Yesterday, a terrible public records/policing provision was snuck into HB 315, the final bill passed by Ohio legislators before this legislative session ended. Because it was snuck in, that means there were zero hearings, testimony, etc. against it or about this. 1/7
This language allows (but does not require) Ohio law enforcement to charge people up to $75/hr, and up to $750 total, for the retrieval, redacting, uploading, producing, etc. of video records. Of course, this includes body cam & dash cam videos. 2/7
So, imagine a controversial police shooting. Advocates, news media & others are interested in what a police body cam(s) or dash cam(s) reveal about the situation & what may have led to the shooting. But first, they may be required to first pay hundreds of dollars. 3/7
Now imagine there were multiple officers on the scene i.e. multiple cameras, multiple videos. That means even more money a requestor will have to pay, perhaps up front, before getting access to "public" records. This is a terrible blow for govt transparency & accountability. 4/7
This will be cost prohibitive for many local, grassroots (& other) orgs who work on policing issues. Of course, that is the whole point of this language. Naturally, this also applies to family members of those shot and/or killed who want copies of these videos to learn more. 5/7
If there is any area/aspect of govt authority most deserving of transparency, it is policing. Govt should not have the authority to shoot, injure, kill, etc. us then hide behind cynical laws making these incidents far more secret than they already were before yesterday. 6/7
Again, this happened with zero notice. No legislative hearings. No testimony. That is 100% on purpose. The legislator(s) ultimately responsible for this addition to HB 315 remain unknown outside the Statehouse. What we do know is they hate the public's right to know. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday, the Ohio Senate GOP introduced SR 339, a toxic resolution mixing xenophobia with terrible public policy. It encourages the fed govt to exclude non-US citizens from the census count. This presents numerous problems, all easy to forecast. 1/10
One of the most obvious is it totally erases people here 100% legally who are not citizens or not yet citizens. All kinds of people come to Ohio for jobs & education, among other reasons. But SR 339 sends a clear message - go home, you are not wanted here. 2/10
Never mind that our universities are continually recruiting the best & brightest around the world to get an education & hopefully stay in Ohio. Or the number of people with work visas employed at our hospitals, colleges, in tech jobs, engineering, manufacturing, etc. 3/10
Earlier today, the Ohio Senate unveiled its gutting of Issue 2 (marijuana). They plan on voting it out of committee & the full Senate this week. Here is more info about what happened today & how you can make your voice heard (even when they do not want to hear from you). 1/11
Before today, HB 86 was a bill about liquor laws. The Senate is using it as the vehicle for Issue 2 changes. HB 86 is currently before the Senate General Govt Committee, chaired by Sen. Rulli(R). The changes are extensive, torching Issue 2 in a variety of ways. 2/11
Among the changes:
* ALL the social equity provisions to ensure those with past arrests & convictions are not left behind = gone.
* Home growing = nope. Screw the voters.
* Only 1 oz permitted for personal possession.
* Dispensaries must sell medical AND recreational. 3/11
More info & thoughts about how HB 33, the budget bill, torches Ohio's public records laws to avoid government scrutiny & accountability: 1/14 dispatch.com/story/news/pol…
Proposed by Gov. DeWine & left untouched by the House & Senate versions of the budget bill (HB 33), is language that radically expands exemptions to Ohio's public records laws.
It impacts all, regardless of politics or ideology. 2/14
Under current state law (ORC 149.43), records, data, communications, etc. at all levels of government are presumed open. Meaning they are available to you, me & everyone else. Of course, there is an ever increasing list of exemptions. (Not all are bad, to be fair). 3/14
This is a good list but SB 83 would also do radically more to campuses, students, and administration. The bill is being sold as protecting speech & intellectual diversity. The reality is quite different. SB 83's sweep is quite astounding.
1/25(!) dispatch.com/story/news/pol…
SB 83 utilizes broad language framed as providing equality to students & preventing discrimination. It mandates colleges "not treat, advantage, disadvantage, or segregate" students, staff or faculty by "membership in groups" defined by various "characteristics."
2/25
What characteristics? SB 83 says those "such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression." SB 83 goes on to say this applies to admissions, employment, etc. & forbids colleges from funding, facilitating, etc. any of this.
3/25
4 reasons why improving the initiated statute process while weakening the citizen-led ballot initiative process is unacceptable =
1/5
1) Trust. Or lack thereof. With an initiated statute, the OGA can & will change what they do not like because the process changes state law, not the Constitution. This thwarts purposes of whatever campaign/effort is in play.
2/5
2) Trust, again. See what happened with gerrymandering. Clear language, overwhelmingly passed via the initiative process & all the Statehouse GOP has done is seize every chance to subvert it. And they should be trusted with initiated statutes?!?!
3/5
Last minute, Ohio lame duck shenanigans = It appears The Theocracy is hijacking HB 105, a bipartisan, non-controversial sex assault education in schools bill, to advance their radical anti-choice agenda.
1/9
A potential amendment is circulating to forbid basically anyone "connected in ANY way" with abortion from providing ANY type of sexual assault education to K-12 public school students. By design, this applies to hospitals, doctors, assault survivor advocates, etc. 2/9
The language is so incredibly broad, it includes a mother who privately advises her daughter on abortion even if those opinions never enter her work life. Not done there, this language also applies to both abortion & "abortion-related services" however that will be defined.
3/9