House Aging Children and Youth Legislative & Military Affairs
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Chair
Unverified
0:00
that representative hammer might be presenting to us today make sure you sign in okay yeah this is back there on the table there with that said representative hammer you are recognized to present house bill 1517 thank you mr. chair mr. committee let
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
0:15
me say first of all having served on this committee my last term it's good to be back before you and it is a great committee does a lot of good things and I hope that after presenting these bills today you would agree with me that these are all good bills that deserve a due pass.
Mr. Chair, may I have a little liberty to speak about 17, 18, and 19 collectively as a group, and then I'll narrow in on 17?
Chair
Unverified
0:39
Yes, you may do that, but we will vote on separately. Yes, sir. You may just go ahead and do them as
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
0:46
a package deal if you would like. Thank you. The reason I want to speak to 17, 18, and 19 is because they all three serve to the same intent, and that is to give greater transparency to our veterans who have applied for positions in various levels, one of those being the school system, the other one being
state agency, and then the other one being just to the general public in large. The reason I broke them into three separate bills is to make sure that there's some continuity, but also because they address different things in different areas, but I wanted to speak to the fact that they all three serve to the same intent. With that being said, regarding House Bill 1517, this is an act or would be an act to extend veteran's preference in hiring in school districts. Mainly the concept behind the bill is this, that if a veteran applies
for a position with a school district and they should not be given the job, they would at least have the right to be given documentation and shown in verifiable proof why they were not selected, and also to know the score of the individual who beat them out for the job. A lot of these positions that veterans apply for, they are ranked on a scoring system. This is not releasing anybody else's information to them. It would just allow them to know that if they scored an 85 and the individual that was hired
for the position scored a 90, they would have the benefit of that information, but predominantly It requires those who do not hire the veterans to provide information to them as to the reason why, and
Chair
Unverified
2:24
I'll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Representative Hemmer, I do have one in, where was it? Okay, on page one, line 33 and 34, the wording was added of application for employment and remains unmarried until the decision to hire is made. Could you explain why they would have to remain unmarried?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:45
This is, in fact, if I may go back
to line 32, I think it kind of helps clarify it a little bit. Let me read it in its context. The surviving spouse of a deceased veteran who is unmarried at the time of the application for employment remains unmarried until the decision to hire is made. The position is that if you are married to a veteran and you are applying for a position that you would be granted status under this law up until the time you remarried someone other than the veteran
that you were married to for this position. So that's why it separates it. Once you get married, you come out from underneath the criteria of this law. Okay. Hopefully that won't
Chair
Unverified
3:28
affect anybody's marriage date. We hope not. Okay. Representative Alexander, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support veterans, and I'd like
to do everything I can to help them in this area, but I have a little bit of a concern with this. In my career, I've probably been involved in hundreds of hiring decisions,
either direct responsibility or participating with a group. And, you know, there are situations where, based on a simple point total, applicants may appear to be equally qualified or more qualified but in reality based on what you learned through the interview it's just simply not the case. I'll give you one example we advertised for a chief financial
officer that reported to me in my department we received two applications one of them had a master's degree the other one did not but after talking with the two and interview them everybody unanimously agreed that the one that didn't have the master's degree was a far superior candidate you know if we had been working strictly out of a point system the other candidate
might have won the most points but clearly not been the most qualified so I'm curious how how this bill would avoid putting hiring agencies in that kind of a position. Great
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
5:10
question, and with regards to the points system, that was
in my opening comments about the overall three bills. It's not necessarily to the bill that I'm speaking to here, but on page two, line three, I think it might settle your ease a little bit.
