|
|
|
Social Services Consortium Members,
HB 1087, Clarify Definition of a Social Worker, was heard in the House today.
Representative Bill Culpepper introduced the bill. He noted that he, like
many of the members, had probably received a lot of e-mails about the bill.
He went on to say that “a whole lot of misinformation is being given
to you in these e-mails”. He said that, “this bill isn’t
going to put anyone out of a job”, nor was it true that “eventually
counties would have to replace all their workers with MSWs and BSWs.”
He noted that some of the e-mails from the DSS Directors Association provided
this misinformation. He said that it made sense that if we were going to authorize
22 schools in NC to provide a BSW and/or MSW then they should have a right
to the title, whereas now, anyone education can call themselves a social worker.
He then made a call for “Previous Question” which in the rules
basically means that you are calling for a vote to end any debate or amendments
to the bill and go directly to a vote, up or down, on the bill with no further
discussion. When this is used by someone introducing the bill prior to any
debate being heard, it is a tactic to shut down any discussion to weaken the
possibility of opposition. There was an audible grumble on the floor when
this happened as I have been made aware that several members wanted to speak
about the bill. The vote for previous question was 68 yes and 39 no, meaning
the majority agreed to go straight to an up or down vote. The vote that followed
was in favor of passing the bill in second reading 80 yes and 29 no. A third
reading will be held on the bill on Tuesday. If it passes third reading, the
bill will be sent to the Senate to consider.
There is still time to talk with your legislator prior to the third reading
next week. If you have sent an e-mail but have not had a chance to speak with
them personally or by phone, please make the effort. For those of you who
are suffering from the thought that this could pass the House on Tuesday,
please remember that it still must go through the Senate and this is far from
being placed into law. Also, it would be good to go ahead and start letting
your Senate members know of your concerns about the bill. Remember to keep
your message focused on the concerns you have about what the bill could/would
do within social services and not about the organization (NASW) who is supporting
the bill. The issue for legislators is about the impact of the bill on workers/clients,
not about how our organizations have been working behind the scenes.
I will provide you an update on the Tuesday vote and as soon as I can get
the names of the members who voted against the bill today (after the House
Session ends today) I will send it out so you can let them know you appreciate
their support.
Thanks,
Karen
