Urquhart's SB 279: Help me identify what company stands to benefit from $5,000,000 more taken from general education funds

My last three posts all deal with custom-made RFP's (Referrals to Friends of stePhenson) where legislators write the requirements of a public bid process so that only one company may win.  They even let the companies themselves help write the bill, especially if that company has made campaign donations.  If we're mad about Swallow, why aren't we furious about this??

Here's a new bill I just saw over the weekend via a legislator's update. The legislator spoke of SB 279 as if it were a done deal and going to pass.  This despite the fact the bill was kept secret until last week (the way we can't follow "boxcar bills" and just have to constantly check to see if they become active is a blow to transparency and maybe something I'll have to go into in a post-session complaint.) and rushed through a non-education Senate Committee with Stephenson on it.  It allocates $5,000,000 to an interactive math program with very specific requirements. 

There are 3 big problems I see:

1.  This seems written for a specific company AGAIN.  Why is Urquhart joining the likes of Stephenson, Stevenson, and Adams in this unethical practice?  Can anyone help me figure out what company this is intended for?  Does Imagine Learning have a new math program being unveiled?

2.  We are going to guarantee $5,000,000 to a company, but schools cannot "require" students to use this program, only provide it?

3a.  We are then going to measure "learning gains" from a weird subset of students using it in totally different ways and amounts and report that as accountability?  It is flat-out impossible to get good data from that.  I think Sen. Urquhart would know that.  Did the vendor write this bill too?

3b.This (non-)accountability report will likely be written by the vendor themselves if recent trends continue.  This seems to me like doubling down on a destructive practice. First, we give vendors custom written bills because they have curried the favor of only one or two legislators.   The vendor then self-reports learning gains, and the legislature uses that report to justify more money.  It worked for Imagine Learning.  I've been to various vendor sales pitches, and every one proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their product would drastically raise student achievement.  I've never heard any claims of "mediocre learning gains" or "so-so achievement."  These practices are unethical even if the program ends up being great for the students.  That's very fortunate for the students, and may even be true of Imagine Learning, but it does not justify cronyism, political favors, pay-to-play, or not reporting useful data.

Here'e the language cut and pasted from the bill.


http://le.utah.gov/~2013/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm

Custom RFP.  What company already knows this is coming?

 (3) In selecting a program, the board shall consider the following criteria:
             44          (a) the program contains a strong instructional component focused on problem solving,
             45      number sense, and basic skills;
             46          (b) the program provides explicit instruction with a strong focus on highly effective
             47      and evidence-based strategies and comprehensive resources to address learners in need of both
             48      strategic and intensive supports, including English language learners;
             49          (c) the program is self-adapting to respond to the needs and progress of the learner,
             50      including allowing for increasingly intense instruction and additional practice opportunities
             51      based on individual student needs;
             52          (d) the program provides opportunities for frequent, quick, and informal assessments
             53      and includes an embedded progress monitoring tool and mechanisms for regular feedback to
             54      students and teachers; and
             55          (e) the program is self-paced.

 Can't require??

 (4) The board shall make the program available to school districts and charter schools
             57      that apply for the program based on the number of students in kindergarten through grade 6.
             58          (5) A school district or charter school may:

---

             59          (a) provide the program to a student by scheduling additional instructional hours or
             60      other means; and
             61          (b) may not require a student to participate in the program.

But will report learning gains??  How?  Compared to what? 

62          (6) On or before November 1, 2013, and on or before November 1 each year thereafter,
             63      the board shall report final testing data regarding a program provided under this section,
             64      including student learning gains as a result of the program, to:
             65          (a) the Education Interim Committee; and
             66          (b) the governor.

Why do we allow Howard Stephenson to drive Utah's education agenda?

Here are the current bills being prepared for the 2011 Utah state legislative session on the topic of education:

http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SubResults.asp?Listbox4=00790

10 of 19 bills are from Senator Stephenson. (These numbers will change as we get closer to the session. The 10 of 19 is as of Sep. 6, 2010.)

A quick look at the bills reveals:

2 curriculum bills,
2 charter school bills--one specifically about financing, probably taking district property taxes again,
Converting public schools to charter schools,
School "restructuring,"
Public School Accountability,
Public School Teacher Tenure Modifications,
Funding of Online Learning,
Engineering Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools

So basically, make more public school mandates--"engineering education," "accountability," messing with teacher tenure, and both curriculum bills (Is Howard Stephenson going to jump on his buddy, Oak Norton's bandwagon and demand we teach Cleon Skousen as "real" history? Oak told Howard during the March 13th Red Meat Radio broadcast that his group gave copies of The 5,000 Year Leap to the Alpine School Board as examples of appropriate curriculum material.)--while giving more of the limited pie of public education funding to charter schools and online programs that will not be subject to those same requirements. Plus dictating "restructuring" and possible conversions to charter schools.

