By Emily Geiger

Is the Iowa Legislature, or more precisely, its Democratic leaders, holding Gov. Culver’s bottle bill hostage?

Earlier this week, I’d heard that the legislature had essentially KOed the bottle bill for this year by ordering that a study should be done to examine the impact of recycling in Iowa. I took that as a somewhat nice way of Supreme Iowa Democrat Mike Gronstal and his cohorts telling Chet to take his bottle bill and shove it.

Now I read that the legislature is going to try to move the bill to the appropriations committee so as to avoid the funnel deadline looming today. Appropriations bills are not subject to the funnel deadline. (Of course, calling this an appropriations bill at this point is totally intellectually dishonest, but since when do we actually expect honesty from these Dems… but I digress).

Is it possible that Gronstal & Co. are only maneuvering this bottle bill so that they can use it as leverage to persuade Chet to go along with them on collective bargaining for public employees? I’d say it’s not only possible, but very probable.

In thinking about this, I keep getting this image of a political cartoon in which a caricature of Mike Gronstal is holding a baby with a big bottle (of course, labeled “bottle bill”) at gunpoint, as a crying Chet reads a ransom note demanding his signature on the collective bargaining legislation. Note: This could also work as a parody of the film “Ransom.”

So, how important is the bottle bill to Chet? I recently saw the video of Chet’s unveiling of the bottle bill plan in his State of the State address. When he talked about expanding the bottle bill, Chet looked like he had just discovered sliced bread or the internet (oh wait, wrong Democrat… sliced bread is probably more Chet’s speed).

So the next questions is, how dumb is Chet? I know, I know, many a blogger has attempted to answer this question. And, I think the general consensus is: pretty dumb.

But, could he really think that saving his precious bottle bill would be worth the hellfire that will come down on him if he approves the collective bargaining bill? Obviously Gronstal & Co. think Chet might go for this, or else they wouldn’t be taking steps to be able to keep this carrot (or maybe doughnut would be more appropriate) dangling in front ol’ Chet. Hey, I think I feel another political cartoon coming on….

Evil Genius Alert:

So here is Gronstal’s plan to use this union bill against Chet to make Chet a one-term governor no matter what… it’s all fallen into place perfectly. If Chet vetoes it, Gronstal and his union thugs have the perfect reason and motivation to primary Chet and bring in one of their own. If Chet signs it, Chet is the bad guy and takes the political fall for it, not Gronstal. Either way, Gronstal wins the war against Chet. That’s what Chet gets for challenging the all-powerful Supreme Iowa Democrat, Mike Gronstal.

I was reading some Midwest blogs and message boards this morning and I ran on to a news story about a 32 year-old female high school teacher being caught with a 17 year old male student in Pottawatomie County. Now before you get too worked up by this is in Kansas not Iowa.

Just a quick side note, I think the TV station might be wise to remove the Teacher of the Year advertisement that’s sits right on top of the story on their website.

The reason I’m writing about this today isn’t just because it shows a failure of our society, but that it highlights one of the issues that opponents have with the collective bargaining overhaul.

Jack Hill the president of the Iowa Association of School Boards wrote the following in an Des Moines Register editorial:

“Under current law, local school boards and administration decide whether a teacher's competence or integrity is lacking and whether the employment contract should be terminated. The board's decision to terminate the contract can be appealed to an adjudicator, whose ruling can be appealed to district court.

This bill removes the ability to appeal that decision to district court. School board decisions, overturned by adjudicators, are regularly upheld by the courts.”

Adjudicators have over ruled local school boards on a number of no-brainer cases where the board has ruled to have the teacher terminated.

For example, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school board in Sheldon Community School District v. Lundblad despite its loss at the adjudicator level. The case involved a Sheldon teacher who berated and humiliated students. In response to a student who had written a paper on teen suicide, the teacher had suggested the student "try it" for extra credit. The teacher was repeatedly instructed to improve his behavior and was ordered to take classes to do so. When the behavior didn't improve, the board terminated the teacher.

The Adjudicator over-ruled the school board!

In Board of Directors of the Fairfield Community School District v. Justmann, the board terminated a teacher's contract for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. The board lost that decision at the adjudicator level but eventually won at the Iowa Supreme Court.

Question: Do you think it’s the right to give these non-elected adjudicator veto power over your locally elected school boards?

