Iowa Senate Democrats

Fighting for a Better Deal for Iowans.

  • Senate Leader: Anti-worker legislation hurts working Iowans and their families

    Iowa Senate News Release
    For immediate release: February 16, 2017
    Contact: Senator Rob Hogg: 515-281-3901

                            

    Republican legislators refused to listen to hard-working Iowans

    DES MOINES – Senate Democratic Leader Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids said anti-worker legislation fast-tracked through the Senate and House will hurt hard-working Iowans, their families and their communities.

    “This new anti-worker law takes away the health care security and lowers the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of working families,” Hogg said. “This legislation is wildly unpopular because it hurts Iowa families.”

    Hogg pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Iowans who packed the Capitol, attended rallies and overflowing local meetings, and filled legislative voicemail and email inboxes were in opposition to Senate File 213/House File 291.

    “Their message was clear: This bill hurts working Iowans and their families,” he said.

    Hogg said he is proud Democratic Senators listened to Iowans, especially those who will be hurt the most: nurses, police officers, firefighters, snowplow drivers, teachers, correctional officers and other public workers.

    “All of us, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses and other Iowa workers, deserve fairness and a voice in our own workplaces,” he said.

    He said the current law worked for 40 years because it simply required Iowans and their employer to sit down and work together.  Iowa school boards, city councils, county boards of supervisors, and other Iowa governments have almost always been able to reach mutually agreeable solutions to workplace issues.

    “Our current collective bargaining law works. Originally passed to stop strikes, the law has served Iowans, employees and public employers well for more than 40 years,” he said. “Under this bill, cities, counties and school districts are prohibited from negotiating and reaching agreement on health care coverage and other workplace issues.”

     

    ##

     

  • SF213 – Prepared remarks by Sen. Chaz Allen of Newton

    Iowa Senate News Release
    For immediate release: February 14, 2017

    Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

    I rise today, not to debate or argue, but to share my experience.

    All in this room are familiar with Newton’s transformation from a company town dominated by Maytag to the diverse economy it is today.

    Bargaining is in the DNA of Newton and Jasper County, from the UAW Local 997 who represented Maytag, from Thombert’s and Progress Industries, from IBEW 347 who represent Trinity Structural Towers, from Teamsters that represent our Public Works employees, from PPME who represent the Police Dept., AFSCME for our county employees and correctional officers, and, of course, the firefighters.

    As we realized our community would not be the same with the departure of Maytag, we also realized we had to re- think how we operated as a city.

    For 100+ years, Maytag dominated how we thought about wages, benefits, and employee recruitment.

    As a city, we offered comparable benefits to attract the best talent. As many know, those benefits were quite good. No cost to very low cost healthcare and good wages.

    But, as we saw Newton change with the closure of Maytag, we understood we had to change our benefit structure to align with the remaining businesses in town and with the expectation of our constituents, the taxpayers.

    We immediately began discussion with all the City’s bargaining units: the firefighters, the police dept. and our Public Works. We knew the current structure could not be maintained and we needed to get employees to shoulder more of the cost of our healthcare premiums.

    At the end of the day, we reached an agreement with the unions that required employees to begin paying a greater portion of the benefits.

    Today, Newton city employees pay 12% of their premiums and 20% of any yearly increase.

    I bring this to your attention because this negotiations worked, not only for the city but for our community, our citizens and our local businesses.

    The contrary story was not as helpful to our community. At some point after Whirlpool took over Maytag, a (unilateral??) decision was made to require our Maytag retirees to pay $200 a month for their healthcare. Some will say, “Heck! $200 is a small price to pay for a healthcare package. I agree.

    This cost, however, is equated differently when taken in total, 3,600 retirees times $200 times 12 months = $8,640,000/year taken out of the Jasper County economy yearly.

    I was asked at recent forum, “How will the revisions of Chapter 20 affect my small business?”

    The answer is complicated, but, predictable. Any quick change in the short term can have a dramatic impact on a local community.

    For Newton, it was the reduction in a car dealership, the closure of a grocery store, closure of a clothing store on the square, the closing of a flooring store, and much higher rate of free and reduced lunches at our schools.

    What’s the lesson here?

    I believe the best approach is one that features cooperation and honest negotiations between management and workers, between neighbor and neighbor, between people who all have a stake in the success and prosperity of our communities.