Howard Stephenson thinks public education is socialism (Very end of post). He runs public education bills to benefit specific companies, hypocritically overriding local control and increasing the costs of public education when it's one of his pet projects. He constantly misrepresents his bills and abuses the legislative process in order to pass controversial provisions with little or no scrutiny: 2008 (plus an ongoing $190,000 annual expenditure of education funds just to spite an employee of the State Office of Education who ran against Greg Hughes at the county Republican convention. Seriously.), 2009, 2010. He is unabashedly conflicted as a paid corporate lobbyist--he is the only legislator whose entire livelihood depends on the issues he supports and how he votes on those issues. Combining his last two issues--he literally ran a bill in 2010 authorizing conflicts of interest for charter school board members as a sneaky provision in a larger charter school bill.

Senator Stephenson is on all public education interim and Senate committees in the state of Utah and is literally the sponsor of half of the education bills for 2011. I believe all claims by the legislature that their ethical safeguards are sufficient can never be taken seriously while this well-paid corporate shill is allowed to not just hold public office, but be one of the leading policy makers in the legislature. I also believe Howard Stephenson would be voted out of office in a heartbeat if the public paid attention, but unfortunately they don't and he'll probably be voted in for 4 more years of self-interest come November.

.

Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries initiatives -- Utah County SOS

This post is short (for me). Please read my request for help at the end.

I support both the Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries initiatives. The deadline for signatures for both is April 15th. I also support the citizen initiative process. Local politicians talk the "We the people" talk when dealing with the federal government, but become downright defensive when confronted with that same reality on the state level--that their authority is derived completely from the people they represent.

Article I, Section 2 of the Utah State Constitution.

All political power is inherent in the people;

Article VI, Section 1 of the Utah State Constitution.

(1) The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in:
(a) a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).
(2) (a) (i) The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
(A) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute;

State legislators constantly use a false example to make their cause seem just. "California is bad! If we make laws by initiative, we will end up liberal and bankrupt like California! Honest!"

It is faulty, ego-driven logic to argue that passing any citizen initiative will turn Utah into California, yet I have seen this argument both in print and in person from legislators. It's silly, shallow electioneering just like sticking a picture of Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama in a commercial about a political opponent and shouting "Ooga booga!" The legislators should represent us to the best of their ability, not protect their power and act like their wisdom is irreplaceable.

The legislature has exercised their procedural authority to make getting the citizens' voice on the ballot via initiative almost impossible. The signatures of 10% of all Utah voters must be gathered, including 10% out of the individual State Senate Districts. Only widespread active advocacy can succeed.

So here's my point tonight. The head folks at both Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries are necessarily putting on a confident face. With only 2 weeks left until the April 15th deadline (which the legislature arbitrarily moved from June until April in retaliation after the citizens voted down the voucher bill...SB 54 sponsored by a Democratic senator and Republican Kevin Garn in the House), I think the threat of not gathering enough signatures is greater than the threat of initiative opponents knowing which districts to target--they'll know after April 15th anyway.

The difficulty does not lie in the message or the bill itself--it lies in apathy. Most voters have still not heard of either initiative. Not enough of those supportive of the concepts of the initiatives have signed them or volunteered to gather more signatures. I can speak from personal knowledge that the signature totals for both petitions in the Utah County Senate Districts are not going to pass unless more people volunteer to get one packet worth of 20 signatures immediately.

That's my plea. Get a signature packet from either or better yet, both of the initiative organizations, and get 20 signatures in the next week. There are contact people on both websites who can get you signature packets.

Here are the contact links for Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries.

We need fast, low-hanging fruit from every neighborhood in the Senate Districts of Senator Madsen, Stephenson, Valentine, Dayton, Bramble, and Hinkins. There are a lot of people supportive of putting ethics reform and fair political redistricting on the ballot that just need to be asked. If you are politically interested enough to be reading this blog, then you know 10-20 people among your family, friends, and neighbors that would sign the petitions. The active volunteers have already gotten the signatures of their neighbors and are doing the tough stuff door-to-door or standing outside public places. That is rewarding and effective (In my experience, 75-80% of those who will listen to explanations of the initiatives sign.), but slow. 50 people gathering 20 signatures each from their circle of friends is what is needed.