It’s very clear that Senate and House Democrats do.  Is this the type of “change” you voted for in November of 2006?

Didn’t think so!

I found this in my inbox from the good folks (Republicans) in the State Senate. Culver said he wanted more time for Iowans to react to the Collective Bargaining bill. Seems to me the only people supporting the bill are union thugs and Democrat legislators.

Iowa ’s Newspapers Agree “Democrats Abuse Power”

Democrats abuse power on collective bargaining

These important public employee negotiations require good faith from all participants. The heart of this bill began in bad faith. Democrats appear to have muscled it through simply because they could, driving a deeper wedge not only among partisans in the statehouse, but labor and management in the schoolhouse and city hall.

On Tuesday, Culver’s admonition prompted Gronstal to file a motion to reconsider, a legislative tactic that could lead to more debate. But we’re not sure Gronstal gets it. He said his motion will give the “governor and his staff additional time to read the legislation.” Good for the governor and his staff. How about taxpayers? Town councils? School board members? Republican lawmakers? Gronstal’s retort seems to discount any discussion, alternatives or compromise.

Quad City Times Editorial Board March 26, 2008

Legislature needs to slow down

An attempt to fast track a bill that would expand labor unions' collective bargaining abilities is short-sighted.
We concur. More time is needed to better understand and debate this potentially significant measure.
Perhaps that's where the debate should begin.

It appears, however, Senate Democrats have no interest in openly debating this bill. Rather, they want to rush it through right after the Easter holiday. Despite the afore-mentioned plea from the governor, the Senate went about the business of debating the bill Monday morning.
There is little credible evidence that the current law is broken. The rush to judgment appears to signal that even Senate Democrats know they aren't standing on solid ground. If this bill does indeed have merit, let's have a full and open debate.
But if Democrats push this bill through anyway without proper vetting, then Culver should veto it. That much, to quote the Governor, is "crystal clear."

Sioux City Journal Editorial Board March 26, 2008

Send this one back, Gov. Culver

Gov. Chet Culver should veto this one. The bill’s potentially huge impact on taxpayers and the lack of sufficient public debate are ample reasons for the governor to buck fellow Democratic leaders.

The sea-change legislation was tacked on to a non-controversial House bill as an amendment just six days before it got the Senate’s 27-23 OK. Republicans and many school and local government officials objected to the backdoor approach and rush to pass the bill before the Easter weekend. Senate leaders finally agreed to continue debate Monday.

Three Democrats joined 20 Republicans in opposition. It’s notable that one of the Democrats who voted no, Frank Wood of Eldridge, has especially broad perspective on this issue. Wood previously served as mayor of Eldridge. He is the student activities director at North Scott High School and has a long career in education, including 14 years teaching and 20 years in administration.

The governor is right. Now he should support his statements with his veto signature. Send the bill back.

Cedar Rapids Gazette Editorial Board March 26, 2008

Why rush such a big change?

Is this any way for law to be made in a democracy?

The law, or actually the potential law, in this case is a measure in the Iowa Legislature that would dramatically expand the scope of collective bargaining between public employees and their government managers. It represents a big change in the way Iowa government does business, from the schoolhouse to the courthouse to the Statehouse.

You’d expect that such a mammoth change would need to be widely discussed and debated by Iowans.

You’d be wrong.

No, majority Democrats in the Iowa House who favor expanding bargaining rights quietly filed an amendment Tuesday afternoon with hopes of tacking it onto a related but non-controversial bill. Tucked inside that unexpected amendment is the most significant rewrite of Iowa’s collective bargaining law since it was created in the mid-1970s.

Cedar Rapids Gazette Editorial Board March 22, 2008

Union bargaining bill no time for a rush job

A power grab. An end run. Those are some of the ways to describe the attempt by Democrats at the Statehouse to expand union clout by fast-tracking legislation this week with little time for public comment.

Changes in the labor-crafted legislation are not modest.

An especially worrisome provision in House Amendment 8164 would make it mandatory to bargain for cash compensation for unused accumulated leave, such as sick leave or personal leave. Now it is optional for public employers to bargain on this issue. If this provision becomes law, public employers would not have to agree to pay for unused leave, but over time it's likely to go to arbitration to settle disagreements. This eventually could end up costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

What's going on up at the Statehouse is about the Democrats being in charge of both chambers and having the votes to move forward legislation they have long sought. That's their right. The discussion leading up to the vote, however, has been too hurried for most Iowans to have an impact, which is also their right.

