Emails, Manny Garcia, communications director, Texas Democratic Party, on behalf of Leticia Van de Putte campaign, Oct. 22 and 23, 2014

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com> wrote:

Manny:

As you may know, Sen. Patrick says in a new ad that Van de Putte opposed letting schools terminate teachers convicted of felonies.

His backup is her votes against HB 1610 in the 2011 session.

It looks to me like she did vote against passing the measure into law. But earlier, at the committee level, she moved to urge Senate approval of the committee substitute. Can you explain this contrast or put me in touch with her to talk about this for our fact check?

I may be wrapping up this fact check today.

g.

W. Gardner Selby

Reporter / News

Austin American-Statesman

PolitiFact Texas

From: Manny Garcia

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:16 PM

To: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin)

Subject: Re: Inquiry about Sen. Van de Putte and HB 1610, 2011 session

You'll have to check the video. It's likely that Senator Van de Putte was one of the few people in the room when the bills were being moved and its was simply just a procedural move, since Patrick can't be chair and move his bill at same time.

I'll let you know if I see something but we are a bit tied down right now you should check video.

-EG

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) <wgselby@statesman.com> wrote:

At this link, the 9:40 mark, the committee recommends the substitute do pass the Senate. Van de Putte is heard both voting aye and saying she should be put down as moving for that recommendation. Consider this my fresh request for clarity on why she supported the measure in committee but voted ‘no’ later. I will complete this fact check soon.

g.

6:10 p.m.

Oct. 23, 2014

During the hearing, Shapiro stated "the committee recommends the substitute do pass the Senate’ is committee procedure meaning that it pass to the Senate. But she said that statement without recognizing a member for making that motion (that the committee substitute pass to the senate and not the version introduced to committee). Van de Putte, having served as chair of VAMI for many years, recognized the mistake and said she made that motion in order to help her chairwoman.

As for the vote, she voted for the bill in committee because she supported it in principle, however she also acted in good faith that her concerns of the bill being overly broad would be addressed on senate floor where she would offer an amendment.

Her concerns were that the language of the bill did not account for when the offense occurred in that person’s life and allowed for it to include first-time felony-level off-duty DWI conviction. Senator Van de Putte offered an amendment to help narrow its scope.

Van de Putte offered amendment #2

Amend CSHB 1610 as follows: In subsection (c-1), on page 1, lines 44-45, strike "or received deferred adjudication for" and on line 45 after words "felony offense" insert the phrase "related to the performance of the person’s employment duties".

Her amendment was “tabled” by 19 to 12 vote. Therefore, she voted against the final version.

Senator Van de Putte initially voted to help move the bill along and assisted in the motion to not stop the process. She wanted to help improve the legislation and ensure proper scope. She tried to amend the legislation to address concerns about the bill. The amendment failed and the Senator did not support final passage.

Best,

Manny