Download last weeks Bulletin in pdf format HERE
The Legislative Bulletin is now presented strictly in electronic format. If you are not already on the mailing list, please submit your email address to: jmahoney@omunileague.org
click here for Deputy Director, John Mahoney's blog.
(updated frequently)
OML Legislative Bulletin
No. 6.............................................April 25, 2008
ENERGY BILL PASSES; SCRAP METAL THEFT BILL STILL A PROBLEM.
A logjam on a comprehensive energy bill was broken this week and SB 221 was passed by both Houses of the General Assembly and sent to the Governor. That means that the General Assembly will soon turn its attention to a Capital and Corrections budget in its efforts to adjourn by the end of May. The controversy between the House and Senate and the Governor’s office over the Great Lakes Compact also will continue to grab much of the attention in the legislative process.
Many of the bills we are interested in will be in the mix of bills that get taken up in the swirl of activity we expect over the next five weeks. One bill in particular is SB 171, a bill originally meant to establish a partnership between state and local government to fight the rising theft of metals from homes and many businesses. As introduced, the bill would increase the state’s monitoring and policing of efforts to sell metals such as copper. That proposal would have given us a system of enforcement that would have augmented the good ordinances and enforcement we have in place to fight this crime in our municipalities. It was a bill we strongly supported.
However, an amendment was added in the Senate that would undermine the ability of municipalities and local police to regulate more stringently the commercial transactions of these often stolen metals. An attempt to remove that Anti-Home Rule provision of the bill was laid on the table on the floor of the Senate (and therefore defeated) by a vote of 18-15.
The bill may move out of the House State Government and Elections Committee soon and the offensive Anti-Home Rule provision is still in, what otherwise, would be a good bill.
We ask you to contact your member(s) of the House to oppose SB 171 unless municipalities around the state are clearly allowed to give this issue the kind of attention it deserves in their community. Not all communities are the same. That’s why we have Home Rule. State regulatory systems for this crime should act as a base of regulation and as an aid to fighting this crime outside of municipal jurisdiction. Local law enforcement, in cooperation with local councils, should not have their hands tied in communities where the crime is most significant. We need, in SB 171, a bill that works with local law enforcement and municipal leaders to eradicate this crime that does serious damage to our neighborhoods and hurts many businesses.
It is also not too early to call or write Governor Strickland and ask that he veto any version of SB 171 that ties the hands of local government in our fight against “scrap metal” theft. The members of the House State Government and Elections Committee are listed below, as well as the address and phone number for contacting the Governor. While these are very important contacts, please, contact your members of the House on this very important issue, whether he or she is on the committee or not. Thanks for any help you can give us on this issue.
HOUSE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Republicans
Chair: David Daniels - District 86
Vice Chair: Cliff Hite - District 76
Jim Carmichael - District 03
Thom Collier - District 90
Kevin DeWine - District 70
Larry Flowers - District 19
Steve Reinhard - District 82
John Schneider - District 85
Democrats
Ranking Minority Member: Dan Stewart - District - District 25
Todd Book - District 89
Edna Brown - District 48
John Domenick - District 95
Matt Lundy - District 57
Michael Skindell - District 13
Vernon Sykes - District 44
Governor Ted Strickland, Riffe Center, 77 South High Street, 30th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-6117 Telephone Number 614/466-3555 or www.governor.ohio.gov
MANDATORY SICK LEAVE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
One of the measures we have not covered is HB 356, which is an initiated statute to provide seven annual sick leave days for many Ohioans. This labor-backed initiative is currently in the General Assembly. Under this process the General Assembly may consider the measure for four months. At the end of that period, the General Assembly can either pass a version of the bill that is acceptable to supporters of the measure or hand it back to the supporting group so that group can gather more signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.
It is expected that the General Assembly will simply hand the measure back to the supportive groups for the necessary signature gathering and, thus, there has not been a lot of activity surrounding this measure in the Statehouse.
What we would like to know from you is whether the adoption of such a measure would have any cost implications for your community.
Under provisions of the bill, all public and private employers, with 25 or more employees, would be required to provide all of their employees, annually, with seven days of sick leave. The leave could be used for the usual purposes: taking care of a sick child, doctor’s appointment, flu, more serious illnesses, etc. No sick leave would accrue to the employee until they were employed for 90 days. Employees entitled to the full seven days would be defined as those working 30 hours or more a week. For employees working less than 30 hours a week or less than 1560 hours a year, the requirement would be to grant those employees sick leave on a pro rata basis of the seven days for full-time employees. The usual rules about advanced notice when practical and a “doctor’s note” after more than three consecutive days of leave, etc. are included in the bill.
In the Legislative Services Commission (LSC) analysis, it is noted, in a footnote, that the measure, because of Home Rule, may not affect municipalities, at their option.
However, should this measure possibly affect your city or village, we were unclear about whether there would be much cost impact. Given collective bargaining in our cities and larger villages, we think that the seven day threshold is mostly below the norm for this benefit with almost all of these members. We also know that we have hundreds of villages who may or may not have this benefit, but certainly don’t have 25 employees. We could think of some part-time employees (lifeguards, park or golf course workers), across the spectrum of our membership, who might not be in a bargaining unit and might qualify for some new sick leave on a pro rata basis. But, we could not come up with any large cost increases that might stem from the passage of such a measure, but we wanted to check with you on that point.
This is not gathering information for the League to be for or against this measure. Any discussion of that should come, should our Board of Trustees decide to discuss this measure, in the future, when we know whether this measure will be on the ballot or not. Right now, we’re just double-checking with you to see if such a measure has any significant impact on your community. We’re also not asking for any computer runs or anything like that. Just looking for instances or examples of how this bill, if it successfully passes in the General Assembly or on the ballot, might change the benefits of any of your employees.
Any help you can give us on this would, as always, be greatly appreciated.
This weeks Legislative Committee Schedule
