Gloucester County Administrator Replies To Citizen’s Audio Recording Challenge

Gloucester County Administrator, Brent Fedors replied via email to Mr. Chuck Thompson’s challenge to his proposed audio recording policy. Mr. Thompson, several other people and I have spoken out about the unreliability and potential for misuse of audio recordings, but Mr. Fedors appears to be on a mission.

You see, over the past several months, complaints have been made by people about some county employees they had conversations with. Each basically turned into a he said, she said situation and in every instance it appears Mr. Fedors sided with the county employees. He appears to have sided with them to the point of implementing a formal audio recording policy that contains no detailed protocols and highly favors the government.

We understand about protecting the people who work for you, but at this point we believe Mr. Fedors is being unreasonable, unbalanced and will implement his proposed policy no matter what the Board of Supervisors or the People have to say about it. That is a serious problem.

It also appears Mr. Fedors did not do a cost benefit analysis on his proposal as he did not seem to know how much it will cost to store the recordings. He acknowledged there would be costs associated with storage but did not know how much storage he could pay for with your tax dollars. Many times we have seen Supervisors Meyer and Bazzani kick back funding requests because they lacked a cost benefit analysis, but not this time. Maybe they will during the next public discussion about the administrators proposed policy. One would assume storage costs for audio recordings would be pretty much the same as for video recordings; so why not go with the most balanced way of recording?  

Our insistence that tamper proof body cams are far more reliable to capture interactions between county employees and the People has been completely ignored by Mr. Fedors. He must have read the stories on the internet about government employee corruption being uncovered with body cams; why else would he resist body cams? Our Sheriff's Department is using them so why shouldn't animal control, field inspectors and other local government employees who regularly interact with the People use them?

To read our other posts about the administrator’s proposed audio recording policy click on this link: http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/

The following is Mr. Fedors’ reply to Mr. Thompson’s challenge:

Mr. Thompson –

I read through your emails (excluding links), and would be glad to meet with you and a Supervisor, however I am not inclined to dig up the past, reopen an investigation of alleged events that occurred before my tenure, nor inject myself into court proceedings that I have no business questioning the validity of – I am focused on the future, and how to assure consistent compliance with a policy that has been vetted in the public forum.

At this time I am not inclined to disallow audio recording altogether, nor am I comfortable allowing it to continue without a clear and straightforward policy that can be applied uniformly across all situations.

I welcome any input you may have with regard to edits of the policy as presented – please send them to:  county.administrator@ gloucesterva.info.

Brent

J. Brent Fedors

County Administrator

Gloucester County, Virginia

6467 Main Street

Gloucester, VA  23061

(804) 693-4042

bfedors@gloucesterva.info

The following is Mr. Thompson’s reply to Mr. Fedors:

Thank you Brent;

  I would like to request a meeting on Tuesday, May 30th at 1:00 PM ans request that John Meyers and further request that Keith Hodges also be present for a meeting regarding the policy of audio recordings of the public by county employees.

  I find it very disturbing that you consider hard evidence of severe misconduct by county employees to be not worth your time because something happened before your tenor.  Does this mean that the county is now hiring the most hardened ex convicts because their past does not matter?  It means the same thing.  Who cares if you hire a rapist for a woman's shelter?  We are looking toward the future and not the past?  Can you explain to me these differences?  I'm a little slow here.

  Also, if I understand you correctly, nothing that ever happened in the county before you came on board counts?  Does that mean all county debts have been wiped out?  Are taxes going down now that we do not have to pay past bills?  

  If I may, audio recordings by any county employee is not acceptable under any circumstances based on the history of extreme abuse by county employees.  Only video cams would be considered acceptable and every citizen must be made aware of such and offered an opportunity to equally record the encounter for fairness.

  I look forward to this meeting.

Gloucester Citizen Challenges Credibility Of Audio Recordings

Gloucester citizen Chuck Thompson has submitted a written challenge to County Administrator Brent Fedors’ use of audio recordings made by Animal Control as an example of the successful use of audio recordings when conducting County business. We believe once you have reviewed the evidence you will agree that audio recordings are unreliable and should be replaced with tamper proof body cam recordings.

For your convenience we have provided Mr. Thompson's written challenge and supporting audio recordings that were made by Gloucester's Animal Control. 