    Newton didn’t bounce back because of mandates and new rules imposed by the Governor and a majority of the Iowa Senate and Iowa House.

    The people of Newton bounced back because they sat across the table from their neighbor, and they all had the chance to say: “How can we be worthier together, to make our community great again?”

    -end-

  • SF213 – Prepared remarks by Sen. Tod Bowman of Maquoketa

    Iowa Senate News Release
    For immediate release: February 14, 2017 

    Thank you, Mr. President.

    I rise today because I have real concerns about the purpose, intent and impact of this legislation on the people in my Senate district.

    Since this bill was introduced, I have:

    1. Received and answered hundreds of emails from my constituents
    2. Talked with hundreds of constituents on the street and on the phone.
    3. Even met last week with a group of six school superintendents.

    I have also read the bill and talked with my Senate colleagues about the details of the legislation.

    The bottom line is this: I can’t find a single reason why this bill would be good for the people of Iowa.

    As a teacher and former member of the negotiations team for the Maquoketa School District, I know first-hand the importance of being able to sit down at the negotiation table with our superintendent and school board members to talk about the next contract and about how to make our schools the best they can be.

    And that’s why teachers who teach our children, law enforcement officers who keep our neighborhoods and communities safe, firefighters who protect our health and safety, nurses who care for our loved ones every day, and other Iowa workers oppose this attempt to GUT the state’s collective bargaining law.

    If this bill is signed into law, it would create an unfair system that would take away the voices of workers in their own workplace.

    But don’t take my word for it.

    In my meeting last weekend, School Superintendents – the very Iowans who supporters of Senate 213 SAY should love, love, love this legislation – offered little or no support for most of the elements of the bill.

    George Pickup, who was Sen. Schultz’s High School government teacher and now is the current Principal of the Central DeWitt High School, told me that because of the expected impact of this legislation, morale in his school is already dipping because teachers are feeling not valued as professionals.

    George also said it will likely have a negative effect on retaining and hiring the best teachers.  And that he thinks it will have an effect on potential teachers entering our great profession.

    George said: “This is a slap in the face for teachers. We say we want to support a quality education system and then go back to pre Industrial Age mentality.  I really hope the lawmakers think how this will effect things 10-20 years and beyond.  Teachers like all professions need to feel valued. This legislation is not going to help.”

    Senator Schultz: you should listen to your former government teacher.
    I also talked with Gary Bruns, a Vocational AG instructor, an FFA advisor at Maquoketa high school and a strong Republican.

    Here’s what Gary told me:  “I have 6+ years of college education, 30+ years of teaching experience, I teach other teachers across the country in the summer, and if this bill passes and all of my rights are stripped away, I will end up with less rights and respect than  a high school McDonald’s employee.”

    Gary went on to say

    “Iowa already has a number of different teaching categories on the “shortage list”, meaning we don’t have enough new teachers graduating to fill the open positions. I don’t know who would be willing to put in 4 years of college to end up with a job that has low pay and NO rights.  On the other hand, a 4 year degree in with a job in the private sector will give you annual raises (maybe more than one a year), a possible bonus, and most importantly, a job where you will be treated as a professional.

    Dr. Kim Huckstadt, a 15-year superintendent with lots of collective bargaining experience, told me this:

    “Most superintendents who have participated in the collective bargaining process would likely identify some changes that would improve the process but the legislation currently proposed is an over-reach that will jeopardize our ability to attract and retain highly qualified educators to Iowa… In the final analysis, educational opportunities for students will be diminished. ”

    Dr. Fred Maharry, former superintendent of Delwood said “My concern about the proposed legislation is that if this is approved, smaller districts in Iowa will lose a lot of staff to larger districts because they won’t be able to compete in terms of salary and in terms of benefits so this is going to pit larger districts against smaller ones and the smaller ones are going to come out on the short end and it’s going to damage education for the kids in Iowa. Bad idea.”

    In the end, the superintendents were in agreement that:

    • While they had suggestions for reforming Chapter 20, none of those changes were in this bill. Specifically, they believe there are ways to address the problem of underperforming teachers, but my superintendents said the Legislature  could do better than what is being proposed.
      • I would have welcomed the opportunity to get more specific ideas from my superintendents, my teachers, parents and school board members about how to better address these concerns — but I have yet to be approached by any Republican Senators interested in working on a bipartisan solution in this bill. That’s a shame.
    • No one in the group spoke to support the many anti-union provisions – such as check-offs or decertification etc.
    • In fact, they all shared with me that insurance and supplemental pay should be continue to be part of the contract negotiations, that grievances should be permissive, and, they believed local control would be weakened if this bill passes and the new law would make Superintendents less effective leaders in their schools and communities.

