Amendment to protect gay state workers not in House-approved bill

The Kansas House refused Tuesday to debate whether to restore a protection for gay state workers that Gov. Sam Brownback removed earlier this year.

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, offered an amendment to restore the protection on the House floor as the chamber debated HB 2391.

That bill would give state agencies more flexibility to change whether positions fall under the state’s civil service protections. Classified state workers, who fall under the Civil Service Act, can be fired only for cause. Unclassified employees can be fired for any reason, as can private-sector workers.

Supporters of the change – pushed by the Brownback administration – say that moving positions outside the civil service system gives agencies greater flexibility to offer employees merit-based raises.

The bill gained initial approval on a 71-53 vote.

Carmichael had sought to restore a protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender state workers established by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in 2007 with an executive order. It prevented workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Brownback rescinded that protection in February with an executive order. He said Sebelius had erred in acting unilaterally and that the issue should be settled by the Legislature. He affirmed protections against discrimination based on race, religion, age or gender with another executive order.

Carmichael’s amendment would have assured that LGBT state workers could not be fired or discriminated against whether they were classified or unclassified.

Rep. Erin Davis, R-Olathe, who carried the underlying bill, challenged whether the amendment was germane.

The House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. John Barker, R-Abilene, ruled that it was not. Barker said that if an employee brought an anti-discrimination suit, the case would not hinge on the employee’s classification status. He called Carmichael’s amendment a “broad jump.”

Carmichael challenged the ruling, contending that the germaneness rule is meant to be interpreted broadly in order to allow debate. But the House as a whole upheld it by a vote of 81-42, ensuring that the amendment would stay off the bill without an official vote or debate.

“It just wasn’t the right fit,” House Majority Leader Jene Vickrey, R-Louisburg, said. “There wasn’t anyone trying to avoid debate. It wasn’t the right vehicle.”

Carmichael offered a bill earlier in the session that would have addressed workplace discrimination in the public and private sectors. It was tabled by House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, whose office has repeatedly rebuffed requests to explain why it was tabled.

“I have a little doubt that there are a number of members who do not wish to address this issue on the merits,” Carmichael said after the debate. “That doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be addressed. It just means there’s some folks who want to avoid taking what could be a difficult vote.”

The overall bill received strong opposition from the Kansas Organization of State Employees, the union for state workers. During the debate, the union commented on its official Twitter account: “Unclassifying state employees means those employees can be fired for their political views and affiliations.”

Davis repeatedly emphasized that transferring to an unclassified position would be voluntary for current state employees. Each agency would have the flexibility to make an open position classified or unclassified. Current employees who are being promoted or transferred could be required to change to unclassified status.

Carmichael questioned whether the choice is really optional for current employees.

“There is nothing voluntary about when you want a promotion or when you want a raise being required to sign away your civil service protections,” he said.

Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, who chairs the Commerce Committee, which worked on the bill, said that fears about it were misguided.

“The Board of Regents has been unclassified for a long time, and the sky has not fallen,” he said. “It’s not mean-spirited. It’s not union-busting. It’s about giving our agencies a tool.”

This story was originally published March 24, 2015 at 12:36 PM with the headline "Amendment to protect gay state workers not in House-approved bill."