Hello Brent;

I would like to set up a meeting with you and anyone from the BoS who would like to join in, regarding county personnel and their use of voice recorders to record public interactions.  I do not agree with you that Animal Control has set a positive example of how this should be done.  Instead, I am going to prove to you that the statement is incorrect and that how Gloucester Animal Control uses audio recording of the public, in the opinion of myself and many others, illegal and fraudulent.

I would like to start by sending you some recordings that animal control has done with the public and show you the audit I put them through.  I will back up the information in a meeting with you giving full details about the recordings and showing how they are fraudulent and forged with full court records to back up what I show you.  I won't just use one case.  I have several and full permission to discuss them at length from those I have interviewed.

To start, I am going to give you a smoking gun video.  This video is an audio clip made by Steve Baraneck and it is Steve and at the time, sgt Emanuele with the Gloucester Sheriff's office.  Listen closely and several times.  In there is evidence that they both entered the Crews property without a search warrant and that became the basis for all further events of making up the story of having a search warrant came from and a fake one was later produced based on this conversation you are about to play.

I had to clean up the audio to make it understandable.  The first time you hear it, you hear it as recorded by Steve Baraneck.  After that you hear the cleaned up version.  Sgt Emanuale states, "If we had a search warrant, we could kick the door down."  That is a clear statement that no search warrant existed at the time both Steve Baraneck and Sgt Emanuale illegally trespassed onto the Crews property that was the trigger to much larger issues.  That also includes the production of a fake search warrant later produced by Judge Gloria Ownes.  No, she was never a judge and no judge nor magistrate ever signed off on the fake search warrant.  I will be providing you with a copy of the fake search warrant we have on file.

This audio is where everything starts.  How many issues are just found here in the start are multiples upon multiples of so many areas wrong.  To begin, if Steve was actually driving, you would hear road noise.  No road noise in the background.  If Steve had just pulled up to the gate, Sgt Emanuele already there, no greetings.  If a search warrant was in hand, no mention, of one.  Steve was told, during the fake phone call that never happened, that he was not permitted on the property and he proceeds to go onto the property along with Sgt Emanuele anyway.  Again, this is pretty clear that no search warrant even existed.

Just to jump the gun and have further fun, the court documents show that Steve was the one who was serving the fake search warrant.  Back in 2010, Steve could not, by law, serve a search warrant.  It would have had to been done by Sgt Emanuele.  In the police report from Sgt Emanuele, he states, "I was only there to assist."  What happens when you start to tell a lie?  No one can keep the story straight and the court documents are ripe with inaccuracies proving a Kangaroo court was held convicting Laura Crews of crimes committed against her.  A true travesty of justice.

I can go on and on, but I am going to give you a link to a very long website where most everything is spelled out already and published to the public except the Crews name was redacted for their privacy concerns.  Before I do that, I want you to play this little Easter Egg that was created for Steve on the audio recording that was only meant for his ears.

This audio was produced for Steve's benefit by whomever did all the cuts and mock ups of this audio evidence.  It's how we know Steve did not create the final cut.  Steve has a phone conversation with a dog and claims to have been shot at.  Court records show no one was ever shot at and no guns were ever used or present.  This is Gloucester County's evidence mind you.  Not ours.  We are just showing you what was produced by your marvelous county employees.

https://sites.google.com/site/gloucestervanews/

We commonly call this the segment site.  It is what was published on the Gloucester County - VA site, but put into chronological order for a more cohesive understanding.  This includes partial court documents as it relates to the story.  It contains the laws of the time period, videos, audios, arguments and county ordinances among other evidence.  There are also copies of the fake search warrant as well.  

When you are done with this, please let me know because then we are going to move on to Bob Warden's case, then after that we have Sunny McCallister's case, and after that we have another case involving a mother and daughter.  And when you think we are done, I am going to hit you with still more.  By the way, once again I would like to welcome you back to Gloucester County.  Pun intended.

Very Truly:

Chuck Thompson

Gloucester Supervisors Pause Proposed Audio Recording Policy

On Tuesday night the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors refrained from giving County Administrator, Brent Fedors clearance to implement his proposed “Audio Recording Policy” on June 1, 2017. The supervisors and Mr. Fedors somewhat discussed the proposed policy in public, but the supervisors eventually reached a consensus that they wanted time to come up with written remarks they could circulate to Mr. Fedors and each other.  They ultimately tabled the proposal until the first meeting in June. 

Mr. Howard Mowry of Gloucester Point spoke against the proposed policy during the citizen comment portion of the meeting and we emailed our concerns and suggestions to Mr. Fedors and the supervisors prior to the meeting. 