    And don’t just take the word of a handful of superintendents.

    Actions speak louder than words. Maquoketa signed a 3 year contract, NE, Delwood and Western Dubuque have also signed contracts early. So, I have a question for supporters of this bill: Why are school boards, superintendents and teachers in my senate district and other parts of the state rushing to pass new contracts prior to this bill passing?

    I can tell you why. All involved think this is bad policy.

    I talked with Maquoketa’s Superintendent Chris Hoover today about their decision to negotiate early and he said ”The school board and I felt that it was the right the thing to do in a time when our employees needed to come together. We made a good faith effort to show teachers we respect them.” 99.99% of the language of the current Maquoketa contract he did not have a problem with. The process worked as usual.

    Teachers, administrators and other educators don’t understand why you do not respect them. I do not understand why you don’t respect the profession.

    If you think there is a teacher shortage now – just wait.  School districts will flounder in finding and retaining quality teachers.

    There is already an “exit strategy” going on.

    First-year teachers are talking about leaving the profession – looking to get a masters degree in other areas to exit the teaching profession or leave the state – Illinois is right next to Maquoketa. Our new teachers and students studying and investing in their career are the one who will be most hurt by this proposal.

     

    This is bad for the people of Iowa.

    So, if it is the intent of the Senate Republicans to hinder our rural schools, then vote yes.

    Supplemental pay – coaches

    Yes/No

    If I am a teacher who is part of a collective bargaining unit and a coach am I able to negotiate my supplemental pay with my superintendent?

    If I am not a teacher and I am a coach am I able to negotiate my supplemental pay with my Superintendent?

    My superintendents want this to be permissive

    It discriminates what a coach and teacher can and can’t do

    Obviously you have not thought this through or understand cause/effect

    -end-

  • SF213 – Prepared remarks by Sen. Amanda Ragan of Mason City

    Iowa Senate News Release
    For immediate release: February 14, 2017

    When I first read the bill before us — which rewrites Chapter 20 of the Iowa Code — I was dismayed by what I saw.  That emotion is still with me and will be for a long time.

    There is a valued injunction which definitely applies here:  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    Chapter 20 is NOT broken.

    For 43 years, it has artfully guided public employee relations throughout our state.  City, county, and state management leaders and their workers were able to bargain honorably.

    More important, the public was well-served by the decisions which insured public employees and government officials were treated with respect.  Additionally, the jobs, many of which are hazardous, were done professionally by dedicated workers.

    The bill before us today is a disaster.

    It shreds the protections afforded to workers and to management.  The bill is a statement that devalues public employees, and devalues the work they perform for all our citizens.

    I must concede those who authored this bill knew what they were doing.

    They knew who it would negatively impact.

    They knew how it would make service as a public employee in Iowa harder and more difficult.

    They knew they were denigrating lives and work ethics across the state, and, stunningly, they seem not to care.

    What they didn’t know — or care to know — was the importance of the jobs they were impacting, or the people, their constituents, who do those jobs.  This legislation was written, and will be enacted, by people who know nothing of the lives they are throwing into chaos.

    I will ask any advocate for this bill – – Do you have any knowledge of the people you are marginalizing and dishonoring with this bill?  Do you know them?  Have you talked to them?  Are they not neighbors of yours? And have you read their emails to you?

    They tell the story of families who have invested in their jobs, their families and their communities.

    I would like to know how you plan to convince your local public servants this is being done for their own good.  We hear over and over about jobs.  People want good jobs, high-skilled jobs, well-paying jobs.  This bill destroys that dream for 185,000 hard-working Iowans.

    Let us at least be up front – – this bill has nothing to do with making working conditions better for public employees.

    This bill has nothing to do with preserving the quality of services we enjoy.

    This bill has nothing to do with preserving a pathway to the middle class for others.

    This bill has everything to do with hurting and disrespecting people you don’t like or care to deal with – – Iowa public employees!

