Rep. Christine Hunschofsky is backing a bill to add screening requirements for individuals who care for children.

Hunschofsky, a Coconut Creek Democrat, filed the bill (HB 531) to ensure the safety of children in various care and enrichment programs by reinforcing background screening requirements and increasing public awareness.

The measure would revise and amend Florida statutes to define a “recreational enrichment program.” It specifies that such programs do not need to obtain a license from the Department of Health (DOH).

A recreational enrichment program is defined as an organization that provides activities for children — such as dance instruction, music instruction, gymnastics or martial arts — on an ongoing basis that takes place partially or fully indoors. The term does not include organizations licensed to provide child care.

While these organizations are not required to obtain a license, they are required to go through appropriate background screening for any of their personnel.

DOH, in conjunction with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Agency for Health Care Administration, would be required to develop and maintain a statewide public awareness campaign about background screening requirements.

DOH would be given access to the records of facilities to ensure they are compliant, and the bill offers DOH flexibility to adopt rules relating to the screening requirements for Summer day camps, Summer 24-hour camps and recreational enrichment programs.

The bill further states it is unlawful for any person, or agency — including family foster homes, Summer day camps, Summer 24-hour camps and recreational enrichment programs — to use or release the information within criminal or juvenile records for any purpose other than employment screening.

Screening requirements for foster homes, residential child care agencies, and child placing agencies would be amended to include any person over the age of 12 who is living on the premises. Family members of the owner or operator between the ages of 12 and 18 years are not required to be fingerprinted, however, they must be screened for delinquency records.

Volunteers assisting less than 10 hours per month are exempt from screening requirements if a screen person is present with them.

The bill further revises the remedies for failure to comply with screening requirements and updates penalty provisions. DOH may institute injunctive proceedings to enforce compliance, including terminating the operation of noncompliant programs.

Violations can result in misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on the severity and frequency. If passed, the bill will take effect July 1.

Post Views: 0

Some Florida lawmakers expressed their desires to save arts organizations that might shut their doors without an influx of state dollars, while others worried about their return on investment.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ $32 million line-item vetoes stripped away funding for local theater groups, arts festivals, museums and more, sparking outrage in Florida last year.

Now, a House work group is one of several convening to review line-item vetoes from the 2024-25 budget DeSantis signed last year. The Republican-controlled Legislature has resisted the Governor following a clash over immigration policies. 

In a whirlwind 20-minute meeting on Tuesday, the House Combined Workgroup on Vetoed Libraries, Cultural and Historical Preservation Budget Issues did not make any decisions or give firm direction on what, if anything, could be funded.

Rep. Susan Plasencia, a Republican from Orlando chairing the group, said they have two more meetings to finish reviewing the vetoes by Feb. 19.

“This is an important part of our system of checks and balances,” she said as she emphasized reinstating the money is a member-driven process, and the panel debated how they should prioritize to decide whether state funding gets reinstated and what loses out.

“I think we need to look at our cost-benefit, I hate to say, return on investment, but what are we investing and what are we getting back for the citizens?” said Rep. Randy Maggard. “Are we using taxpayer money wisely?”

The Dade City Republican said he worried about money ending up in consultants’ pockets or being spent to redo a city hall, which he argued shouldn’t be paid by the state.

Meanwhile, Rep. Lindsay Cross warned that DeSantis’ funding cuts involving relatively small amounts of money could significantly impact arts organizations.

“A lot of these organizations are working on a pretty shoestring budget,” the St. Petersburg Democrat said. “Twenty thousand dollars from the state in lost funding could mean that a whole program has to go under.”

Rep. Darryl Campbell argued that the state needs to prioritize history, especially Black history, to teach the next generation.

“It’s not just about people coming in and learning the history, but it’s also about our future,” the Democrat from Fort Lauderdale said.

Post Views: 0

After an hour of comments from residents who overwhelmingly opposed it, Republican Sen. Randy Fine’s latest attempt to ban Pride flags and other banners with a “political viewpoint” from public buildings advanced on a party-line vote.

The Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee voted 5-2 for the bill (SB 100), despite criticism from Democratic members Kristen Arrington and Tina Polsky that even after three years, the legislation is half-baked.