It says, meets substantially equal qualifications of other applicants. This legislation is intended to make sure that the veteran has access to the information should they not be chosen for the position. It doesn't dictate the hiring process. It doesn't dictate the terms to the issue that you're talking about. It simply allows for the fact that if a veteran has been turned down for a job,
that they are provided ample evidence as to why they were not selected, and I think line three addresses that, meets substantially your qualifications of other applicants. It explains to them why they weren't picked as compared to another
applicant. A follow-up. I think that helps, but substantially equal qualifications can be in the eye of the beholder. I don't have any problem at all with the veteran getting feedback.
on how they did in the interview, why another candidate might be selected. My concern is sharing a point total that could be used as evidence of unfair treatment when in fact that was not the case. You know, if you decide to hire somebody who scored 85 points and not somebody who scored 88, That could be a very difficult thing to explain to the satisfaction of the person who wasn't
Chair
Unverified
7:04
hired. Any other questions or comments? Representative Payton, you're
Speaker 18
7:14
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hammer, I really appreciate your concern for the veterans. I have several veterans in my family and some that are still active and serving and lost a really good friend, but out of all my experience and the people I know that are veterans, very few of them seek special privilege. They're very happy to come back and join society,
and matter of fact, the ones I know might be insulted by this. So my question to you is, should all applicants have access to this information or just veterans? Are we trying to single them out for a special privilege here, or should all applicants have access to this information? And then concerning the other two bills, I'm curious if you have a reason why all three
Speaker 19
8:04
were not engrossed into one bill. Partly because, as I mentioned
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
8:10
in the opening comments, one deals with the state agencies, one deals with the schools,
and then one deals with the overall. To the question of special treatment for veterans, again, as I stated, this is intended to allow veterans to know why they weren't hired and to give them that transparency. In fact, there is a federal law that, you know, requires a certain amount of veteran preference, and this is patterned and taken into that. It is not intended, you know, it's an option whether a veteran wants to exercise to know why they did or they did not get hired.
But this stems from the result of a constituent who's come to me, an individual who's come to me, and has repeatedly asked for, you know, has applied for position and has consistently had difficulty getting information back as to why he was not hired. And he was very well qualified for the, you know, for the position. But there was difficulty in information being given to him. And, again, part of what this bill is intended to do is provide that information. It's not to necessarily dictate whether somebody should hire a veteran or should not hire a veteran,
but it is designed to at least, if a veteran is not hired, them be given greater access to the reasoning why. Go
Speaker 19
9:25
ahead. If I can follow up then, the other applicants are not privy to that information, just the veterans would be? Just the veterans would be,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
9:32
and the only thing that the veterans would be able to know about anybody else that applied was if there was a scoring system that was used, and that's if. It's not saying there is a scoring system that is used, but if there was a scoring system that was used, that they would be able to know the score of the other individual.
And it's mainly about accountability to give our veterans the coverage that they need. Okay. Representative
Chair
Unverified
9:58
Feit, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
10:03
you, Mr. Hammer, for your work on behalf of the veterans. I really appreciate that. I was wondering how much of a burden this would be to school districts to do this reporting do you have any idea how much time would be involved or if they would need to collect data that would not be readily available or if this would
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
10:23
be a fairly simple procedure I believe it'll be a fairly simple procedure because LRA have the documentation it's just a matter of copying it and sending it to the veteran so I do not anticipate that would require any school districts to hire any additional personnel, it would be just a matter of providing the information. And that's really what this is all about. We just want the veterans to be able to be provided that information and reinforce the fact that because there are federal laws that dictate to that, this helps strengthen that purpose of getting the veterans the information if they're not hired.
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
10:55
May I ask a follow-up? Yes, you may. Okay. Is my understanding correct? This is already law for most agencies. This is just adding school districts to the list? On this particular
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
11:07
bill, this would add school districts to the list. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Representative Dickinson,
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may have already answered my question, and I too thank you.