Utah County residents, please just make one phone call to the contact person for the initiatives. Spend a couple hours in the next two weeks and gather 20 signatures. Determine whether inspiration or guilt is more effective in your particular case, and consider me sending you whichever is required. I think both are merited for these causes to improve our state government.

.

Last day of the session: Howard Stephenson pushes a 75% reduction of corporate income tax late fees at the cost of 3 million education dollars a year

Take a look at the legislative calendar for the last day of the session. If you click on the box labeled Senate Bills under the House menu, you will see the queue of Senate bills waiting to be considered by the Utah House of Representatives today. There are two consecutive bills by Senator and registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association (A euphemism for Utah Big Business Tax Reduction At All Costs Advocacy Association), Howard Stephenson, SB 186 and SB 64.

Senate Bill 64

SB 64 had already been on my "to blog" list, but Rolly beat me to it the other day. When I had first checked out the bill after seeing it pop up, I read the first few lines of the text through the "Highlighted Provisions" and just started laughing. To anyone following Gehrke's and Rolly's coverage last December of Stephenson unethically advocating for state contracts for ProCert , the intent is obvious. (Those 2 links lead to just the comments from the articles because of the Trib's lame archival policy. I'll post the text to the articles and an editorial in the next few weeks when I review the controversy and explain why "professional textbook review" is a total crap corporate giveaway.) The legislature would form an Administrative Rules Review Committee composed of 10 permanent legislators, plus 4 leaders of specific committees for each bill review, to check if state employees are acting legally (line 55), to ensure that they "comply with legislative intent" and that the legislature is allowed to slowly usurp the executive branch's functions(line 56), to certify that business taxes go down (lines 57-58), and to badger the State Office of Education to hire ProCert. The bill curiously has no fiscal note even though it requires this new committee of up to 14 legislators to meet once a month (lines 35-37), and I highly doubt they'll be meeting without receiving their per diem. Finally, the bill gives this mini-inquisition of intent power to spend their time examining basically anything they want:

60 (c) (i) To carry out these duties, the committee may examine any other issues that it
61 considers necessary.

Senate Bill 186

And as bad as that is, SB 186 could be worse. I'm trying to be fair and not claim dishonest intent without sound evidence, but the bill was certainly not presented accurately by its sponsor nor vetted completely by the Senate committee or body. Help me here. Listen to the audio (Click on "Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee 2/18" under the Audio Recordings of Debates heading. When 17:49 of audio pops up, just know that only the first 8 minutes concern SB 186). Does Senator Stephenson mislead the Senate Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee about the larger impact of a nice little bill to encourage individuals to pay their late taxes promptly?

0:00 Sen. Stephenson starts out, speaking from the committee dais of a committee he sits on rather than taking the floor, and says that "the bill in large part was brought by the tax commission," but then mentions that "tax practitioners" (What or who does that mean? Those members of the UTA who pay taxes?) asked for a reduction from 2% to .5% in late fees "for failing to pay certain income taxes." Senator Business Lobbyist doesn't mention that these are largely corporate franchise and income taxes and avoids the topic for the rest of the bill's hearing.

From about :30 to 2:30 in the recording: He invites a tax official, Bruce Johnson, to explain the innoucous, common sense part of the bill . They are giving individuals submitting their taxes late a break for the first 15 late days, allowing them to pay less than the normal 10% late fee in order to encourage rapid submission. Plus, they are coordinating with a new computerized tax system, GenTax. Lines 67-313 of the bill deal with this graduated partial grace period. That sounds fine, but I was looking at the enormous fiscal note and wondering how cutting the late fees on people for a few days was going to cost the education fund over 3 million dollars a year.

2:34 Sen. Neiderhauser asks Stephenson if the bill has a fiscal note.

2:37-3:13 Sen. Stephenson says he doesn't know, gets handed an incorrect fiscal note for a couple hundred thousand dollars total cost in 2010 and 2011 (which from things said later in the recording, I believe shows the cost of just the 15 days reduction in penalties for individuals proposed and discussed by the Utah Tax Commission), and is unable to decide if the lost revenue is from the General Fund as he first claims or the Education Fund (income tax), which I also believe also shows his change from the original intent since Bruce Johnson firmly thought it was a General Fund reduction.

