“Racial profiling in Iowa still exists,” wrote Marty Ryan, ACLU of Iowa’s legislative director, in a “Statehouse Update” to ACLU supporters. “I wanted to believe that the issue was under control and not more than a rare oddity.”

Ryan take direct issue with a 2003 Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning report of the Iowa Highway Patrol’s voluntary collection data on traffic stops. Ryan admits that his judgment regarding the study was initially based not on his own reading, but on news reports about the statistical data. Now that he has read the report for himself, however, he feels that it actually provides more questions than answers.

Most of the analysis within the report is basically useless.  For instance, “[C]aution is urged when attempting to draw conclusions from the data in Tables 2, 3, and 4.  As can be seen in Table 2, for many (11,854) of these cases, the race of the driver was not reported, and for over half (53.2%) of these unknown-race drivers, it also was unknown whether their vehicle was registered in Iowa or elsewhere.”  Id. at 3.  There are two observations to take from the second sentence within this quote.  First, what is the significance of having the vehicle registered in Iowa?  I would not be so concerned about where the vehicle is registered.  At issue is the driver, not the vehicle.  That, in my opinion, makes the statistic on Iowa registrations a Red Herring.  Why was data about vehicle registration accumulated?  What conclusion on racial profiling could ever be brought about because of a vehicle registration?  Second, if the race of the driver was not reported in close to 12,000 instances, did several troopers within the department shun their responsibility to ensure accurate reporting?

Again, on page 5, “[C]aution should be used when attempting to draw conclusions” because the “greatest number of unknown outcomes was in cases where the race of the driver was also unknown.”  Id at 5.  Isn’t the race of the driver, for purposes of detecting the existence or nonexitence of racial profiling, the discretion of the perceiver (the trooper)?  How can there be an unknown?

The wastefulness of this report is summed up in the conclusion:  “The data in this report do not conclusively” determine whether or not “ISP troopers are stopping, ticketing, searching or arresting people differently because of their race.”  Id at 8.  And yet I was assured that the purpose of the voluntary collection of data was to determine just what the report failed to determine.

Ryan ends the e-mail message with both a demand for a new study by an independent third party, and for the legislature to revisit and expand previous laws on traffic stop data collection to include sheriff departments, campus police and other law enforcement agencies.

“I’ve heard numerous law enforcement officials proclaim, ‘If you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?’ That phrase should now come back to haunt those who use it. Let’s compile decent statistics and do something about it,” Ryan said. “What do we have to hide?”

“The resolution contains language stating that it is about ‘respect [for] the rule of law and majority opinion,’” Stone said. “Such rhetoric was commonly used by the cowardly defenders of prejudice and bigotry in the 1950s and 60s, and its use in this context is unfortunate. History reveals that many laws in American history were immoral despite their support by majority opinion, and Iowa’s so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ is among them.”

Councilman Brent Hoffman authored the resolution, which would have very little real impact since cities lack authority over marriage. But with a decision on the state’s same-sex marriage pending from the Iowa Supreme Court, the hope, Hoffman said, is that the Sioux City vote will spark discussion of a statewide vote for a Constitutional amendment, a process that takes at least two years.

The council will meet tonight at 4 p.m. in Council Chambers, fifth floor of City Hall, 405 6th St., Sioux City.

Since fusion centers around the country have gone largely unexamined by the mainstream media, The Iowa Independent and its sister sites in Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan and New Mexico reported on activity in their states over the course of a week.

The Fox News story features interviews Russell Porter, director of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center, and Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, as they discuss the role of the fusion center and its possible shortcomings.

Russell Porter, director of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center, was one of a group of people who helped lay the groundwork for the fusion center concept around the country.

Made up of law enforcement personnel and state and federal intelligence analysts, the center has six regional offices around the state and nearly 50 staff members.

Law enforcement says it’s an essential tool. Civil liberties advocates worry that creating one-stop shops for sensitive information could lead to abuses. But the fusion center concept is expanding across the country, and in the process, creating a nationwide intelligence network whose activities are barely known to the public.

Traditionally, police had little to do with counterterrorism. But after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it became obvious that al-Qaeda members had prepared not only in far-off Afghan training camps but also in Minnesota and flight schools in Florida. An unwitting Maryland state trooper actually stopped one of the future hijackers for speeding.