Fine admitted the measure could use some work and said he planned to tighten up its language, but argued its central premise is watertight.

“The idea here is that the government should not be in the political messaging business,” he said.

“Politics should be for the politicians. The government’s job is to serve the people.”

If passed, SB 100 or its House twin (HB 75) sponsored by Republican Reps. David Borrero and Berny Jacques would prohibit local or state government offices, schools and universities from displaying political or ideological viewpoints.

That includes flags, or depictions of flags, representing any “partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint.”

The ban would not extend to private individuals expressing private speech or viewpoints, including public officials who choose to do so on their own time. However, the measure also provides that active or retired military personnel may use “reasonable force” at any time to prevent the desecration, destruction or removal or unauthorized lowering of the United States flag.

Asked by Polsky whether that provision would enable a current or former military member to stop someone from burning a flag on their own property, Fine said yes.

“If you’re on your property burning the American flag, this bill would authorize them to exercise reasonable force to stop that behavior,” he said.

SB 100 does not define reasonable force. It also doesn’t define what is and isn’t a political viewpoint.

When he announced SB 100 in December, Fine said the bill takes aim at “fictional country flags like ‘Palestine,’ pro-violence ‘Black Lives Matter’ flags, woke and pro-grooming ideological flags, and the flags of any political candidate in government buildings.”

A passel of younger residents, many of them identifying as members of the LGBTQ community, spoke against the proposal by a more than 7-to-1 ratio. In total, 22 unelected attendees opposed the bill. Just three spoke voiced or signaled support for it.

Jon Harris Maurer, speaking for Equality Florida, said it was disappointing to be arguing again about a bill that failed twice before, chalking up its return more to “congressional posturing” — Fine is running for the U.S. House — than problem solving.

“This does nothing to help struggling Floridians,” he said, adding that simple things like an applicable definition for “flag” were still missing from the bill, as noted by Senate staff.

“These deficiencies have been glaringly apparent since last year and at this point, the only conclusion can be that the unconstitutional vagueness and ambiguity in this bill is intentional,” he said.

Mauer said the bill’s assumption that sexual orientation and gender identity are political viewpoints is beyond faulty. They’re “not political viewpoints,” he said. “They’re people’s identities — everyone, not just the LGBTQ community’s. Despite that fact, the bill’s sponsor has made it explicitly clear that his intent is to target Pride flags.”

Greg Mathers, a retired military vet speaking on behalf of Moms for Liberty, said it is the job of parents to instill their children with values and provide them ideological direction, while the government and schools should focus on streamlining education.

“It’s not the place in school rooms to have divisive symbols, things that are conversation starters for discussions that are best held between parents and children,” he said.

Arrington said SB 100 has several “scary” aspects and would all but invite future lawsuits, the cost of which would fall to taxpayers. It’s also inconsistent with Florida being about “freedom” while doing nothing to address many problems Sunshine State residents are dealing with, including unaffordability, a dearth of mass transit options and a need for more housing.

But lawmakers can walk and chew gum at the same time, Lake Mary Republican Sen. Jason Brodeur fired back. The Legislature sees some 3,000 bills and passes 10% of them yearly, he said, including legislation that has since reduced property insurance rates and attracted more providers to the state.

Brodeur noted that free speech isn’t absolute, citing court cases like Kennedy v. Bremerton that determined the First Amendment rights of public school teachers is not limitless and BWA v. Farmington, which found that students are subject to similar restrictions.

“These are places where there are exceptions to the all-public-employees-have-rights argument,” he said. “The government has no place in dictating what views are acceptable. Right — not mine, not yours. Government is a place for everybody.”

Fine said SB 100 isn’t yet in its final draft and that it could look very different if and when it reaches a Senate floor vote. He also cautioned those against the bill that there could soon be a circumstance where they wished its restrictions were in place.

“(For) the same people who are so upset that we might take away certain political flags in classrooms and oppose this bill,” he said, “I guarantee you if (Donald) Trump flags started showing up in classrooms and on government flag poles and in the back of this room, these people who are so upset about those flags being taken down would be in here screaming and yelling.”

SB 100 has two more committee stops before reaching a floor vote. It will next go before the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

HB 75, meanwhile, awaits a hearing in the first of three committees to which it was referred last month.

Post Views: 0