He then takes awhile to explain that passing this before the GenTax system comes on line is important.

4:47-6:23 THE INFURIATING PART Senator Valentine both illustrates the potential for a committee to thoroughly examine proposed legislation and weigh its ramifications...AND the "You scratch my back..." mentality of "I don't want to hold up the bill" even though I have no idea how much it costs and it is obvious the sponsor has no idea either.

. - 4:47 Sen. Valentine asks about lines 322 and 326-330 and explains that those heretofore undiscussed corporate franchise and income tax late fee cuts, as well as penalty reductions for late individual income taxes, come out of the Education Fund. I start to see where the $3 million cost was coming from.

. - 5:25-5:56 Sen. Stephenson is confused by the dates in that updated portion of the bill. Sen. Valentine reads the bill quickly and accurately and explains that the penalty rate reduction from 2% a month to .5% a month in income tax is the source of the reduction in revenue for the bill from the Education Fund.

. - 5:57-6:09 More evidence that Stephenson subverted the bill. Bruce Johnson of the tax commission pipes up and says "That was the reduction in rate that you added Senator and I didn't look at that...but it would appear to me that it should be education funds." He had no idea about the intent or effects of Stephenson's business-friendly "additions" which clearly DID NOT apply to his explanation of the original intent of the bill. I am very, very suspicious as to why Sen. Stephenson would not understand that cutting the penalty on large, corporate income taxes by 75% per month would have a huge net effect on state income. In fact, from his testimony, it appears that Stephenson is largely unfamiliar with that part of the bill and I suspect the corporate franchise and income tax penalty reduction was a late business lobby addition after the original bill went to the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and came back with the smaller general fund reductions mentioned around the 2:45 mark.

. - 6:09-6:25 Sen. Stephenson will request a new fiscal note, Valentine doesn't "want to hold up the bill because I understand exactly its need..." but he wants to be accurate about which budget they're dealing with in the "tight budget year." If Valentine really cares about fiscal responsibility and understands the need to encourage prompt payment of late taxes (the first 313 lines of the bill), why doesn't he demand real information about a hastily added section of the bill that encourages late payment by reducing the penalties associated with large corporations paying their franchise and income taxes on extensions by 75%? (Lines 314-330)

6:25-6:51 Sen. Valentine begins follow-up question possibly addressing my concern about the intent of the bill to encourage prompt filing, and...Sen. Stephenson interrupts because he has finally figured out that he has the wrong fiscal note.

6:55-7:08 Jokes about perjury and whether it was intentional or merely negligent oversight...Possibly both in my opinion...

7:09-7:37 Sen. Niederhauser declares they won't ask questions because they don't have a fiscal note and opens it up to the public who surely had no idea what was going on.

7:37-8:08 Senator Valentine moves they pass the bill anyway and the committee unanimously votes in favor of the bill with "encouragement" to get the fiscal note. My opinion of committees as largely being political softballers which only scrutinize certain bills for political or ideological reasons is confirmed.

Now the floor debate:

Click on the Day 35 debate. It's 6:03, including liberal amounts of downtime and a role call vote. (The bill name links to audio, or you can click on the day and scroll down the list to SB 186 for video.) A couple weeks have passed since the committee hearing, and Sen. Stephenson now rises and says absolutely nothing about the story that got him through committee, encouraging the prompt payment of late taxes. He says nothing about those 15 grace days of reduced penalty. Instead he jokes they are going to make Utah as friendly as the IRS, gets a laugh, and now sorrowfully announces that the tax decrease will cause a fiscal note, explaining nothing specific or even what was requested at the end of the committee hearing. The lame highlight comes from 1:30 to 3:00 on the recording. Sen. Okerlund asks Sen. Stephenson to explain the fiscal note--remember, this $3-million-a-year ongoing hit to the Education Fund from 2010 onward was presented as as a two-year $125,000 cut in the General Fund during committee. Sen. Stephenson asks Okerlund questions back, hems and haws, followed by an awkward pause, and explains nothing. Sen. Okerlund, however, appears a bit reluctant to admit he has no idea what the bill is doing and especially why. No one understands what the one-time money that is shown as income means, including Sen. Stephenson. It makes me so mad when legislators have no idea what they are sponsoring because they are just acting for some lobbyist!! The next day, Sen. Stephenson gives an explanation from the Fiscal Analyst...how many do you think really understood it? I didn't.