Fusion centers are where the federal, state and local cops share intelligence, sift data for clues, run down reports of suspicious packages, and connect dots in an effort to detect and thwart drug smuggling, gang fighting and other menaces to society.

Russell Porter, director of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center, said the center has been very successful at its mission since it was first established 3 1/2 years ago.

“There are challenges and concerns, and we are very aware of that,” he said. “It works for Iowa because we have worked to give authority to local officials to dictate the fusion center’s direction.”

Porter’s career in Iowa law enforcement dates back to 1978, with a focus on intelligence since 1984. In the national intelligence community, Porter is well-known and respected. He was working on his doctoral thesis on intelligence gathering in law enforcement when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks happened, and along with a number of groups and organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Porter helped craft a plan to fix what went wrong with domestic intelligence gathering while protecting fundamental rights of privacy and civil liberties.

“When 9/11 happened, suddenly there was the political will in Washington and around the country to do something,” he said. “A few of us put together the IACP Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit in March of 2002. A colleague of mine and I served as the technical writers for that report, which was published in August of 2002. It called for the creation of a national criminal intelligence sharing plan and a criminal intelligence coordinating council.”

That laid the groundwork for “fusion centers,” with an underlying goal of keep Americans safe. Whether or not that has happened is something that is difficult to quantify. Porter, for one, does not see terrorism as the biggest threat facing Iowans.

“It’s a cliché, but, yes, Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe,” he said. “We need to keep a realistic perspective on the threats that we face. In cities across America, we still have significant gang problems. There are still issues with domestic violence. We still face those community problems. We’re stronger at how we deal with those things, and I think we’re better informed, but the danger persists.”

While the initial idea behind creating these centers around the country was to combat terrorism, the mission in Iowa has evolved to the point where its biggest successes deal with home-grown crime.

Operations are divided by regions, with Fusion Offices in Sioux City (Region 1), Waterloo (2), Oelwein (3), Atlantic (4), Des Moines (5), and Blue Grass (6). (Click for full size)

The organization

The Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center was established in December 2004. But unlike a lot of states that are building similar networks across the country, Iowa had a head start. The Fusion Center was built on the skeleton of the Iowa Law Enforcement Intelligence Network (LEIN), a system designed to share information among law enforcement agencies that has been in place since 1984.

“We took something that has been around since 1984 and said let’s invest in it to strengthen it and make it operate more smoothly,” Porter said. “So we took each of our six LEIN regions and determined one agency in each region that was willing to step up and served as the grantee for the fusion office. Really, this is just a strengthening of capabilities we’ve had in place for decades. ”

The six regional offices are located in urban areas such as Des Moines, Sioux City and Waterloo, but also in rural outposts like Atlantic and Independence. There are 21 total staffers working in the regional offices around the state, ranging from two staffers in the Region 6 office in Blue Grass to five staffers in the Region 4 office in Atlantic.

The headquarters for the state’s fusion centers is led by the Iowa Department of Public Safety (IDPS) and located in the department’s offices in the State Capitol Complex at 215 E. Seventh St. in Des Moines. There are 23 staff members, including 10 intelligence analysts and 13 law enforcement officers. Among the staff are representatives from the Iowa State Patrol, the State Division of Narcotics Enforcement, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, the Iowa Fire Marshall’s office and The Midwest High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also supplies two staffers to the fusion center.

Porter expects an analyst from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to be assigned to the Iowa Fusion Center soon.

Dennis Rudolph, operations supervisor at the Region 4 Fusion Center, said the major difference between LEIN and the fusion centers is “the difference between reactive and proactive.”

“LEIN was a reactive thing,” he said. “You bring people together and they say what problems they were having this month, everyone talks and if a couple match up, they get together and they talk and compare notes. The fusion center is more proactive, using our resources to say this is a problem happening in western Nebraska which seems to be moving east, so you should be aware.”

Each regional office is somewhat autonomous, Porter said, forming its own governing structure depending on local needs. Each regional supervisor reports to Porter, who reports to Iowa Department of Public Safety Commissioner Eugene Meyer, who reports to Gov. Chet Culver. There is also a LEIN Executive Board, made up of seven members: a law enforcement officer from each region and Porter.

