Explanation of my Longevity Vote

I’m sad to report we did not have the support required within the house to call a joint session to override the governor’s veto of the longevity bonus. I made a campaign promise to support the bonus, and I kept my promise. Keeping promises has a price, and I paid that price. Promises don’t mean much unless they’re hard to keep.

Keeping my promise required voting in opposition to my majority caucus’ position, in what the caucus defined as a “procedural vote.” The caucus believed the vote was “procedural” because ostensibly it was only to call for a joint session of the legislature – but I maintained it was a “substantive” vote (in which I was free to vote any way I wanted) because the only purpose for calling the joint session was to override the longevity bonus veto. I gave the example: If a = b, and b = c, then a = c. The caucus disagreed, and I voted consistent to my campaign promise. As a result I suffered sanctions from majority caucus, which I accepted.

One can argue the merits of the longevity bonus, or whether the bonus was “fair” or not, but loss of the bonus has caused unanticipated hardships to many older people and their families. The your support, or at least your understanding, of my vote is requested.

I have supported the governor in all but 2 votes: 1) The longevity bonus 2) doubling the campaign contribution limit to candidates from $500 to $1000. I think that speaks for itself.

Protecting Children JANUARY 2004

Report on bill that passed the House but got stuck in the senate
---------------------------------------------------------------------
HB 92 HELPS POTECT CHILDREN
AND THE FAITH COMMUNITY
By

BOB LYNN
Representative District 31

The Alaska House acted prudently last session to help protect children from sexual abuse by mandating clergy to report abuse by other clergy or other persons, with the passage of my House Bill 92. The bill now awaits action in the State Senate. Your help is requested.

HB92 is a good bill, but not a perfect solution to the problem it addresses. No bill is a perfect bill because legislators who draft, amend, and pass bills aren’t perfect. But if we wait for perfect bills nothing would ever pass the legislature, and my bill is no exception. The time has arrived for the legislators to act, and to leave perfection to God.

Some good people have expressed concern about potential “unintended consequences” if HB 92 becomes law. Concerns involve issues of church-state separation, this time from the clergy rather than the government. Some legislators have expressed concern my bill could make clergy a “branch of the DFYS.” Granted, the DFYS has less than a sterling historical record on appropriate and timely responses to child abuse issues. However teachers, doctors, nurses, and other professionals, already are mandated reporters child abuse – and clergy should be no exception. The question isn’t a matter of church-state separation; it’s a matter of separation of children from the very small number of sexual predators within the clergy and within congregations. The “unintended consequences” we need most to fear is a continuing free pass for clergy not to report crimes against children.

Spiritual counseling is an integral part of the clergy’s job description. Prayer and counseling is viewed by many clergy to be the first response (and among the more naïve perhaps the only response) to incidents of known or suspected sexual child abuse. I too believe in the power of prayer - I just believe the many benefits of prayer can be as well attained when the sinner is behind bars, and no longer a danger to children.

Some clergy worry some of the perverts in their congregation – or within their own ranks – would be reluctant to seek counseling if they knew their pastor was required to notify the police. That’s a valid concern, but begs the question. The issue isn’t who gets counseling, it’s who helps protect children.

Most churches in the Protestant community tend to be independent of each other. Most often clergy are selected by the membership, and receive secular marching orders from their congregation. In these situations, HB92 could require clergy to report their own misbehaviors and perversions (not likely). But my bill would help give pastors the legal backbone needed to report actual or suspected abuse within their congregation with less fear of reprisal from the church board that hires them - because they did what the law requires.

So far there’s been little opposition of HB92 from churches organized in a hierarchy, meaning a clear “chain of command.” In other words, churches in which clergy reports to supervisory clergy. This would include the Orthodox, and Episcopal churches, and my own Catholic Church. In fact, Alaska Catholic Church leadership, which has suffered most of the horrific headlines on this subject, has been very helpful in the drafting and support of my bill. Likewise, my HB92 has benefited from considerable support from my Democrat colleagues, because nothing unites good people of all political persuasions more than protecting children.

If we wait for a perfect bill to protect children from child abuse, many many children will continue to be abused without legal consequence, when it could have been prevented. If that were to happen, shame on any of us who demonstrated more caution than faith

Something precious is lost if parents become reluctant to send their children to church for fear of sexual abuse by clergy or someone in the congregation. In addition to helping safeguard children, HB92 will help protect the reputation of our churches as trustworthy institutions. Of all the issues facing Alaska, nothing is more critical than helping to protect children and the good name of our faith community. Please contact your senators and urge that HB92 go through the committee process, and be brought to the Senate floor for a vote, with all deliberate speed.


.