I don't think that we can ever do enough for our veterans. I just, no matter how hard we work, I just don't believe we can ever do enough to show our appreciation and going back to the scoring I think you might have answered when you said if they use a scoring system but I was wondering if they use a scoring system is is there something in that that would is it just based on a like a written test or are there ways to take into consideration
personality traits or levels of experience or other things that could be given points, but not necessarily as a written test. I believe there are multiple factors that are
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
12:17
involved in the hiring process based on who's doing the hiring. A scoring system may be one of those. You know, obviously degrees, experience, you know, things that any of us would look for in hiring a veteran. This
bill is not intended to get in the business of how individuals go about determining to hire that veteran as much as it is about making sure that if that veteran is not hired, there is a requirement for them to send to the veteran why they weren't hired based on
what their requirements for hiring are.
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
13:00
Thank you. Representative Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mirror what Representative Dickinson said, we do owe every veteran.
Well, we owe them everything. My concern is, though, Representative Hammer, the veterans who are going to apply for jobs, this is tough. They want jobs. They want to work. But they're also, for whatever reason, it's tough for many of them to get a job. And I just want this bill to do something to not harm their self-esteem anymore. I want them to be proud that they can go and get a job.
And to say scoring, my gosh, they've already scored 100%. They've gone and served our country. And I just would not want to do anything that would make them feel like they were not 100% every day all the time. May I respond to that? Please do. Okay. These bills are
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:07
coming before you because I have an individual who I've been working with for the last year and a half
that has been out trying to get a job in multiple locations and is a veteran. he has been denied multiple times and his biggest source of frustration is that he is not getting information to the level that he feels he should get it in order to understand why he is not getting the job that is more detrimental to the emotional status of a veteran than just being told no you didn't get it so i understand what you're saying and i agree with what you're saying 100 percent and that is what the intent of this bill is intended to do is that if a veteran is not hired
they ought to at least know and they ought to at least be given the documentation to show why they weren't hired because the only thing worse than not getting hired is not knowing why you didn't get hired. And that happens in the real world where there is no preference given to somebody. So I agree, and, again, the intent of this bill is to give them access to that information so they can know why, mainly because maybe they need to work on an improvement in skill in their life or to know whether or not they were discriminated against. Did you have a follow-up?
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
15:16
Yes, please, if I may. Thank you. So you're saying this bill would serve as a tool then to help them get jobs? It would serve as a tool,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
15:25
I think, to help them be given equal consideration for jobs or greater, but at least to know why didn't I get the job and require the ones who did not give them the job to provide that information so they would know. Thank you. I like your bill. Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 31
15:41
All right. Representative Bain, you're recognized. Thank you, Representative Hammer.
Representative John Baine
Unverified
15:46
Mr. Chairman, I was trying to ascertain when you say the letter
to explain why they were not hired, what kind of information would you be expecting to be included in that? Would that include any personal information on the one that was hired versus the veteran that wasn't hired? How
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:03
do you envision that response? No, it is not an intrusion on the person. I mean, that obviously would be not very productive. I used the illustration a while ago that if there is a, for example, if there is a scoring system, you know, upon which a person is hired,
because under some of the veterans' preference laws, they are given additional points for being a veteran. So I'm using that as an illustration that if you, you know, if a veteran scores an 80, They would have the right to know if the person who was hired scored a 90 and proof of that being provided. No getting information about the other applicant or anything other than just what was the score that beat me. Did I get beat by two or did I get beat by five?
Speaker 18
16:51
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Representative Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hammer, as elected officials, you know, it's pretty tough for us to say anything negative. We love our veterans, there's no doubt about it, but as we've had this discussion, a couple more questions came to my mind. Number one, we've discussed the schools a lot here, but if I read your bill correctly, it says all state agencies, right?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:17
There is overlap between the bills. This one is predominantly dealing with the schools because I believe previously they
weren't dealt with, so yes, there's a little bit of overlap
Speaker 47
17:27
between them. Okay, I'm looking at House Bill 1517, Section C. It says a state
Speaker 18
17:32
agency or institute of higher education. So that seems to me it would apply to all state agencies. It would. Of course, higher institution, higher learning, there
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:41
is some overlapping there. I think as far as are they state agencies, this kind of a catch-all covers them all. Okay. And if I may have a follow-up. Go ahead.