Federal funding cut

Almost 90 percent of the main fusion center’s funding comes from state appropriation and the IDPS’ budget, Porter said. The agencies that supply staff to the center, like the FBI, cover their salaries, but the rest falls under the domain of the IDPS.

The six regional offices, on the other hand, are funded almost entirely out of federal Department of Homeland Security grants. In fact, one of the biggest determining factors of whether a municipality would be the site of a regional office was its willingness to take on the responsibility of working to attain federal grant money.

“As you can imagine, it can sometimes be very arduous,” Porter said.

To make matters more difficult, the federal government has cut the amount of money it puts into the fusion center program in recent years. According to an October 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security grants totaled more than $130 million from 2004 to 2006. But in 2006, the total amount allocated dropped from $57 million to $43 million. Iowa was not immune.

“I think next year is going to be tough for us,” Rudolph said. “I think some thought has gone into turning to local municipalities to try to get some funding, but budgets are tight. I think law enforcement and emergency management are going to lose something very good if the federal government squeezes this program financially.”

The mission expands

The intelligence scope of the Iowa fusion centers is defined as “all crimes,” not just counterterrorism.

This all-crimes approach is essential, Porter said, in order to keep Iowans safe and protect the country against terrorism. Rudolph said while you won’t see cases in Iowa opened because “someone is a terrorist,” you will see someone busted early on before getting the chance to commit a terrorist act. Groups plotting terrorist attacks could first commit crimes such as money laundering, drug dealing or illegal gun sales to finance their operations.

“You have to fund terrorism somehow, and a lot of times it’s through illegal activity,” he said. “We start seeing a guy in Iowa selling dope, then all the sudden you see his name come up in a meeting with Nebraska, and he’s selling guns there. You start looking at him a little harder.”

Porter said the Iowa fusion centers follow the traditional model for the intelligence process. That begins with defining information requirements, or things that are important for people to know about. For example, crimes involving children are required to be reported up the chain of the fusion center. So earlier this year when a man tried to entice a young girl into his car in rural Guthrie County, local law enforcement told the fusion office, which reported it up to the central fusion center. That is when it was determined that another incident had occurred, which warranted a bulletin to be sent out to law enforcement personnel.

“I hate using this phrase, but it is our job to connect the dots,” Porter said.

In August 2006, the Department of Homeland Security issued “Fusion Center Guidelines,” which, among other things, defined information requirements on a federal level. Now, certain information is automatically shared with surrounding states or the Department of Homeland Security.

When information comes down from Washington, D.C., sometimes there is a disconnect, Porter said.

“Sometimes, priorities may be different, or lexicon might be different,” he said. “That’s why it’s important to get everyone on the same page.”

The Iowa fusion centers also played a role in the recent flooding. While their mission does not include “all hazards,” as some states’ do, Rudolph said the fusion centers, since they work with many different agencies, can work to help them overcome their interoperability issues.

One of the best aspects of the fusion centers, Rudolph said, is the fact that it has created a working relationship among law enforcement on many levels.

“It is very helpful that we all are starting to know one another and work together regularly,” he said. “Prior to the fusion centers, no one really knew who to turn to or talk to. Now, we work with the FBI, [the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms], [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and several other agencies at least a couple times a month. That was unheard of before.”

Porter said in many cases, criminal activity cannot be ruled out right away, so it is the fusion center’s responsibility to become involved.

“If a chemical plant explodes, it could be criminal, it could be human error, it could be negligence. You can’t rule anything out,” he said.

The fusion centers’ job is not investigative, Rudolph said, but rather as a way for all information to be gathered in one location, analyzed and sent to the places it needs to go.

“We’re a clearinghouse for intelligence, not a storage facility. We’re a middle man,” Rudolph said.

The Iowa fusion centers have access to national data bases such as Law Enforcement Online and Regional Information Sharing Systems Intranet. They also have access to Homeland Security Information Network, but only the “controlled but unclassified” version. Porter anticipates that with the addition of a Department of Homeland Security employee to the fusion center staff, the center will gain access to the “secret” version of the network.