It is noteworthy that during his presentation, Mr. Fedors used Animal Control's use of audio recording devices as an example of a successful use of such devices. Gloucester's Animal Control Department should be required to wear tamper proof body cams whenever they are out in the community. That department has a long history of distorting the facts which, in some instances, has cost people their animals, money, property and their sanity.

For your convenience we have provided videos of the proposed policy portion of the meeting, the video of Mr. Mowry’s public comments and our email to Mr. Fedors, his response and his proposed “Quality Assurance Audio Recording Policy”.

Proposed Audio Recording Discussion:


Mr. Howard Mowry's Public Comments:



Our Email to Mr. Fedors and the Supervisors:

Greetings,

The following comments are in regard to the County Administrator’s proposed, “Quality Assurance Audio Recording Policy”:

Audio recording devices, used in the manner proposed, will not capture the full picture of interactions between the government and the People. Furthermore, such recordings, which will be started, stopped and maintained solely at the government’s desecration, can easily be manipulated in favor of the government. The scales of power are always to be tipped in favor of the People; as government, and its employees serve at the pleasure and for the benefit of the People.

There is nothing contained in the proposed policy that establishes criteria/rules for determining the circumstances in which interactions are to, or may be, recorded. There is nothing contained in the proposal that establishes criteria/rules for determining which recordings are to be kept longer than the proposed initial retention period. How are the People supposed to know what to expect and more importantly, what say will the People being recorded have on how long a recording is retained? Will there be a documented chain of custody to protect the integrity of the recordings? Will the recordings be edit/tamper proof? How will the identities of the persons recorded be authenticated and how will the recordings be authenticated to be complete, accurate and free of alterations?

I recently suggested that equipping Animal Control with body cams would be a good way to promote integrity on both sides of public service transactions and is the most reliable way to document contentious situations. Body cams are a good way for leadership to insure county employees are not hanging out at the Yacht Haven pool or a back road store or driving from the courthouse to Farm Fresh at Wicomico and back just to visit their bank at ten thirty in the morning, or picking up Valentines Day treats at multiple shops in one of the local shopping centers. Leadership will also be able to physically see whether or not employees are properly and effectively doing their jobs and acting accordingly when they encounter citizens out in the community.

I now suggest equipping Animal Control and the other government employees outlined in the proposal with body cams instead of pursuing the outdated and controversial audio recording path.

Body cam equipped employees should be required to turn the camera on once they leave the office for the community and not turn it off until they return to the office. Customer service desks should be equipped with fixed, continuous record cameras and all interactions with the public should occur in the open environment of the customer service desk. The monitoring of phone calls should be done either at random or continuously. Recording such conversations any other way in the absence of clear protocol on when to record and not record does not support the proposed quality assurance enhancement assertion or objectives and appears to be more of a way to get the goods on someone than a way of enhancing quality assurance.

Respectfully;

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point 

The County Administrator's response:
Mr. Hogge -

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I am faced with a decision on audio recording, and I have three potential paths...

1.  Disallow audio recording altogether,
2.  Allow audio recording absent a policy governing it, or
3.  Allow audio recording only in compliance with an established policy

I don't see option one as a viable path, as audio recording is already in use in many situations (e.g. Site Plan Meetings, etc.) and it proves to be a very valuable tool, both as a quality assurance measure and a productivity enhancing measure, not to mention promoting civil exchange among and between staff and patrons, as well as supporting accountability on all fronts.

I initiated the proposed policy because I did not feel that the "rules of engagement" for audio recording should be left to the individual employee to determine.  My goal is to establish a uniform policy for such recordings so that staff and patrons alike know what to expect with full transparency.

The policy as proposed has been through an extremely thorough vetting process, with multiple changes written in as we sought to anticipate practical implications of policy implementation.

I welcome your (as well as the Board's and the public's) feedback on the proposed policy.  As you are likely aware, I am not required to put Administrative Policies like this in front of the Board prior to making them effective - as the County Administrator, I am empowered to enact such policies at my discretion.  I have, of my own accord, placed this item on the Board's agenda in a spirit of full disclosure and transparency, hoping to get comments that will help me refine the policy further prior to its effective date.

As a side note, any patron can record any interaction among or between staff and patrons at any time in compliance with the law, without any obligation to indicate that such recording is being captured.  The proposed policy does not and cannot regulate the behavior of non-employees.