Speaker 18
17:54
Thank you. I grew up in a family business. I was the boss's son. The workplace is a tricky environment and, you know, you have a lot of people that need to get along and when they think somebody is getting preferential treatment, it can create a negative environment for that individual. So do you have any concerns that your bill would affect other veterans who were hired without preference and negatively to where people in the workplace or the veteran themselves may feel like they're only there because they're a veteran?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:29
Well, first of all, I'd say there are federal laws that are already established, you know, regardless of what we say or do, whether this bill flies or dies. You know, there are federal laws out there already that give veterans preference in hiring. So, you know, we can debate that, I guess, all day long. As far as, again, what this bill is intended to do, it's not necessarily so much to give a veteran preference, although it does do that, as much as it is to give them accountability
and the one who's hiring accountability to provide that information for why they weren't hired. So I hope that answers
your question. Okay, Representative Alexander, you're recognized. I think I agree completely with your basic point, which I understand is that they should get feedback about why they weren't selected, maybe their performance in the interview, something constructive, excuse me,
that they can take and learn and improve for the next job application they have. But I'm uncomfortable, and as I've looked ahead to the other bills that actually add points to the score that they received on the test. I understand the intent, and I support that, but I think this opens up a can of worms. And I guess my encouragement would be to come back with a bill
that requires anyone who applies for a state job or jobs that fall under that umbrella should be entitled to that same information if they request it. So I'd be very comfortable with a bill like that. I'm sorry, but I'm not with this one. May I respond, Mr. Chair? You may, yes. I'm on a lap over to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:30
Bill 1518 because the points of system has come up. May I do that, Mr. Chair?
Yes, you may. Okay. On page 2 of Bill
1518, and actually it's in the other two bills, when it talks about
the point system. My bills don't touch the point system. That's already in statute. That's already in law. That's not the intent of any of these bills to go in and change the point system. I probably regret I even mentioned it because that seems to become the focus of a lot of conversation. But in reality, these bills don't touch the point system. Those are already in law, and these bills will not change those point systems. That would have to be a totally separate issue, totally separate matter. So the only thing I would ask is don't lose sight of the intent of this bill, which is to give information to veterans who are not hired, which I think is a reasonable request, and does nothing with changing or adding points to the existing system that's already in law.
Chair
Unverified
21:54
MR. Right. And again, I just want to, I guess, bring clarity to this. State agencies and institutes of higher education already have to do or
give some kind of documentation currently as to why a veteran was not hired.
Speaker 31
22:14
Is that correct? MR. I'm not sure. I'm under
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:20
the impression that some do and some don't.
And, again, that's the intent of this law is to make sure that they all do and that there's a higher level of accountability on the part of the schools and the state agencies and the general public
Speaker 9
22:38
that they are required to a higher level to provide that information. Right, because,
Chair
Unverified
22:42
I mean, on page 1, line 23, before we changed and added stuff or whatever, It would have read in every department or agency of state government or institute of higher education with employees positions subject to the Uniform Classification and Compensation Act or whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then you go down.
So it would seem to me that that is already being done, and I don't know if there is somebody from the audience that was with the state agency that can speak to that. Do we have anybody? I'm sorry, if you would come forward and maybe
help clarify some of that. I'd appreciate it. Just announce who you are and what your title is.
Nicole Hart
Unverified
23:29
Good morning. My name is Nicole Hart.
I'm currently the CEO of RVets, which is a veterans nonprofit here in the state. In my former role, I was the veterans and military liaison for the governor's office. The Veterans Preference Law, I think the clarity needs to be stated that the Veterans Preference Law is a law that was put in place for every agency to show some type of veteran preference in their hiring and interviewing practices. Currently the law does not state that they have to provide that to veterans.