“We think the fusion center would benefit from the assignment of a U.S. DHS employee, and access to HSDN-Secret, so that the DHS employee is here and the system is accessible before the onset of a crisis,” he said. “We also know that the information environment is constantly changing, so we are always keeping an eye out for information systems that might be developed that will help us serve Iowa and our communities better.”

A threat to civil liberties?

Civil liberties advocates worry that the growing tentacles of these networks, linking many government agencies and potentially private industry as well, could breach the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

They argue that laws were put into place to avoid these types of networks because history has shown they lead to abuse. They add that the “all crimes” approach sounds suspiciously like the government is building a distributed domestic intelligence service that could easily begin keeping tabs on Americans who are doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights.

“We don’t think we have to give up the privileges that come with being a law-abiding citizen in order to be safe,” said Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. “The danger with this sort of thing is that you end up making everyone a suspect, and that’s not the way you do law enforcement.”

Earlier this year, the ACLU issued a report entitled “What’s Wrong With Fusion Centers,” which cited concerns about military units operating in the centers, as well as the potential for scope creep and data mining. How, the group asked, can citizens contest information about themselves, given the patchwork of state, local and federal sunshine laws that may or may not apply?

Porter not only understands the concerns, he takes them very seriously.

In April, he testified before Congress about the history of the fusion center concept, and the history of the abuse of civil liberties by law enforcement in the name of making the country safer. He pointed to the FBI’s notorious Counter Intelligence Program, known as Cointelpro, during the 1960s and early 1970s, which included a series of covert and often illegal projects aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. When exposed, Cointelpro was greeted with lawsuits, complaints and headlines, and the program was shut down.

“It is critically important that we avoid the historical practices that led to reoccurring violations of privacy rights and civil liberties,” Porter said in his testimony.

Since his testimony before Congress, Porter said he has been traveling the country to teach other state fusion centers the history of intelligence gathering abuse, in the hopes that it will remain a priority.

“It has got to be given high visibility and high attention because it is one of the things that causes us to fail in this business,” he said. “From my past study and research, it’s a pivot point to success or failure. It’s essential to protect the principles on which this country was founded. With the fusion centers, we built on the history, successes and the problems that we had in the past.”

Standards for centers include a ban on information concerning the political, religious or social views of an individual or group unless the information is directly related to criminal activity. Also, there must be a reasonable suspicion that an individual is involved in a crime before information is collected.

“These have been court tested, civil liberties advocates find them acceptable and so we held those out to make sure that if you’re going to do this business, you need to adhere to those regulatory frameworks,” Porter said.

“There is so little that is publicly known about the fusion centers,” the ACLU’s Stone said. “I think that is why some people are worried. History has shown that when people get unfettered power, it will be abused. So I believe there should be an inherent skepticism with this.”

An uncertain future

Iowans can rest assured that law enforcement is doing everything it can to keep them safe, Porter said. But there are storm clouds on the horizon for the fusion center program in Iowa and nationally.

A decrease in federal funding could mean a loss of training for many employees, Porter says, which could lead to the types of abuses civil liberties activists fear.

“What you run the risk of is people doing this work without the proper training, and then we have the problems we have had in the past,” he said. “I think fusion centers are a good way to spend money, because they can help in so many areas, like anti-drug, anti-gang and anti-terrorism. I think we’re on the right path. I just hope we don’t take a step backward.”

Rudolph said losing funding could be a major blow to law enforcement in Iowa.

“What can be accomplished is really incredible,” he said. “In the past, you might have two deputies and a sheriff trying to work a burglary ring that involves multi-counties and multi-states. Now, you have 60 officers from all these counties and states going after it. It’s a huge difference.”

So if the program is making people safer, why is it suddenly having problems getting the federal government to pay for it?

“I think the further away we get from 9/11, the more we start to lose some of the urgency of this type of thing,” Porter said. “I think that’s part of it. But even more than that, I think it becomes one of many priorities for the government to spend money on. Lots of really good programs end up falling through the cracks. The hope on the ground is that this doesn’t become a victim of that sort of thing.”

See also, Minnesota Independent on fusion centers: “You don’t know MN-JAC: Anti-terror fusion center grapples with security flaw, new privacy policy.”

“Based on the number of criminal arrests, this is the largest criminal worksite enforcement operation ever in the United States,” Matt Dummermuth, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, said Thursday evening.