Click on the Day 36 debate. It's a whopping 2:52 long. Stephenson gives the canned explanation and the bill passes with a unanimous vote. Whenever the legislators brag about how much careful, unbiased, non-lobbyist-influenced deliberation they give policy, I just think of crap like this. You could have taken a roll call for justification of SB 186 right after the vote, and I bet not one senator, with the possible exception of the sponsor, could have done more than repeated Stephenson's sorry excuse for an explanation that "It makes us not as mean as the IRS." I wonder how many even looked at the fiscal note which Stephenson purposely avoided announcing out loud.

Recap

1. Sen. Stephenson presented the bill as one thing during committee, and emphasized the opposite on the floor. His lobbyist interests seemed to conflict with the goals of his Tax Commission partners who helped draft the bill. (This seems familiar...)

2. NO ONE ELSE EVEN CARED!! Sen. Stephenson could not satisfactorily answer one question in committee or on the floor. If a PTA lady speaks in support of a bill in committee, Bramble, Stephenson, and Dayton grill her. If the powerful Senator Stephenson is completely unprepared, cannot answer basic questions about the reasoning behind his bill, omits that his bill costs 3 million dollars a year, and disingenuously changes his story from place to place, while other legislators vote for a bill they obviously know nothing about....that's fine. And once again, they will tell us it's the media's fault the public distrusts the legislature.

3. Sen. Stephenson is mucking around with HB 2, trying to shift charter school costs to districts, which regardless of substitute version cuts all training days and Career/Technical budgets and portions of everything else, while sneakily cutting over 3 million education dollars a year through a fee decrease that almost exclusively helps corporations. (I'm not sure what happened to the laptops for preschoolers Upstart program. Does anyone really know if that money was spent this year or has been cut?)

4. Weber County Forum and Ogden County Forum have been featuring well-reasoned pleas for the state or county to collect late property taxes...so Senator Stephenson goes and makes it easier for corporations to delay payment of corporate franchise and income taxes. The regular Joe Taxpayer's burden gets a little heavier.

Any legislative interns reading this, please ask your legislator to ask one question of Rep. Harper, the House sponsor, when SB 186 comes up for debate this morning. Why does the majority of the bill encourage prompt payment of late taxes, but the small expensive part encourages LATE payment of owed taxes? Seriously. And for a difficult bonus question, ask: Why are you stealthily cutting $1 1/2 million from education next year and $3 million every year after that?

A short opinion about the Hughes Lawrence bribery charge

As a few others have said, I think the other 5 charges besides the bribe allegation against Hughes are extremely important and that they’re getting undercovered. I think the bribery charge will probably be dismissed by the Ethics Committee. Not because the huge amounts of out-of-state voucher funding pouring into our legislative and state school board races haven’t been slimy, but because the campaign funding laws are so lax.

As it now stands, every campaign donation, especially large ones, could be considered a bribe. If advocacy group x gives 20,000 dollars to a legislator to spend on whatever they want, it is a bribe and will be prosecuted. However, if advocacy group x gives 20,000 dollars to a legislator’s campaign fund, that’s perfectly legal. It is also perfectly legal for a legislator to pay taxes on that $20,000, and then spend it on whatever they want. Campaign accounts in Utah are 100% legal money laundering tools.

I’m heartened that even Lavarr Webb thinks ethics reform is coming:

By far, the vast majority of Utah political leaders are honest, ethical, upstanding individuals. That’s one reason some of them resent the continual media barrage on ethics reform. Precisely because they are honest, some view stricter ethics guidelines as unnecessary and bothersome. It grates on them that people would think they need strict regulations to keep them honest.

Despite that attitude, ethics reform is likely coming in the 2009 session. With current ethics complaints against legislators, and the media frenzy, the issue simply can no longer be ignored.

But I think the legislators are raging hypocrites on their self-righteous stance about impugning their honesty through ethics reform. Unnecessary and bothersome? I know that’s Webb talking, but that sums up their attitude perfectly. I bet even most legislators would admit that the vast majority of Utah teachers and even school district officials are honest, ethical, upstanding individuals. I know that to be true, but I would be suspicious if lobbyists were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on “gifts” and dinners for education employees each year and even more so if 80% or more of those didn’t have to be identified by name. Or if city lawyers, district judges, or Genola town clerks were accepting huge amounts of money from advocacy groups, and supposedly NOT for services rendered, just because they support the character of the individual...You’re telling me we should trust them. What a bunch of self-serving bologna…

To the legislature:
Ethics reform is not a media “barrage” or “frenzy.” You are not smarter than the 70%+ of your constituents that consistently poll in favor of ethics reform. You have “ignored” the issue for too long while hypocritically attacking presidential candidates and members of congress for similar indiscretions. I truly hope ethics reform becomes a huge issue at the ballot box.