They don't have to provide documentation. So this law, he's asking that they provide documentation, not why they weren't hired, but showing at what point in the process did they apply the veteran's preference law. So if they were, if they went for the position, so say this gentleman he's talking about, if he went for the position and he was unqualified and he was able to receive an interview, they applied the veteran's preference law for that reason. They allowed him to get an interview, although he didn't meet the minimum qualifications,
And that's, they're showing that they apply veteran's preference. The point system, I think the state in the past has said because a lot of state agencies don't utilize the point system, there was some, there wasn't clarity on how an agency can show veteran's preference and that part is unclear because it would be left at the discretion of the agency or the employer to show that. So I think the clarity would be in creating a law that defines how that person needs to
show veterans preference, if that's clear. And you guys can ask me questions. Okay. Representative Harris, you're
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
25:19
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I came in late, so I don't want to rehash some things, but here's my question for you. We were just giving – I mean, we passed the law, so we're just giving more teeth to that law, because the purpose of the law was to give our veterans who have fought for us and were willing to die for our country, just a little more opportunity, because when they come back, often they're overlooked for these jobs, and that's all we were trying to do,
so these bills are just kind of giving them, instead of these agencies overlooking them, even though we passed the law, this is kind of giving more teeth to make them more accountable. Is
Nicole Hart
Unverified
25:56
that correct? Yes. I would allow Mr. Representative Hammer to speak about the intent of this bill, but I know for the federal law and other states, when they created the law, there are very specific guidelines about how they need to show they applied veterans preference. So the veterans preference law is pertaining to them showing that they applied the veterans
preference. If you don't have a point system, then you still need to show to that veteran how you applied a veterans preference at any point during the hiring or interviewing process. I gave the example of if somebody didn't meet the minimum qualifications to even be interviewed, someone may use that, allow them to be interviewed, and if they didn't get the job and they request how did you apply veteran's preference, then that employer can say you'd show how they didn't meet the minimum qualifications but they applied the veteran's preference law and
Chair
Unverified
26:47
allowed them to interview. Thank you.
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
26:52
Okay. Representative Ferguson, you recognized? I'm just trying to understand kind of how the point system works. If you could explain that a little better and how widespread is that across the systems in terms of schools and state agencies already? How much do they utilize it
Nicole Hart
Unverified
27:09
and exactly respectfully? Because, Representative, it varies so much that there are a lot of people that don't use the point systems in their hiring practices, and because for some it's in they fear an
HR violation in that process. But even if you didn't have the point system, there's a way for everybody, and there's been support shown on the federal level and in other states, that there's a way that you can show how you apply veterans' preference. It's just people taking the extra effort to make the intent to do so. I
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
27:41
guess my question would be sort of like Representative Alexander. Are they always required to hire the person with the most points, or do you have some discretion?
Nicole Hart
Unverified
27:52
They, to my knowledge, they typically have some discretion. It's not, even in the point system, I'm trying to give you guys an example. If somebody had the point system and they got 10 points for professional skill and they got 10 points for experience, they got 10 points for, I'm trying to think of what I would hire somebody for, they got 10 points for targeted
resume so their resume was very specific to the job or education, educational background and the person in the education background didn't have a bachelor's degree and the minimum requirement was a bachelor's degree. They may then provide them that points for that section, but that still doesn't qualify them to get the job. It just shows that there were extra points given in that particular section. They applied the Veterans Preference Law when they didn't meet that qualification.
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
28:56
I guess my concern is if there's no uniformity in the point system or in the hiring systems, that this law could be pretty difficult to apply. This is my personal opinion as a combat veteran
Nicole Hart
Unverified
29:12
and working in the realm that I work in, I've heard several veterans who have had this complaint. And their complaint is not so much that they weren't hired, the complaint is that there's no answer or response as to how they were shown veterans preference.