Charges in the official complaints vary by individual and include allegations of aggravated identity theft, false use of a social security number, illegal reentry into the United States and fraudulent use of an alien registration card.

Detainees arrested on criminal charges have been provided court-appointed defense attorneys and have had initial court appearances. They are now being held in local jails — nearly 100 in the Linn County jail alone — and are in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Office. Those accused will travel back to the temporary detention facility at the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo next week for status hearings in the makeshift court facilities there. Many preliminary hearings have been schedule the following week in the federal building in Cedar Rapids.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa issued a statement in which it condemned “the unnecessary use of criminal prosecutions to coerce hundreds of foreign-born workers…into waiving their rights to individually demonstrate why each of them should be allowed to remain in the United States.”

“A civil deportation proceeding is the best way to address immigration cases, and each case needs to be handled on an individual basis,” said Ben Stone, executive director of the ACLU of Iowa. “By converting the meatpacking plant raid into a mass criminal prosecution, the government is wasting precious legal resources and giving short shrift to the American right of due process, which belongs to all persons, not just citizens.

“It is our understanding that detainees are being threatened with prosecution if they do not waive their right to an individualized deportation hearing and that they may be forced to do so with only minimal opportunity to speak with defense counsel.”

Immigration attorneys sent out an e-mail alert on Wednesday that urged Iowans to contact the U.S. attorney’s office and push for detainees to e allowed to consult with an immigration attorney prior to entering into any agreement with public defenders for criminal charges.

In a telephone conversation on Wednesday, Tim Counts, public affairs officer for the Department of Homeland Security, said evidence of criminal behavior takes precedence over immigration hearings.

Although federal officials previously indicated 390 had been detained as a result of the raid, they are now correcting that figure to 389. Of the detainees, 62 were released on humanitarian grounds and 21 are being held on administrative charges. From these two groups (83 individuals total), 18 were juveniles ranging from age 13 to 17. The juveniles have since been released to an adult or turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Those not facing criminal charges will be placed into administrative immigration removal proceedings that will be conducted under the direction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at other locations.

]]> http://iowaindependent.com/2335/over-300-now-criminally-charged-in-postville-raid/feed 0 http://iowaindependent.com/2237/inside-guantanamo-des-moines-attorney-advocates-for-clients-rights http://iowaindependent.com/2237/inside-guantanamo-des-moines-attorney-advocates-for-clients-rights#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:29:31 +0000 T.M. Lindsey http://iowaindependent.com/2237/inside-guantanamo-des-moines-attorney-advocates-for-clients-rights In late 2002, 18-year-old Muhibullah of rural Afghanistan allegedly heard intruders trying to break into his family’s compound in the village of Uruzgan. Having assumed the role of head of household after his father, Haji Yar Mohammed, had lost a leg and eye fighting against the Soviets in the late `70s during a U.S. backed effort, Muhibullah grabbed an AK-47 assault rifle, left the compound perimeter and fired warning shots in the air to ward off intruders.

As Pettengill herself noted in a Des Moines Register article a month ago, “I don’t fit in either place, really.” At that time she indicated if she switched it would probably be to independent. If her voting record in the state legislature is any indication, she’s wrong about not fitting with the Democratic Party. Her record shows her squarely in the middle on many key issues as outlined in the party’s platform (and in direct opposition of many on the other side of the aisle).

In looking at Pettengill?s 2006 voting record on issues key to labor, she scores high. Seventy-five percent of the time she and the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO took the same position. (Voting record comparison at end of post)

There were 49 Democratic members of the Iowa House of Representatives during the 81st General Assembly. Rep. Ray Zirkelbach was excused for active military duty which left 48 on the Democratic side of the aisle.

If the 48 representatives were lined up, those with the highest percentage of votes aligning with labor to the lowest, Pettengill would be tied for number 19. Fourteen other members of the Democratic caucus had lower percentages than Pettengill. In contrast, four Republicans tied for their caucus’s highest percentage of labor agreement with 25 percent.

Likewise, when looking at GLBT issues this session, Pettengill received a grade of B (Pro-Gay). She voted with this constituency on three out of five issues.