    Please at least be honest about the intentions of this bill.  It is designed to cut and gut.  This bill does not help people; it hurts people.  It makes a mockery of the phrase that “Iowa is a great place to live, work, and raise a family.”

    In the spirit of strong Iowa values, I strongly urge a NO vote for this bill.

    -end-

  • Legislative Leaders: It’s time to ‘slow down’ on major overhaul of workers’ rights and start listening to Iowans

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, February 13, 2017
    CONTACT: Dean Fiihr, 515-281-0817

     

    DES MOINES – Responding to record turnout at legislative forums over the weekends and an outpouring of opposition to legislation that would significantly reduce workers’ rights across Iowa, Democratic leaders today called on Republican legislative leaders to “slow down” and to listen to the concerns of Iowans.

    “Iowans are angry. Iowans are confused. Iowans are concerned,” said House Democratic Leader Mark Smith of Marshalltown. “We are calling today on Republican legislative leaders to slow down their efforts to shove this legislation down the throats of Iowa workers. Firefighters, police officers, teachers, nurses, and other dedicated public servants deserve to be heard.”

    Smith pointed to forums over the weekend that attracted large and even overflow crowds across the state, including Ankeny, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Waukee, Cedar Falls, Elkader, Postville, Mason City and Independence. In addition, thousands of Iowans attended a pro-teacher rally on the grounds of the Iowa Capitol on Sunday.

    “When the state’s collective bargaining law was passed in the early 1970s, it took two years of discussion by legislators and their constituents, as well as days of debate before the legislation was adopted in a bipartisan manner,” said Senate Democratic Leader Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids. “Iowans deserve more time to ask questions, to get straight answers and to better understand a major policy change that affects almost 200,000 hard-working Iowans. It’s time for all legislators – Republican and Democratic – to listen to the concerns of Iowans and to respond to those concerns.”

  • Today At 5:00 – Worker’s Rights Rally And Press Conference Before Public Hearing

    PROGRESS IOWA NEWS RELEASE
    For Immediate Release:     February 13, 2017
    Contact: Matt Sinovic, (515) 423-0530

    Public Workers To Address Media
    Before Public Hearing On Collective Bargaining Bill In The House

    DES MOINES – Iowans will gather in support of worker’s rights for a rally and press conference before the House public hearing on HF291 Monday evening. Several of the public employees who plan to speak to the Iowa House will address the media beforehand. They’ll voice their frustration with the all-out, Republican-led attack on worker’s rights that has been fast-tracked through the Legislature despite no discussion of such sweeping changes in the previous election.

    WHO: Iowans standing with public workers
    WHAT: Workers Rally/Press Conference Before Iowa House Public Hearing
    WHEN: Today, Monday, February 13, 5:00 PM
    WHERE: Iowa State Capitol Rotunda, 1st Floor, 1007 East Grand Ave, Des Moines, Iowa

    ###

  • Senator Petersen’s opening comments on SF 2, the Attack on Iowa Family Planning Services

    State Senator Janet Petersen’s opening remarks on SF2:

    Thank you Mr. President.

     

    This bill is bad for Iowa women and families.

     

    It will create more unintended pregnancies, more high risk pregnancies, and cost Iowa taxpayers more.

     

    Iowans don’t support it.  Doctors warn against it.  We should listen to them and reject it.

     

    Last week, Senator Sinclair held a 25-minute subcommittee on Senate File 2.

     

    Hundreds of Iowans came to the statehouse that day to make their voices heard about their opposition to Senate File 2, which will gut Iowa’s Family Planning Network.

     

    Senator Sinclair cut off their testimony after 25 minutes.

     

    Senators were not allowed time to ask questions about the bill or provide facts about Iowa’s Family Planning Network.

     

    I have served in the Iowa Legislature for 17 years.  I have never seen a subcommittee conducted that way.

     

    I stayed for nearly an hour after the meeting to listen to Iowans and make sure their stories were heard.

     

    It is unfortunate that not one of the 29 Republican sponsors stuck around to hear what Iowans have to say about their bill – Senate File 2.

     

    Apparently 28 Republican men and 1 Republican woman know what’s best for women’s health care.

     

    To the thousands of Iowans who have written me, asking me to FIGHT SF 2, and to the hundreds of Iowans who have SHOWN UP at the statehouse to have my back, I am HONORED to be your voice today.