So the law states that you have to show them veterans preference and they're not, nobody provides them with feedback of how they were shown that. So I think that is where the confusion ceases because it's up to the employer to determine how they show that person veteran's preference, but they have to show them. The law already states that they have to show them the employer is just responsible for giving that veteran the feedback of how they show them the veteran's preference. Representative Hammer, go ahead.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:00
Thank you. In response to your comment, Representative Ferguson, I don't want this bill, these bills are not intended to get into the business of dictating the procedures by which somebody hires or does not hire, that is their responsibility to account for, even as a state agency or as a school or as a private citizen. We don't want to get meddling into their business to do that. But whatever decision they make as far as however they determine who they hire, especially
when it involves a veteran walking in, I do think the veterans, as was stated, have the right to know where in the process and for what reason they were not hired it's up to the individual agency it's up to individual school system it's up to the individual employer to develop their own criteria as long as they obey the law already written all I'm asking for is that the veterans know why as was so
eloquently expressed by my new best friend why it was you know they were not they were not hired I think that's just reasonable
Chair
Unverified
31:12
and fair all right okay we got representative fight first so your motion is proper time
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
31:20
a representative Gossage you're recognized representative of course I've worked at a school district and gone through countless hiring processes and is often very often extremely close call about who ends up getting hired you argue you go
around the room many times and in total disagreement between two or three administrators and perhaps you have a committee a lot of school districts have teams of teachers and administrators who hire staff and they make judgments based on the whole range of possibilities sometimes gut instinct to be honest with you and sometimes it's based on just you know more objective criteria but you know you have all kinds of people who make all kinds of
decisions about hiring and quite frankly sometimes it would be hard to collect or to, at the end of the day, say why a person didn't get the job because it would have been a team making the decision as opposed to a single individual. That's where it would be. Although we could show, you know, we agreed to do the interview, they were given some preference along those lines,
but it would be very difficult to objectively. How would you ask us to handle a situation where a team of folks have been involved in the hiring process? Okay,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:52
I think, let's see if this will answer your question and ease your concerns. The law simply states that they have to show where they applied veterans' preference. It doesn't say that they have to, and that is part of the problem. The veterans are not being shown where, at what point, the veteran's preference was applied.
And we can either continue to go along the way we are right now and choose to ignore that they are not doing that, or we can implement some legislation such as this that would show them and bring to the veteran where they applied the veteran's preference in the hiring application. So it doesn't interfere with the hiring process. It just brings accountability as to what's expected in the law that currently is not being done.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
33:46
Go ahead. That would be great then. I totally agree with that process. I just thought I
understood you said they would be explained why they didn't get hired. That's a different story because, again, sometimes it's a very complicated decision, and it's just a gut level, and it can end up being a 3-2
vote. I mean, so that would be harder to explain. Okay. And I apologize if I
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:09
confused you. May she? Yes, go ahead.
Chair
Unverified
34:16
All right, Mr. Chair. Sorry, confusion. Okay. I do not see anyone with any further questions, so at this time we're going to go into the for and against. Is there anybody here that wanted to speak for the bill? Against the bill? Seeing that Miss Hart did you want to add anything to it on speaking for the
Speaker 31
34:42
bill or Okay representative hammer you recognize the clothes for your building. Thank you again I know there's been
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:47
discussion about a lot of things and this is great discussion
But please just focus on what it's intended to do and that is to show the veterans and to give them The proper documentation that they should be getting already, but they're not where it is that the veterans' preference laws in place already were applied as it relates to their hiring or not being hired for that position. That's what it's intended to do, what it's written to do, and I'd appreciate a good vote. All right. With that said, Representative
Chair
Unverified
35:19
Fite, you recognized for your motion.