Thank you again for your comments, 

Brent

J. Brent Fedors
County Administrator
Gloucester County, Virginia
6467 Main Street
Gloucester, VA  23061
(804) 693-4042
bfedors@gloucesterva.info

The County Administrator's Audio Recording proposal:

Audio recording policy proposal supporting documents from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Gloucester County Administrator Proposes "Quality Assurance Audio Recording Policy"

The following is the content of an email that was sent to the Gloucester County, Virginia Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator. The County Administrator’s response and proposed policy follow the email content. The proposal will be heard during the May 16, 2017 Board of Supervisors meeting. Think about it; citizens, business owners and whoever else that does business with Gloucester County's government are subject to being recorded. As one Gloucester citizen put it; "It’s a damned shame that our society has come to this." It's even more of a shame that Gloucester County's local government has come to this. 

Email Content:

Greetings,

The following comments are in regard to the County Administrator’s proposed, “Quality Assurance Audio Recording Policy”:

Audio recording devices, used in the manner proposed, will not capture the full picture of interactions between the government and the People. Furthermore, such recordings, which will be started, stopped and maintained solely at the government’s desecration, can easily be manipulated in favor of the government. The scales of power are always to be tipped in favor of the People; as government, and its employees serve at the pleasure and for the benefit of the People.

There is nothing contained in the proposed policy that establishes criteria/rules for determining the circumstances in which interactions are to, or may be, recorded. There is nothing contained in the proposal that establishes criteria/rules for determining which recordings are to be kept longer than the proposed initial retention period. How are the People supposed to know what to expect and more importantly, what say will the People being recorded have on how long a recording is retained? Will there be a documented chain of custody to protect the integrity of the recordings? Will the recordings be edit/tamper proof? How will the identities of the persons recorded be authenticated and how will the recordings be authenticated to be complete, accurate and free of alterations?

I recently suggested that equipping Animal Control with body cams would be a good way to promote integrity on both sides of public service transactions and is the most reliable way to document contentious situations. Body cams are a good way for leadership to insure county employees are not hanging out at the Yacht Haven pool or a back road store or driving from the courthouse to Farm Fresh at Wicomico and back just to visit their bank at ten thirty in the morning, or picking up Valentines Day treats at multiple shops in one of the local shopping centers. Leadership will also be able to physically see whether or not employees are properly and effectively doing their jobs and acting accordingly when they encounter citizens out in the community.

I now suggest equipping Animal Control and the other government employees outlined in the proposal with body cams instead of pursuing the outdated and controversial audio recording path.

Body cam equipped employees should be required to turn the camera on once they leave the office for the community and not turn it off until they return to the office. Customer service desks should be equipped with fixed, continuous record cameras and all interactions with the public should occur in the open environment of the customer service desk. The monitoring of phone calls should be done either at random or continuously. Recording such conversations any other way in the absence of clear protocol on when to record and not record does not support the proposed quality assurance enhancement assertion or objectives and appears to be more of a way to get the goods on someone than a way of enhancing quality assurance.

Respectfully;

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point 

The County Administrator's response:
Mr. Hogge -

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I am faced with a decision on audio recording, and I have three potential paths...

1.  Disallow audio recording altogether,
2.  Allow audio recording absent a policy governing it, or
3.  Allow audio recording only in compliance with an established policy

I don't see option one as a viable path, as audio recording is already in use in many situations (e.g. Site Plan Meetings, etc.) and it proves to be a very valuable tool, both as a quality assurance measure and a productivity enhancing measure, not to mention promoting civil exchange among and between staff and patrons, as well as supporting accountability on all fronts.

I initiated the proposed policy because I did not feel that the "rules of engagement" for audio recording should be left to the individual employee to determine.  My goal is to establish a uniform policy for such recordings so that staff and patrons alike know what to expect with full transparency.

The policy as proposed has been through an extremely thorough vetting process, with multiple changes written in as we sought to anticipate practical implications of policy implementation.

I welcome your (as well as the Board's and the public's) feedback on the proposed policy.  As you are likely aware, I am not required to put Administrative Policies like this in front of the Board prior to making them effective - as the County Administrator, I am empowered to enact such policies at my discretion.  I have, of my own accord, placed this item on the Board's agenda in a spirit of full disclosure and transparency, hoping to get comments that will help me refine the policy further prior to its effective date.

As a side note, any patron can record any interaction among or between staff and patrons at any time in compliance with the law, without any obligation to indicate that such recording is being captured.  The proposed policy does not and cannot regulate the behavior of non-employees.