Again, in contrast, 33 members (72 percent) of the Republican Caucus received an F- as their grade.

Pettengill voted with the Iowa ACLU 50 percent of the time this session while the best a member of the Republican Caucus could muster was 30 percent. The votes were on such issues as the separation of church and state; employee rights; voting rights; and due process.

The Association of Business and Industry shows during this session Pettengill only agreed with business interests 25 percent of the time. Eleven other Democratic representatives scored higher than she did. The lowest any Republican scored was 83 percent.

If we backtrack to the previous session, she scores a bit better with 33 percent. Still 24 other Democratic representatives scored that or better. The lowest score grabbed by a member of the GOP? Sixty-six percent.

During the 81st General Assembly, Pettengill sponsored 66 pieces of legislation. They ranged from mandated coverage for mental health conditions to increasing the state minimum wage to restriction of the viewing and sale of sexual devices.

Her 44 pieces of sponsored legislation in the 82nd have included a minimum wage hike and Sudan divestment.

In addition, her web site lists several items she dubs “accomplishments.” In addition to her appointment to the Elder Affairs Commission in 2005, she lists being named as “2006 Legislator of the Year” by the Heritage Agency on Aging and her 2006 endorsements from AFSCME, AFL/CIO, ISEA, Hawkeye Labor Foundation, Iowa Farm Bureau, Agribusiness Association and Iowa PACE. We could locate no members of the GOP Caucus who touted endorsements from these major labor organizations.

It is unclear if Pettengill’s switch indicates these votes, or a portion of these votes, are out of sync with the wishes of her constituents back home. It is also unclear at this time how the Republican Caucus, which has not had a member of the same ilk as Pettengill, is going to react to her more liberal leanings. Attempts were made to reach Pettengill for comment on these discrepancies without success.

Pettengill Votes vs Labor Initiatives 2006

• HF 2045 (Social Security/Pension Tax Cut) ? would have eliminated state tax on social security and pension income and exempted incomes under $48,000 per year for persons over age 65 from income tax.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 81 to 18 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate Committee
• SF 2408 (Senior Tax Cut) ? phased out state tax on social security over eight years and eliminated income tax for seniors over age 65 who made less than $24,000 (singles) or $32,000 (other), cut state revenues by $120 million when fully implemented.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 89 to 6, passing the bill
• SF 2409 (Tax Credit for Tuition Donations) ? allowed a tax credit for donations to mostly private school tuition organizations to fund scholarships or vouchers.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 75 to 19, passing the bill
• Amendment H 8128 to HF 2459 (Minimum Wage) ? Would have increased Iowa?s minimum wage by $1 per hour to $6.15.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 55 to 43 in favor of the bill. It later died in the House due to a procedural ruling
• HF 2770 (Wage Thresholds) ? Would have lowered Values Fund wage thresholds in rural counties by allowing new hire wages to be the determining factor in calculating wage requirements
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 54 to 43 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate committee.
• Amendment H 8649 to HF 2459 (Funding for Workforce Centers) ? Provided $4 million in additional funding to keep rural workforce centers open.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 48 to 46, passing the bill
• HF 2597 (Voter ID) ? Would have required all voters to show a photo identification before casting a ballot, and required a photocopy of identification when casting an absentee ballot.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 51 to 48 in favor of the bill. It later died in the Senate
• Amendment H 8347A to HF 2597 (Electronic Voting Machines) ? Would have required electronic voting machines to produce voter verified paper trails.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 48 to 51, killing the amendment
• HF 2648 (Drug Testing) ? Would have allowed employers to treat an inconclusive test as though it was a positive test.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 58 to 41 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate Committee
• Amendment H 8535 to HF 2790 (Health Insurance Pooling) ? Would have allowed certain business associations to pick those with lower risk, disrupting the small group insurance market and making health insurance even more costly for non-member small business.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 44 to 55 and the measure failed
• Amendment H 8655 to SF 2410 (Whistleblower Protection) ? Would have prohibited retaliation against state workers for disclosing information regarding violation of professional standards or unsafe practices
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 42 to 49, killing the amendment
• HF 729 (IPERS) ? Increased IPERS contribution rates for both employers and employees at the same 60/40 ratio.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 97 to 0, passing the measure