![02/11/2019 -- Atlanta, Georgia -- Georgia State Representative Eddie Lumsden[cq], a member of the Subcommittee of Public Safety & Homeland Security, listens as HB 113 is brought up during a Subcommittee of Public Safety & Homeland Security meeting at the Paul D. Coverdell Legislative Office Building, Monday, February 11, 2019. (ALYSSA POINTER/ALYSSA.POINTER@AJC.COM)](https://www.ajc.com/resizer/v2/2HEOZOHV2XTWZ3FR5WZBF3W3NE.jpg?auth=1e2cf844795ac887575570060d0becf23987c0a2752ce0c809bc60266d6f0a24&width=1600&height=900&smart=true)
What may be the most consequential piece of gun legislation before the Legislature this year doesn't include any mention of firearms.
The stated intent of House Bill 784, which passed out of committee late last month on a 9-6 vote, is to put discussions of security at Georgia's 2,200 public schools behind closed doors.
But a critic of the legislation says that, as written, the measure would also allow the state’s 180 school boards to vote – in private, out of view of the public and parents alike — to authorize the arming of classroom teachers in their systems.
The author of the bill says that interpretation may be right. “For me personally, I would not have a problem with it,” said state Rep. Eddie Lumsden, R-Armuchee, a retired three-decade veteran of the State Patrol.
The language is brief and simple. The Georgia Code lists a number of exceptions to the state’s requirement that meetings of public bodies be open to public view. HB 784 would add “meetings of local boards of education to discuss, vote upon, review, or assess school safety plans….”
It is the phrase “vote upon” that stands out. Or should.
One of the best things about your modern state Capitol is that you can monitor many committee meetings via the internet – in real time, or many days afterwards.
On Jan. 28, Shaw Blackmon, R-Bonaire, chairman of the House Governmental Affairs Committee, gaveled his panel into session. Lumsden quickly presented his bill.
“House Bill 784 does one thing and one thing only. It adds to the list of things that can be excluded from public discussion – the matter of school safety plans,” he said.
School safety plans, as documents, are already shielded from public view. HB 784 would give the same protection to the discussions surrounding the documents – and the votes to approve them.
Lumsden had an ally in state Rep. Barry Fleming, R-Harlem.
“The idea here is to allow the local school boards that are deciding how to protect our children to not have to tell the bad guys exactly where they're supposed to meet if something bad happens, or where the security cameras may be, or where police officers may be,” Fleming said. “If you vote against this bill, you’re harming the ability of school boards to protect our children.”
Several Democrats had already raised pointed concerns, but that last assertion from Fleming brought state Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur, into the mix. She often reads the legislation in front of her.
“If you vote no, you’re not for the safety of children — I object to that,” Oliver said. “I specifically feel that the issue of determining whether every member of the school staff should be allowed to carry a gun into their classroom is too important a decision not to be a public decision made by the school board.”
Lumsden was given an opportunity to respond. “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion,” he said. His bill passed out of committee – but has not yet been scheduled for a vote on the House floor.
On Tuesday morning, as the Legislature prepared to go back into session after a 13-day recess, Lumsden gave me a quick phone call. I asked him about Oliver’s objection – that his legislation would allow a school board to vote in secret and allow guns into a classroom.
“Since then, I’ve tried to do more research to understand what her question was about,” he said. “She may be correct in the sense that, if this bill passes, it would change a previous bill that was passed concerning the ability for local school systems to do that. I’m trying to get a clearer understanding about how that would be affected.”
In other words, it’s entirely possible that Oliver’s reading is accurate.
But as stated above, Lumsden doesn’t have an issue with keeping a school board decision to arm teachers under wraps. “Identifying which school systems do that, and which school systems do not do that, does not accomplish anything from a safety perspective,” the lawmaker said. “It simply tells somebody who might be willing to carry out some type of act – they would know that the teachers were not armed.”
And that, he said, is “a detail that doesn’t need to be public.”
Yet I can’t help but think that parents and other members of the public might disagree. They are unlikely to insist on details. They won’t demand to be told that Mrs. Rhododendron, the English teacher, can’t be trusted with her Glock because she’s developed a palsy in her gun hand. Or that Coach Beefheart is a former Army Ranger and highly qualified.
But they don’t need to be shut out of a general discussion. Nor should school boards be allowed to escape scrutiny on the topic.
One more concern about HB 784: Should the worst ever happen at a Georgia school, the legislation could be used to keep the issue of accountability locked behind closed doors.
The Georgia PTA hasn’t weighed in on the measure, but HB 784 has the support of the Georgia School Boards Association. “We have to find a balance here,” said Angela Palm, director of policy and legislative services for GSBA.
Assume, God forbid, that the unthinkable happens. “On one hand, people want information and accountability,” Palm said. “On the other hand, when you’re looking at it, you’re finding the holes in your plan. And so, how much of that do you want to release? What you do about that – do you want that in the public or not?” she asked.
“Part of it comes down to trust in your local elected officials – whether you believe they’re going to do well by you or not,” Palm said.
There are only a few people who have stood on both sides of that question. On Monday, I sent a copy of HB 784 to Lori Alhadeff, a member of the Broward County, Fla., board of education. We talked an hour or so later.
“I do recognize that we don’t want to talk about certain safety measures in public because the bad guy could be watching,” she said. “But I do feel that all votes need to be out and open in the public. If there are certain things that might need to be redacted, to protect the safety of a specific school, then we redact that information.”
But Alhadeff also maintains that a school board’s relationship with the community it swims in is important. “We take in the thoughts and the opinion of the community. And when we take them out of that process – that’s not how this is supposed to work,” she said.
Alhadeff and I spoke three days after the second anniversary of her daughter’s death. Fourteen-year-old Alyssa Alhadeff was one of 17 murdered at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.
Her mother ran for a spot on the school board because she and other parents of slain students felt shut out in the aftermath of the massacre. “The school system was not disclosing any information. They were not communicating to us at all. They were not being transparent,” Lori Alhadeff said.
The Broward County school board has since voted to allow school resource officers and well-trained “guardians” to carry weapons in its schools. But not classroom teachers.
“Broward County voted not to allow that. It was a public vote,” Alhadeff said. If they can hazard a vote on that topic, so can we.
About the Author
