By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – A measure that would prohibit language related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in all state contracts going forward passed without public hearing by House Republicans in the Finance Committee who pushed for reconsideration of a vote to defeat it after a Democrat left the meeting at the end of a long day.
State Rep. Joe Sweeney, R-Salem offered an amendment to the budget which reads “DEI shall mean any program, policy training or initiative that classifies individuals based on race, sex, ethnicity or other group characteristics for the purpose of achieving demographic outcomes rather than treating individuals equally under the law.”
State Rep. Jess Edwards, R-Auburn, and Brian Seaworth, R-Epsom, originally voted with Democrats who were concerned that such a large change in policy on the last day of the House budget process was hasty, undermined the public’s confidence in the way decisions are made and could subject the state to lawsuits from those impacted.
The proposal first failed on a vote of 12-13 but at the end of the day, after state Rep. Karen Ebel, D-New London, had left, Edwards asked for reconsideration following a Republican caucus.
It then passed 14-10 with Seaworth also joining Edwards and the other Republicans.
Some like Rep. Mary Hakken-Phillips, D-Hanover, had concern for fiscal impact and liability with this being included in the budget noting it would put the state in a position of being sued for millions of dollars. She said that the disabled and veterans could be impacted by the language of “other group characteristics.”
It could disrupt federal funding and looks like a rushed job with no public hearing on this, she added.
Rep. Rosemarie Rung, D-Merrimack, said she found the words of Edwards to be pretty hypocritical when he was talking first about treating people with equal dignity and respect “and yet he moves to reconsider a vote taken today which is very disrespectful and undignified.”
And Hakken-Phillips said “nothing has changed in this room but the exact number of people in the room.” And she said she wished Edwards and the others who voted for it “luck” when the public looks back on this vote and process.
“Mr. Chair, that wasn’t a threat was it?” Edwards said. “I’d like the member to clarify whether that was a threat.”
Hakken-Phillips replied, “I just wish you the best of luck.”
It came after the committee voted along party lines to pass a budget that cuts a lot of current services for the state in a tight budget year.
Sweeney had offered the amendment on Monday and it was not voted on then but he revised the language to make it more clear and noted that it would not impact existing contracts but ones that go forward.
Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, D-Concord, asked about whether the matter is germane to the bill which is the budget for the state for the next two years.
She was told the House Speaker’s explanation is that it refers to funds that makes it germane to the budget.
While Hakken-Phillips said the language to include “other group characteristics” could be seen as impacting those with disabilities, in violation of the law, Rep. Dan McGuire, R-Epsom, said he thinks of a disability as an individual characteristic.
Chairman of House Finance Rep. Kenneth Weyler said some believe that the last election had been influenced by DEI. A former pilot, he said he has been dismayed to read that Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controllers have said they have been let go because they were white men who did not fit DEI requirements for hires.
Edwards said he wanted the Democrats to understand “the latest rebranding of an affirmative action” is the DEI program and he invoked the name of Dr. Martin Luther King and equality.
He said DEI is calling out a demographic.
“Aren’t we supposed to be judged by the content of our character and not our skin?” he said.
The fact that there are state-run institutions of higher education and possibly others that have DEI policies that prefer some over others was a concern of those who supported the measure.
Initially Edwards’ position proved critical as he recommended the bill be retained for more discussion. Rep. Rung said there is a fiscal impact other than the exposure.
“This bill should not be part of the budget. It is about policy. This is not appropriate …to fill an $800 million hole.”
Hakken-Phillips said she did not believe people in New Hampshire are ready for this without more discussion on the impacts and the language.
“I do not think the state of New Hampshire is prepared….pump the brakes. There will be litigation that follows,” she said.
Weyler said this would only be the first step and the budget will go to the senate and governor for consideration.