Floyd: Opponent’s ads don’t tell the whole story of the votes they cite
By DAVID FLOYD
50th District Representative
REP. DAVID FLOYD
Let’s analyze the latest political attack by my opponent. On both television and in print (haven’t heard it on the radio yet) she mentions my “No” votes on a bill in three different legislative sessions. In 2012, prior to the last election, it was HB 250. The next year it was HB 73, and again this year it was HB 277. All three bills are essentially the same, and none were enacted.
While she accurately reports that I voted “No,” the rest is fiction. Let’s look at each of her points.
1. She says I voted against creating “a registry of nursing home employees charged with abusing or molesting elderly residents.”
2. She says I voted against requiring “nursing home operators – like him – to conduct a simple background check on job applicants.”
None of the bills mentioned were enacted. There are good reasons why.
The Nurse Abuse Registry has existed nearly a quarter century, since 1990. All long term care facilities must check the registry and abuse status of individuals before hiring them. What these bills actually proposed was to create a database of ALL job applicants.
As to additional prospective employees, such as kitchen staff, we did have other bills (HB 259, 2012RS; HB 367, 2013 RS; and HB 256, 2014RS) which created an adult abuse registry for ANY person (not just job applicants) against whom there has been a finding of “abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an adult.” I voted “Yes” on each of these bills.
Background checks are already required by law (KRS 216.789) for any applicant for employment in any position at our place of business. We pay for this.
If you apply for a job at our place, these bills would require not just the background check we already do, but also fingerprinting. (Will they next require DNA samples?) Every single person – not just abusers – would be treated as a suspect in a crime. And then these records on every applicant, innocent or not, fingerprints and all, would be maintained by the state in a new database on every applicant.
3. My opponent charges “instead of protecting Nelson County’s most vulnerable seniors, David Floyd used his power as our state representative to protect his nursing home profits” and that I put “profits over the safety of Kentucky’s most vulnerable.”
But the bill actually appropriated state money to perform background checks for a period of years. My family would not have to pay for them during that time, so if I was motivated by profit, I would have voted for the bill. Then, instead of us, Kentucky taxpayers would pay for the background checks.
These bills would have created additional expenses for the state (using taxpayer money) and a larger, more intrusive government. At least four state offices would need additional staffing to establish and maintain the program.
For these reasons, the bill did not pass your General Assembly. To my knowledge, I am the only member out of 138 who has a financial interest in a nursing home.
So every charge made is false and/or misleading.
This is the second set of false charges that mislead the public on my record of service to you. (The first was HB 440 regarding the Unfunded Liability Trust Fund.) Either the people who are advising my opponent are withholding the truth from her, or she is aware of the truth and intentionally misleading you.
-30-
