Hansen « From Eternity To Here

We’re less than a month away from the 2013 Montana Legislative Session. This session, much like the 2011 session, is sure to be a tough session for causes, issues and people that we value. It’s imperative that everyone who shares our values gets involved by either testifying, contacting your legislators, writing letters to your local paper or simply talking to your friends and neighbors about what is happening in the session.

As a primer for the session, I decided that I’d do a few short profiles on some of the legislators that are sure to be making news throughout the session–bot for good reasons and bad.

With that, I’m proud to bring you the first edition of From Eternity to Here’s “Better Know a Legislator” series, where I’ll profile one of my favorite legislators Rep. Edie McClafferty (D-Butte) and one of my least favorite legislators Rep. Kris Hansen (R-Havre).

Rep. Edie McClafferty, HD 75

Rep. Edie McClafferty is serving her 3rd term representing the people of Butte and Silver-Bow County, and was recently elected as part of the leadership in the House, where she’ll serve as one of the Democratic Whips.

Rep. McClafferty is a Butte native, and is a public school teacher. Her commitment to a strong public education system is why I was thrilled when she was named vice-chair of the House Education Committee. In this committee she’ll almost certainly see attempts to divert public funds to private, unaccountable charter and religious schools. She’ll also serve on the House Tax and House Rules committees.

In addition to being a staunch advocate for Montana’s students, Rep. McClafferty has also been a strong ally to the LGBT community in Montana. In the 2013 session, as she did in the 2011 session, Rep. McClafferty will be sponsoring a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, hiring and public accommodations. While this bill faces long odds, Rep. McClafferty never backs down from an opportunity to stand up for her values.

Rep. Kris Hansen, HD 33

I intentionally chose to profile Rep. McClafferty with Rep. Hansen because they are essentially polar opposites.

Hansen represents one of the two Havre House districts. She’s serving her second term, after barely winning her election.

Hansen formerly served as a deputy county attorney, but abruptly resigned last year in order to work on education policy. After resigning her job, Hansen promised to disclose who was paying her for her services, however she has never lived up to her promise.

The fact that we don’t know who is paying Hansen for her educational policy lobbying is especially troubling because she’s going to be the chair of the House Education Committee in 2013. As you watch her decisions and the bills that come out of the House Education Committee, it’s important to remember that she’s receiving her paychecks from an undisclosed educational policy group. This is corruption at its worst.

While writing this post I looked at Hansen’s financial disclosure form- something she’s required to fill out to run for office. Interestingly, she claims that her primary source of income is from a private law practice. However, when I looked at the Secretary of State’s database of registered businesses, it appears that Hansen’s private practice was established just two days before she filed to run for reelection. Not only that, Hansen’s private practice is registered out of her own house. It sounds to me like Hansen is trying to cover her tracks. It’ll be interesting to see if any reporters investigate this during the session.

However, if you’ve heard of Hansen, it’s probably not because of her corruption on education. It’s probably because Hansen sponsored a bill last legislative session that sought to prohibit municipalities from expanding protections beyond the state’s Human Rights Act. This bill essentially would have nullified the Missoula, and now Helena, nondiscrimination ordinance. Thus far Hansen has not requested a similar bill for the 2013 session.

GOP picks conservative Senate leaders, elects Blasdel as speaker (billingsgazette.com)

…against HB 516? Hearing starts Monday at 3pm in Room 405 of the Montana State Capitol Building.

I suggest printing two copies of your statement and bring it with you in case the monkey business of last time is repeated.

Here’s mine:

Regarding HB 516, I speak in opposition for several reasons.

Every community should have the right to decide its own ordinances of inclusion. Ordinances of exclusion, which is what this is, are historically used by dictatorships, theocratic states and societies of intolerance- which I fervently hope is not your intention.

Creating a law that disallows protection is counterintuitive to the purpose of government as set forth in both the Federal and State Constitutions, in which are stated explicitly the government’s purpose and responsibility to protect its citizenry from discrimination, violence and other harms.

This is an attempt to write prejudice and bigotry into the law. It is an attempt to tie local ordinances to State law in a way which keeps government from evolving as our understanding does- both scientific and social, creating a top-down model, instead of a cooperative, inter-dynamic process. State laws and statutes are informed by the experience of the people- don’t disregard the deliberate and intentional process engaged in by sizable numbers of Montanans- processes which inform the future of our government.

I am a gay man, a native Montanan. My partner is a native Montanan. All we want is to live our lives happily and free from fear in the state we both grew up in. This bill tells me we shouldn’t have the right to be happy here.
I am also a therapist, I work primarily with LGBT persons. The stories of fear and prejudice that I hear almost daily are heart-breaking. The stories of bullying and violence are also all too common and very real right here in the State of Montana. This bill simply ignores the needs of a suffering segment of the population who deserve to feel safe.

This bill is discrimination. It is rejection of the right of communities to protect their citizens as they believe necessary. It removes the power to govern from local citizens, enshrining bigotry, ignorance and personal belief in defiance of science, human experience and the freedom of local governance.

Respectfully submitted,
D Gregory Smith, MA, stl