Here’s a final article from the Tribune from April showing some retirement windfalls from both parties:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8835440

Campaign funds: Law lets leaders hold on to dough
Some are calling for more accountability on leftover balances in
lawmakers' coffers
By Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/07/2008 12:35:44 AM MDT


Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, hasn't given much thought to what he's
going to do with the $13,400 he has sitting in his campaign fund.
The retiring lawmaker likely will use some of it for travel
expenses for the rest of his term, which ends Dec. 31. But some may
end up tucked away in his pocket.
"I might support other candidates with it, but it would have to be
somebody I really liked," he said. "I'll probably just keep it and pay
taxes on it."
Under Utah statute, that's perfectly legal. Those running for or
serving in public office can use campaign funds any way they see fit.
It's a practice retiring Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake City, finds
"very unfortunate."
"I plan to plow mine back for the same kind of activity for which
people gave me money," she said, adding that the $7,600 she has left
will go toward other candidates' races.
Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy, is running for state treasurer, and he
will roll over the $18,800 he has left in his state House campaign
account into that race.
"I'm not going to get a boat this time," he joked.
Sandy Peck, executive director of the League of Women Voters, has
testified in support of legislation restricting such funds.
"We just thought that people would be really surprised that there
just were no limits on how that money could be spent," she said.
"When you give money to a candidate, it's for reasons to do with
their offices and services they are going to provide you as a
taxpayer," Peck said. "There should be some accountability and some
restriction on how it gets used."
State Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful, has the most leftover money
of any retiring lawmaker: $31,600. He plans to use most of it for
campaigns and charity.
"Maybe not 100 percent will go for those, but the majority will.
The rest, we'll just go ahead and see," he said. "But as I understand
it, there are no restrictions on how we can use that money."
Rep. Gordon Snow, R-Roosevelt, said he gave one-third of his
$3,000 to a candidate he supports but wouldn't name.
"I don't want to offend the other guys," he said. "Can't a guy
just walk away?"
Rep. LaWanna Shurtliff, D-Ogden, has the least amount left, with
about $1,700. She'll use it for postage and other expenses during the
remainder of her term.
"Many people keep some money in there in case they run again," she said.
That's proven beneficial for LaVar Christensen and Jay Seegmiller.
Christensen left the House in 2006 to run for Congress, but he still
has nearly $13,000 left in his legislative campaign fund, according to
his financial disclosure. Seegmiller has about $8,700 left. Both are
running again this year for legislative seats. Former House Majority
Leader Jeff Alexander has about $62,000 at his disposal, according to
his disclosure. Earlier, he said he does not plan to spend it but
rather save it for his next run at office.
But others who have been retired for several years still have
significant amounts left. Al Mansell, who chose not to run again for
his Senate seat in 2006, still has $45,600 in his account, according
to his disclosure. He could not be reached for comment.
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and his communications director,
Karen Hale, both ran bills when they served in the Legislature to
require candidates to put surplus funds into political campaigns,
nonprofit organizations or the state's general fund.
Hale said it was "unbelievable to see the reactions" of
legislators arguing against passing such a bill.
"They would say 'I really earned this money. I've given up
personal time and sacrificed for this office,' " Hale said. "But
public service is just that: service."
Becker's legislation, which he ran several years, never saw the
light of day in a Legislature hostile to most so-called ethics reform
efforts.
He said he can't speak to legislators' motivations, but did say
many "justified" using the money to take trips with their spouses or
benefit themselves in some way.
"It leaves open the potential for real abuse," he said. "When
people give money for political campaigns . . . those monies are not
intended to be for personal use."
smcfarland@sltrib.com


Leaving happy

Retiring lawmakers and their campaign fund balances
* Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful: $31,657.33
* Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi: $29,972.22
* Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy: $18,836.31
* Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price: $13,434.56
* Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George: $11,632.06
* Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake City: $7,615.73
* Rep. Gordon Snow, R-Roosevelt: $3,140.33
* *Former Rep. Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake City: $2,869.35
* Rep. LaWanna Shurtliff, D-Ogden: $1,686.21
*Current Salt Lake City mayor
Source: Candidate financial disclosures