Thank you again for your comments, 

Brent

J. Brent Fedors
County Administrator
Gloucester County, Virginia
6467 Main Street
Gloucester, VA  23061
(804) 693-4042
bfedors@gloucesterva.info

The County Administrator's Audio Recording proposal:

Audio recording policy proposal supporting documents from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Request To Expand Body Cam Use In Gloucester County, Virginia

Photo property of The Austin Chronicle.

Body cams are rapidly becoming the norm in American police departments because of their probative value in documenting encounters between law enforcement and the citizenry. They are also increasingly being used by other government employees like Animal Control officers and codes, building, storm water management and other such inspectors. Sometimes animal owners, property owners, contractors and others aren’t very happy when issued code violations. Sometimes animal officers, inspectors and other such public servants are over zealous in the performance of their duties. Body Cameras are a good way to promote integrity on both sides of public service transactions and the most reliable way to document contentious situations. Body cams are also a good way for leadership to insure employees are properly doing their jobs and acting accordingly when they encounter people in the community.

Since the deployment of body cams by our Sheriff’s Department, we have learned the $300 to $1,000 cost per camera is not the only costs associated with using body cams. There are camera repair and replacement costs, data storage costs and costs for the labor intensive processes of viewing, processing and logging hours of video. Available data suggests these costs can equate to between $1,500 and $4,500 per camera per year, but also suggests these costs will likely drop as more localities implement body cam use. Despite the costs, body cams enjoy very strong public support, with 88 percent of those surveyed in an Economist/YouGov poll backing their use.

Considering Gloucester was fortunate enough to have the Sheriff’s department body cams donated and has already invested funds in data storage and processing labor, it only makes sense to take the next step by outfitting our Animal Control officers with body cams. Doing so will enhance the County Administrator’s management of Animal Control officers, enable them to know where their vehicles are and actually see what the officers are doing while they are out in the community. Animal control has already established a history of making separate audio and video recordings of encounters with citizens, but such recordings have only commenced and ended at the pleasure, convenience and whim of the Animal Control officers. Why not take the next step by combining the two recordings in a continuous format that will level the playing field between the officers and the citizens? Outfitting Animal Control officers with body cams will also provide far more clarity of what actually takes place from the beginning to the end of officer and citizen encounters.

The annual costs to outfit Animal Control with body cams will be insignificant in comparison to the benefits we have outlined. Funding should be dedicated in the FY 18 budget to cover the costs of outfitting all of our Animal Control officers with body cams. 

What is your opinion?

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point 

Gloucester Citizens Speak Against Proposed Budget And Tax Increases.

On Wednesday night the Gloucester County, Virginia Board of Supervisors held Public Hearings on the County Administrator’s proposed FY 18 budget and proposed real estate tax rate increase. The meeting was held at the T.C. Walker Education Center in anticipation of a large audience, but very few people showed up.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, a lady spoke about a feral cat problem she and her neighbors are experiencing. She told the Board she had spoken to one of the Animal Control officers about the cats, but said the officer said they had experienced drastic personnel cuts and could not spend time catching cats. She asked for more money to be provided in the budget for Animal Control to address feral cat issues. Maybe if Animal Control personnel did not spend most of their day needlessly patrolling the beaches, swimming pools, stores and other such places they would have time to do their job.

Another lady spoke of her family’s lengthy business history in the County and asked the Board to “please” raise taxes. She said the Board had made so many cuts in previous budgets and asked if they would start cutting funding for necessary things like our libraries. She obviously does not know they are throwing away over a quarter million tax dollars a year in library rent, taxes and maintenance. As a previously successful local business owner, I am sure she would agree that owning our libraries would be economically smarter than renting them.

The rest of the citizens who spoke were against raising taxes. We have provided videos of the Public Hearings on the proposed budget and on the proposed tax rate increases. It is worth taking a few minutes to watch and listen. We have also provided all of our Supervisor’s email addresses; take a few minutes to tell them raising taxes is unacceptable. 