I make the motion to do pass. Motion has been made. Do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Aye. Chair rules that the bill passes. Thank you, Representative Hammer. You are recognized, if we think we can do it in the next 20 minutes, you are recognized to present House Bill 1518.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:53
Again, as made in the opening comment, the bill is intended to do the same thing, except for in this case. Did you say
Speaker 31
36:08
1518, Mr. Chair? That would be the next one on the list. Do you want us to pass over that one and go to 1519? Can you give me just
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
36:20
one second, please? Yes. Okay. Yes. Sorry. On 15-18, it is the same thing.
This basically applies to outside of the sector of state agencies or schools. Actually, it does, if I may draw a line to attention, 27 to establish a list of qualified candidates to be interviewed for a position at a state agency or institution in higher education. This bill fills in the gap to where the bill on 15-17 did not, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. Again, it's intended to do the same thing that the other one did,
and that is just provide information where the veteran, where the information for the veteran. Okay, and it
Chair
Unverified
37:05
looks like basically page one going into page two,
it says if a veteran is not selected for a position, It says, based on a numerical score at the veteran's request, the selection authority. So this would only apply if the veteran actually requested it. Is that correct? Correct.
And this would be only for those positions that's based on a numerical score? I believe that's correct, sir. Okay. Does the committee have any questions? Anyone else
on the committee have a question? Representative Alexander you're recognized. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Which particular group is this bill covering? This
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:59
group is intended and part of the
process is that the bills all refer to the state agencies, the public education, but then it also applies to the general public. This bill is designed specifically to apply to the general public, but it also mentions the state agencies and the education. Does that answer your question? Yes. Can
You may. I do understand that the language in here that gives five points or ten points
to a veteran is federal language I believe I understand that correctly and not state but I still cannot support a bill with that in it I've been in these hiring groups I understand that you don't have to specifically go by the points but I also know out in the real world you encounter a lot of situations where people don't understand that
and they do go by the points they're told by affirmative action on the case of a university campus that they must go by the points I understand they may be told that incorrectly but it happens and I understand the intent but in some cases the way this actually plays out it has unintended consequences that I think are detrimental you know you mentioned
earlier a veteran who may not have the minimum qualifications but with five more points he gets high enough to do that in my opinion that's wasting everyone's time and money if they don't have the minimum qualifications I suspect they're not going to be hired if there are other applicants who have the minimum qualifications, and yet we're going to bring them into an interview.
I just don't like the concept. I think it creates more problems than it solves, and I cannot support a
bill that includes this language. All right. Representative Harris, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
40:29
you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question, is it federal law that the general public has to be included
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:38
in this bill? It's federal law that regardless of whatever position a veteran is applying for, that veteran preference has to be shown.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
40:47
That's federal law. Okay. Can she answer? She shook her head no, so I'd like to. I'm sorry, would you ask him? She shook her head
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:01
no, so do you. Were you asking is it only for the federal
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
41:05
government or do we as a state require that? No, like I'm a – as a private business owner, because you put general public – you've made in your statement that general public has to abide by that. Are you talking about private businesses? Because you added that – let's say like a private institution, higher education.
Are you adding that to this bill? or a private
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
41:34
company. I will have to look at it closer, and I'm going to ask the chair permission for something, if I may. Go ahead. We're at 15 till, and we go into session at 10. Instead of us staying here and getting to a point of quitting, I'd rather quit now, if that's right, pull this bill down and come back next week where we can finish what we started, if that's all right, with the chair and the committee.
Chair
Unverified
41:56
The chair will go ahead and recognize that. We'll go ahead and pause at this point. And you can go ahead and, you know, look over the bill and, you know, help to answer some of the questions that some of the committee members have and so that we can have a better discussion on it. That would be fine. That would be great. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 37
42:14
Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. At this point, then, Mr.
Chair
Unverified
42:20
Vice Chair, anything? Okay. At this point, committee is adjourned.
Agenda
HB1517
HB1518
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Randy Alexander Chair
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 19
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Representative Jody Dickinson Chair
Unverified
Representative Sue Scott
Unverified
Speaker 31
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Speaker 47
Speaker 9
Nicole Hart
Unverified
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 37