     

    Here is what I’ve learned about Senate File 2 so far…

     

    Senate File 2 guts Iowa’s Family Planning Network, a program that has helped more than 80,000 Iowa women and men access family planning services across our state since 2006.

     

    We know the Iowa Family Planning Waiver works.

     

    It has helped reduce abortions and Medicaid costs in Iowa.

     

    The Iowa Family Planning Network is inexpensive for taxpayers.

     

    Iowa’s Family Planning Network program has saved Iowa taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars.

     

    We shouldn’t mess with the program.

     

    LET’S LOOK AT THE FACTS:

     

    The Iowa Family Planning Network WORKS.

     

    An evaluation of the program by the University of Iowa Public Policy Center in May of 2016 showed:

     

    1. The family planning waiver has increased the number of women receiving family planning services within the Medicaid program.

     

    1. Medicaid costs for deliveries and birth and first years of life have declined by nearly $345 million.

     

    1. Very conservative estimates of net Medicaid savings are more than $265 million.

     

    The Iowa Family Planning Network saves Iowa taxpayers money.

     

    For every 10 cents Iowa taxpayers invest in the program, we get an additional 90 cents from the federal government to help pay for the program.

     

    Iowans invest roughly $300,000 in the program each year.  When you add the federal dollars to Iowa’s investment, we get more than $3 million in preventative health services for Iowa women and men throughout the state.

     

    The University of Iowa study shows Iowa taxpayers have saved nearly $3.40 for every dollar they invested in the Iowa Family Planning Network.

     

    Under Senate File 2, Iowa will walk away from all of the federal funds that go to the Iowa Family Planning Network.

     

    The new program devised by 28 men and 1 woman in the Iowa senate, NONE of WHOM have a medical degree, will put the entire cost of the program on the backs of Iowa taxpayers.

     

    It is also important to note, there is no money in Senate File 2 to start this new program.

     

    Yesterday, Rep. Hogg asked Senate President Whitver to send the bill to the budget committee after we received the fiscal note that shows Iowa taxpayers will have to pay $3 million more EVERY YEAR for this Republican concocted program.

     

    The President’s ruling:

     

    Apparently, it doesn’t matter how much Republican-sponsored bills cost Iowa taxpayers anymore.

     

    Just pass the bill and worry about the money later.  We’ve heard that one before.

     

    The current Iowa Family Planning program has reduced unintended pregnancies and abortions.

     

    Senate Republicans want to scrap the successful program and force Iowa taxpayers to spend 10 times the money just to exclude Planned Parenthood from providing care to Iowa women and men.

     

    SENATE FILE 2 does more than DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

     

    Under the Republican plan – Senate File 2 completely eliminates the Iowa Family Planning Network and replaces it with a state-run program that doesn’t exist and doesn’t have guaranteed funding to make it happen.

     

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, the Iowa Family Planning Network has NEVER funded abortions.

     

    The Iowa Family Planning Network has been successful in preventing abortions and improving Iowa’s birth outcomes.

     

    When you make it harder for Iowans to access family planning services, you increase the number of unintended pregnancies.

     

    Gutting the Iowa Family Planning Network will cause more unintended pregnancies and abortions.

     

    Senate File 2 – puts politicians in charge of women’s health care and THAT IS DANGEROUS.

     

    We’ve been told a new state program will offer more providers and give women more options.  That simply is not true.

     

    On Tuesday, I questioned several bill sponsors about how their new program would “increase access.”  Not one senator could answer the question.

     

    Iowa women aren’t buying your “increased access” talking point.

     

    That is because SF 2 DOES NOT “INCREASE ACCESS” to providers.

     

    Senate File 2 DOES NOT GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS FOR HEALTH CARE.

     

    In fact it will force thousands of Iowa women to leave a provider they chose and go to a provider selected by 29 politicians.

     

    It will disqualify many of Iowa’s most qualified health specialists from serving Iowa women in the program.

     

    Providers aren’t magically going to fall out of the sky for this new program.

     

    The so-called TIER process outlined in the bill and in DHS’s plan is totally confusing.  We just got DHS’s plan yesterday.

    Finding a provider to give you a Pap Smear shouldn’t be rocket science, but thanks to Senate Republicans – it soon could be.

     

    EXAMPLE – if you pick a TIER 3 provider – you’ll have to let them know you would have to travel more than 25 miles to see another provider.