Phillip Bazzani           pbazzani@gloucesterva.info  

Chris Hutson              chutson@gloucesterva.info 

Mike Winebarger       mwinebarger@gloucesterva.info  

Andy James               ajames@gloucesterva.info 

Robert Orth                rorth@gloucesterva.info  

Ashley Chriscoe       achriscoe@gloucesterva.info  

John Meyer                jmeyer@gloucesterva.info 

Public Hearing on FY18 Budget


Public Hearing on Proposed Tax Rates

Gloucester County, Virginia; Votes Made In Congress By Our Elected Representatives

presented by: Military.com

February 13, 2017 In this MegaVote for Virginia's 1st Congressional District: Recent Congressional Votes Senate: Prohibit Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Speak on Senate Floor When Debating Sen. Sessions Nomination to be U.S. Attorney General Senate: Confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General Senate: Confirmation of Rep. Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services House: Disapprove BLM Land Use Planning Rule House: Disapprove State Education Accountability Rule House: Disapprove Teacher Education Program Rule Upcoming Congressional Bills Senate: Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury Senate: Nomination of David Shulkin to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs House: Texas-Oklahoma Border Lands House: Disapprove Unemployment Benefit Drug Testing Rule House: Disapprove State Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule House: Disapprove Local Government Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule House: Disapprove Alaska Predator Control Rule House: Disapprove HHS Planned Parenthood Funding Rule Recent Senate Votes Prohibit Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Speak on Senate Floor When Debating Sen. Sessions Nomination to be U.S. Attorney General - Vote Sustained (49-43, 8 Not Voting) The Senate voted to sustain the ruling of the presiding officer (Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines) in which he prohibited Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren from speaking on the Senate floor for the remainder of the debate concerning Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to be U.S. attorney general. The presiding officer ruled that Sen. Warren violated Senate rule 19 prohibiting senators from "imputing" one another.  Sen. Mark Warner voted Not Voting Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO Confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General - Vote Confirmed (52-47, 1 Present) The Senate confirmed Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to be U.S. attorney general. Sen. Mark Warner voted NO Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO Confirmation of Rep. Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services - VoteConfirmed (52-47, 1 Not Voting) The Senate confirmed Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price to be secretary of Health and Human Services. Sen. Mark Warner voted NO Sen. Tim Kaine voted NO Recent House Votes Disapprove BLM Land Use Planning Rule - Vote Passed (234-186, 12 Not Voting) The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Dec. 12, 2016, which modified the process under which BLM develops plans for the use of the public lands it manages, including by considering a wider variety of issues and possible impacts. Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES Disapprove State Education Accountability Rule - Vote Passed (234-190, 8 Not Voting) The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Education Department on Nov. 29, 2016 which addresses implementation of a state's accountability systems when receiving federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA). Among other things, the rule requires states to identify low-performing schools for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, and requires that each state's statewide plan use multiple indicators of student success that are the same for all public schools (including charter schools). Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES Disapprove Teacher Education Program Rule - Vote Passed (240-181, 11 Not Voting) The joint resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Education Department on Oct. 31, 2016, relating to teacher preparation programs that require states to annually evaluate the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education and to publicly report this information, including the job placement and retention rates of graduates. Rep. Rob Wittman voted YES Upcoming Votes Nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury - PN26 The Senate is expected to take up the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be secretary of the Treasury. Nomination of David Shulkin to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs - PN39 The Senate is expected to take up the nomination of David Shulkin to be secretary of Veterans Affairs. Texas-Oklahoma Border Lands - HR428 The bill would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to pay for a private survey to identify the south boundary line along the Red River separating Texas and Oklahoma with regards to land title and ownership, with the states of Texas and Oklahoma to determine which lands are federal lands and which are private. Disapprove Unemployment Benefit Drug Testing Rule - HJRES42 The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Aug. 1, 2016, that defines the occupations for which states can require individuals applying for unemployment benefits to undergo drug testing. Disapprove State Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule - HJRES66 The measure would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Aug. 30, 2016, that exempts state-administered retirement plans for workers at private sector businesses and nonprofit entities that don't offer retirement plans from certain restrictions and requirements under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Disapprove Local Government Retirement Plan ERISA Exemption Rule - HJRES67 The measure would disapprove the rule issued by the Labor Department on Dec. 20, 2016, that exempts local government-administered retirement plans for workers at private sector businesses and nonprofit entities from certain restrictions and requirements under ERISA. Disapprove Alaska Predator Control Rule - HJRES69 The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Interior Department on Aug. 5, 2016, that prohibits certain predator control practices in national wildlife refuges in Alaska (such as the taking of mother bears and their cubs, the killing of wolves and their pups at den sites, and aerial shooting). Disapprove HHS Planned Parenthood Funding Rule - HJRES43 The resolution would disapprove the rule issued by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) on Dec. 19, 2016, that modifies eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services to specify that states awarding funds cannot prohibit a health care provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services. http://www.military.com/