SB24 Report

8 March 05

We left for Columbus yesterday to watch David Horowitz testify in favor of the "Academic Bill of Rights" now before the Senate Education Committee, and to report to the state conference on that hearing.  You may know that our state conference has been very active in opposition to the bill.  Horowitz began with an excellent speech, but he mostly came apart during questioning by the Senators.  At one point he proudly proclaimed his agnosticism and his understanding that the bill, as written, would not force the teaching of Creationism in the classroom.  It is "not a scholarly opinion," he said.  This will obviously not play well with the socially conservative voters who compose the electoral base for the bill's sponsors, Senators Mumper and Cates.  A more detailed review of the Horowitz hearing is available from the office on an individual basis, but the general attitude among this observer and the journalists present was that Horowitz botched the job.  It is still unclear whether there will be more proponent hearings, but opponent hearings are unlikely, as the Senators on the Education Committee are dug deep into budget debates.

 

Our visit to the statehouse was important for another reason: it was excellent reconnaissance for future lobbying efforts. 

We familiarized ourselves with the statehouse and environs, met a few Senators (Miller, Fedor) in passing during the Proponent Hearing on SB 24, and got acquainted with staff from the offices of Sens. Padget, Miller, Fedor, and more.  As anyone who lobbies will know, the staff are the main contacts between lawmakers and citizens.  One can spend the whole day just jumping from staff to staff and getting a feel for how a vote is going to turn out.  Everyone is eager to speak with us, no matter their party.  Politicians are (obviously) political creatures.  We represent a large block of voting constituents.  They do the math, and they want to see us.

Another opportunity arose in a long discussion with University of Cincinnati representatives, who were in Columbus primarily to watch President Zimpher present higher ed's case to the SubCommittee on Higher Education Finance.  Unfortunately, this subcommittee is often attended by staff, not real Senators.  This speaks to a weakness of ours in Ohio-

-lobbying.  Hopefully, once the hype dies down from SB 24, we can return to Columbus and focus on the more important issue of state funding for higher education.  My impression is that UC representatives would be eager for us to have a more

regular presence at the statehouse.

Few groups have more than one or two lobbyists/representatives.  If we were to drive a car filled with faculty activists up to Columbus, we would be well received.

James Thompson
Executive Director
UC Chapter AAUP