     

    DHS says they can do marketing to explain their new PAP SMEAR TIERS.

     

    Is that really what we want DHS wasting their time doing?

     

    WOULDN’T we rather have DHS spend its time doing child protective investigations, figuring out how to get better mental health care for Iowans, taking care of Iowans with disabilities?

     

    WHY are we getting rid of a program that works?

     

    WHY are we getting rid of a program that prevents abortions and unintended pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections?

     

    The bill doesn’t even explain how, when and how much providers will get paid to participate in the program.

     

    Let’s remember, the women participating in our current Family Planning Network program are not participating in the program for ABORTIONS.  It is the absolute opposite.

     

    These Iowa women are participating in the Iowa Family Planning Network to take care of their bodies and to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions.

     

    YET, now a group of 29 politicians (28 of whom have NEVER gotten completely undressed, put on a paper gown, and put their feet in the stirrups for a vaginal exam) are telling women they know what is best for them.

     

    Iowans have every right to be concerned about this legislation.

     

    Iowa taxpayers have every right to be angry that we are giving up millions of dollars in federal funding to start another government program that will be paid for fully on the backs of Iowa taxpayers.

     

    Iowans who worry about the health and safety of our children, people with mental illness and disabilities, should be piping mad that this program will take away funds that should have been going to them.

     

    To the thousands of Iowa women who may lose their health care coverage and family planning coverage when Republican repeal ObamaCare – Senate File 2 is not prepared to add you to the program.  You will be out of luck for your care under the new Republican program.  It will offer first come, first serve birth control.  If we keep our current system that actually works, the program would be able to include you – and at a very small cost to Iowa taxpayers.

     

    God forbid, if we have a ZIKA outbreak or other disaster – the size of the program will not increase to keep up with the demand for Family Planning services as it would under the current Iowa Family Planning Waiver.

     

    The document I received from DHS on Tuesday STATES on PAGE 5 – If spending exceeds the appropriated amount, CLAIMS WILL NOT BE PAID.

     

    Yesterday, I asked a few of the bill sponsors about the letter we received from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American College of Nurse-Midwives.

     

    One sponsor said he’s sure he got the letter, but he didn’t read it or remember reading it.

     

    IT WAS A WARNING LETTER ABOUT THE BILL from Iowa’s top health care professionals.

     

    • READ LETTER-

     

    I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is to IGNORE doctors warnings about the dangers of this bill to women, girls and families in our state.

     

    DO NOT TELL ME YOU ARE SUPPORTING THIS BILL BECAUSE YOU ARE PRO-LIFE – because this bill will most certainly lead to TRAGEDY like it has already, affecting our sisters in Texas.

     

    • HIGHLIGHT Texas Disaster examples

     

     

    BOTTOM LINE –

     

    This bill is dangerous and endangers the health of thousands of Iowa women.

     

    This bill will cost Iowa taxpayers more money.

     

    Under this bill Iowa women fewer options for their health care, NOT MORE.   It decreases access.

     

    • 28 Republican men and 1 Republican woman will tell women where they can go and can’t go for their care.

     

    • Let’s remember – 74% of Iowans support public funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning

     

    THIS NEW PROGRAM only offers FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE birth control.

     

    Who wants to come to a state that treats women like that?

     

    Senate Republicans got rid of the economic development committee after taking control of the Iowa Senate.  They said ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT would be part of every committee’s work.

     

    SO, let me say this – Senate File 2 – is a step in the wrong direction.

     

    Gutting the Iowa Family Planning Network is not going to help Iowa improve its ranking from DEAD LAST for women entrepreneurs.

     

    Why would we GUT the Iowa Family Planning Network?

     

    The program works.

     

    It SAVES taxpayers millions of dollars

     

    It has helped reduce abortions and Medicaid costs.

     

    We shouldn’t mess with it.

     

    I urge the body to stand up for Iowans.

     

    Stand up for Iowa women.

     

    Stand up for Iowa girls.

     

    Stand up for Iowa’s future.

     

    REJECT SF 2.