Des Moines Register Editorial Board March 22, 2008

The Register editorial: Keep your veto pen ready, Governor

Gov. Chet Culver was right Monday to ask the Senate to delay voting on a bill that expands the power of public-employee unions because Iowans had little opportunity to comment on it. And, after the Senate passed the legislation anyway, he was right Tuesday to threaten to veto it unless there is "a real effort to listen" to people's concerns.

If not, the governor should veto the bill. Democrats in the Legislature so far have shown a lack of respect for Culver and for Iowans. He shouldn't reward them.

Des Moines Register Editorial Board March 26, 2008

By Emily Geiger

Is anyone else sensing a Democratic implosion? I’m not just talking on the national level. In that realm of politics, everyone has heard about the name-calling and “misstatements" going on over there. My personal favorites are the now infamous Gordon Fischer smackdown on the Clintons and James Carville calling Bill Richardson Judas on Easter. I didn’t know Gordon had it in him, but that was awesome. Too bad he decided to wimp out and retract his statement.

I’m also talking about the Democratic free-for-all brawl happening at the state level right here in Iowa. A clear example of this is the collective bargaining for public employees bill that Gov. Culver is threatening to veto, much to the chagrin of Supreme Iowa Democrat Mike Gronstal, as well as other democratic legislative leaders at the Statehouse. Nathan gave you some of their highly disrespectful quotes about Culver yesterday. My jaw literally dropped open reading this.

I saw Gronstal on TV last night talking about how he was confident the bill would pass (despite Culver’s clear indications it very well may not). And on a side note, could Gronstal be more evil/cranky/smug/ completely unpleasant looking? Yikes. I seriously don’t think the guy could ever run for governor due to his obnoxiousness factor. So instead, he just tries to play puppet-master from his pedestal in the Senate. Unfortunately for Gronstal, it looks like ol’ Chet may actually have a backbone in there way down deep under all that pudge after all.  (Note:  I'm withholding final judgment on the backbone question until this thing is over.  Like Nathan, I'm not sure I trust the Chetster.)

Then, it also looks like House and Senate Democratic leadership are at odds over the smoking ban. I’ve talked about this before, but it seems appropriate to mention again here in this context. None of these Dems are on the same page with each other.

The infighting has gotten so bad, even the Register is talking about it. Here’s another great quote regarding the Gronstal/Culver feud:

Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck of Sioux City said that "there's obviously some personal animosities between Senator Gronstal and the governor, and I would ask Senator Gronstal to put them aside."

Let’s hope the Dems keep so busy fighting themselves, they forget about the GOP challengers who are quickly gaining ground as November approaches. Heck, they may be so ticked off at each other, they’ll abandon the dark side altogether.

As I look my daily lap around the Iowa blogosphere I noticed that Governor Culver is receiving some kudos for his veto threat of the controversial bill expanding Iowa’s collective bargaining agreement.

While I think both House Minority Leader Chris Rants and Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck have done a great job exposing the apparent rift between Culver and Gronstal, don’t for one minute think that Chet Culver is our ally in this fight.

Culver’s veto threat is a political maneuver, not a stand on principle. Just look at what he said yesterday:

"The motion to reconsider was a step in the right direction," Culver said. "However, I want to be clear: There is a strong possibility that I will veto this bill if a real effort to listen to the concerns of Iowans, local elected officials and government stakeholders at all levels does not take place."

Let me translate it for you. School Board members, City Administrators, and County Supervisors are terrified that the passage of this legislation would take control away from local voters and place it in the hands of a union arbitrator. They also fear the loss of local control will result in higher property taxes. If Culver cooperates and signs the legislation in to law he, not the independent legislators is going to be held accountable. Proof of this is the Iowa Future Fund ads that are already hanging this issue around his neck.

The Des Moines Register is giving Culver credit for standing up against his Democrat collogues, but they fail to ask him the most obvious question; do you support the bill? Culver has only said he wants more time for public input, and has not said one thing about the bills impact on property taxes, or its ability to usurp the authority of school boards, city councils, and county supervisors.