the "right to work" legislation and stated that the pending bill is designed to create new job opportunities, according to Reuters. Indiana Democrats and union members are preparing to fight any attempted changes to mandatory membership at public employee workplaces and private businesses where unions exist. According to Reuters, pro-union forces are promising statehouse protests like those which occurred in Ohio and Wisconsin last year.

If approved, the "right to work" law ends the ability of labor unions to force employees to join or pay any type of dues to the organization. Last year when similar legislation was introduced Democratic lawmakers fled to Illinois for five weeks to avoid taking a vote on the bill, according to Reuters. Governor Daniels initially planned security changes at the state house to avoid the pandemonium which occurred in Ohio and Wisconsin during union legislation debates last year, according to the Indy Star. Although Daniels repealed some of his initial plans to limit entrance to 3,000 visitors and restrict public access to some elevators and doors, an increased state trooper presence is still visible at the governmental building.

Ohio

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is attempting to get a "right to work" proposal on the ballot in Ohio, according to the Toledo Blade. The group began working on the amendment prior to the fall 2011 election which the Ohio Senate Bill 5 repeal issue. Months of statehouse protests in Ohio preceded the approval of the bill which would have required merit based pay for public employees, put an end to teacher tenure and collective bargaining reforms.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine was unable to certify the initial wording of the proposed ballot issue because the wording failed to detail legal remedies available under the amendment's mandate, according to the Toledo Blade. Like the Wisconsin law, Senate Bill 5 would have limited collective bargaining rights of public employees to specific issues. The Republican sponsored legislation would have also ended the practice of outside arbitration during public employee union contract disputes.

Wisconsin

Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana began collective bargaining reform battles at approximately the same time last year, only Wisconsin being successful in getting legislation passed, according to the Washington Post. Thousands of protesters gathered on the statehouse law chanting "shame" at conservatives who supported alterations to the state's union membership and bargaining policies. Recall elections prompted to remove those who supported union reform failed, according to the Post. Unlike Ohio's collective bargaining reform legislation, the Wisconsin bill made exceptions for firefighters and police officers.

View the original article here