     

    END

     

     

  • Iowa Supreme Court sends clear message to Statehouse on water quality

    It’s time for Governor, Lt. Governor and legislators to ‘get a backbone’

    Statement by State Senator Janet Petersen of Des Moines:

    “The Iowa Supreme Court is sending the Legislature a clear message that it is our job to clean up this mess. Iowans shouldn’t have to wonder if they will have access to clean, affordable drinking water; and they shouldn’t be afraid to let their children and grandchildren swim in our lakes and rivers. More than ever, Iowans are going to demand that Governor Branstad, Lt. Governor Reynolds and all legislators get a backbone and solve Iowa’s water quality problems.”

    – END –

    Read the Supreme Court opinion at: http://www.iowacourts.gov/About_the_Courts/Supreme_Court/Supreme_Court_Opinions/Recent_Opinions/20170127/16-0076.pdf

  • Senator Taylor: ‘It’s time to really make Iowa schools the Legislature’s #1 priority

     

    School consolidation will increase without adequate funding

    Statement by Senator Rich Taylor of Mount Pleasant

    “Today, I filed legislation to increase basic aid to our public schools by 4 percent for the 2017-18 school year and by 4 percent for the 2018-19 school year.

    “Parents, students, administrators and educators tell me this is the minimum amount they need to keep providing quality education for our children and grandchildren.

    “The increases in education funding over the last six years has been the lowest in Iowa’s history.  That’s why more classrooms are overcrowded, there are fewer courses, and more students are stuck using outdated technology and textbooks.

    “If the Legislature approves anything less than 4 percent and 4 percent, more rural schools will be forced to close and consolidate. That would be devastating for the small towns in my district, and for hundreds of school districts in small towns across Iowa.”

    -end-

     

     

     

  • Retired child abuse investigator says DHS cuts would endanger children and vulnerable adults

    Iowa Senate News Release
    For Immediate Release: January 25, 2017

     

    Bill Dickey, retired DHS investigator; Senator Amanda Ragan of Mason City; Sue Vogel, recent retiree from Independence Mental Health Institution; and, Kathy Butler, recent retiree from Woodward Resource Center.

    Statement by Senator Amanda Ragan of Mason City

    “Iowans across the state are worried that Republican budget cuts will endanger vulnerable Iowans, children and dependent adults.

    “Cutting the number of people looking out for children at risk is a mistake. We should not cut services to our most vulnerable Iowans.”

     

    Statement by Bill Dickey, retired DHS investigator

    I’m here to oppose mid-year cuts to Iowa’s human services budget, cuts that will be permanent. Those cuts would endanger children and adults who need our help. I say this based on my experience working for the Iowa Department of Human Services for 34 years. As a social worker at DHS, I was a caseworker, a supervisor of caseworkers, and finally as an investigator on cases involving children and adults, until I retired in 2014.

    The job of a caseworker is to protect people who are at risk of being harmed or abused. The most important thing a caseworker has to offer is their time and attention. That’s why the number of people each caseworker is assigned is so important. The number of cases a worker can handle depends on many factors, including the community, the type of case and other services available.

    The basic job, however, is the same everywhere: When you are the caseworker for a foster child, like I was, your job is to be that child’s advocate. That child needs someone dedicated to keeping them safe and able to thrive. That someone is the caseworker and sometimes it’s the child’s only resource.

    My ability to do right by the children I was responsible for depended, in part, on how many cases I had. When I started for the State of Iowa, my caseload was 15 to 20. After 15 years, the average caseload had grown to more like 35.  Remember, this was for both beginners and experienced caseworkers alike.

    Then two things happened. One, we had several tragic cases that got a lot of media attention, such as the Shelby Duis case. The other was the election of Governor Vilsack. Governor Vilsack took an interest and provided the money; caseloads declined. This allowed for caseworkers like me to spend more time and attention on each case we were given and do what was best for the child.

    And that’s really the most important thing we had to offer at-risk children, our time and our attention. When Governor Branstad returned to office, caseloads increased, which benefited no one.

    I finished my career working as an investigator. During that time, I looked into some very, very sad and tragic cases. Sometimes I saw situations where things could have gone differently. A little more time could have made the outcome easier on the child or senior I was assisting. The toughest cases are complex and difficult and the solutions are never easy. If you’ve got 30 or 35 or even 40 cases, that’s just asking for trouble.

    That’s why I’m opposed to these permanent human services budget cuts. They will put children and adults who need our help in danger.

    I’m telling legislators today: “Don’t do it. Don’t hurt these children and adults who need our help the most.”

    end