What a difference a day and one county further south make...Part One of a summary of the Utah County ethics initiative hearing

Wow. As I expected, the Utah Valley hearing of the Utahns for Ethical Government Initiative was not the calm affair described in Salt Lake County.

I was surprised as I approached the room at the Provo Library and grabbed a name tag from the table. The room was obviously too small and I think the organizers could and should have planned better to allow more people to attend comfortably.

The room filled by the beginning of the organizer’s presentations and a standing crowd eventually formed at the back. I only saw Craig Frank and Curtis Bramble in the room when the meeting started, but most or all of the Utah County legislators arrived by the end of the meeting. I will complement the Utah County legislators in that they stood and allowed others to take their seats. I’ll criticize their obnoxious behavior, along with some others I perceived as mostly associates of the legislators gathered around them, snorting and yelling out in the back.

I’m going to give a blow-by-blow account of the hearing as well as I can. If it bores you, skim I guess. I think many will be interested in the tense atmosphere that developed and the strange offhand comments that I managed to record. I think a meeting like this is where a blog can really fill a need, not having the space limitations of the newspaper. I think I did a pretty good job of getting a lot down, but I know some of the facts, figures, and quotes will be a little fudged since I was trying to listen and summarize at the same time. I’ll indicate when I am extra unsure of what I heard. I also apologize in advance to anyone whose name I mess up. There were many participants whose name we only heard announced once, but could not see written, and I’m sure I did not get them all.


The meeting opened with Ned Hill welcoming the attendees and introducing Karl Snow, former BYU professor and Republican President of the Utah Senate. Hill emphasized Snow’s service as a Republican every this and that for 30+ years as well as his serving as a Mormon ambassador to the United Nations last decade.

Karl Snow, speaking along with a powerpoint presentation: We've waited 20 years for ethics reform. Why? 40 states have independent ethics commissions of some sort. He mentioned the 4-4 votes on multiple charges in the Hughes bribery hearing last year, all split along party lines. (Actually they just said the votes happened during the hearing of “a legislator.” The presenters did not use the names of any legislators or companies when making their case, but I’ll add those names that were obvious to me.)

The Legislature is controlled by special interest money. 81% of campaign donations come from the contributions of special interests. There are no limits on contributions of any type in Utah—1 of only 6 states w/o campaign contribution limits. Corporations are not allowed to contribute to federal races, but 2.45 million in corporate donations were received in Utah within the last…I missed this because of typing and maybe the lady I will mention just ahead. Since 2008 maybe?

Since 2006, one corporation spent $500,000 contributing to Utah politicians of both parties. This corporation contributed to 80% of sitting legislators and frequently has business before the entire legislature. He didn’t say, but I’m pretty sure he had to be referencing Energy Solutions. In Utah, a politician can become a lobbyist one year after leaving office. (He did not mention that this restriction only became law this summer after dozens and dozens of prominent legislators have gone on to lucrative jobs as lobbyists immediately after service over decades, including Greg Curtis, Mike Dmitrich, and Mark Walker this past session.) A legislator can be a registered lobbyist at the same time as serving in the legislature. (Howard Stephenson would be the most prominent here, although there was at least one other, a Democrat woman in the legislature during the 2008 session.) Snow thinks all of this should change.

[ A lady went down the aisle during these last comments, passing out two documents listing arguments against the initiative with the word “DRAFT” in big red letters on the top, blithely ignoring Karl Snow as she interrupted him and obstructed the view of many as she whispered to each row saying something to the effect of, “These were outside and weren’t passed out.” At least one of the documents was authored by Lyle Hillyard, possibly both. I’ll detail the arguments in a different post, but it pulled one current GOP buzzword out to rally opposition that came up later in the meeting. There were 2 numbered points calling the members of the commission “czars” and the sponsors of the initiative “super czars.” Funny. Don’t link them to Ted Kennedy, instead link it to Van Jones and the national healthcare reform debate. As the woman reached the front, right in front of Snow, blocking everyone’s view, and then turned back down the aisle passing out the papers to the other side, Ned Hill stood and said “I wish you would have asked before passing this out. The woman said something vague about Don Jarvis (who was helping with sign-ups and ushering in the back) telling her that her paper “should probably be in here.” Hill told her that opponents could hold their own meeting and pass out things. Much of the crowd cheered that remark.

The kicker is that I overheard a well-dressed woman who was against the initiative discussing the flyer after the meeting, as discussions broke out in little groups all over the room. She referenced the woman passing out the flyers by name, said she went in without permission, recounted what Ned Hill had said about holding your own meeting, and quoted the flyer-passer-outer as saying “I didn’t know” with an exaggerated shrug, all of this while laughing, strongly implying that the woman had been dishonest while intentionally interrupting. (I can’t remember either name, the woman speaking afterward possibly had the last name of Sherrill.) I’ll have more on this woman’s comments in a different post as well.]

I will have to finish this in a different post or maybe even two. Sorry I didn’t even get to the real presentation or the public questions. I have a crick in my neck from where I fell asleep while sitting at the computer.

Vouchers absolutely are a voting issue... Selective memory and posturing aside

.

The relevant summary:

Congressional or legislative incumbents generally tout their experience and “stand by their record,” trying to impress voters with the issues they supported and bills they sponsored. This is common and important. We judge whether the legislator represented us adequately and honestly and decide whether to vote for them or not. The current legislative races are following this pattern except for one thing which many incumbents just want you to forget as a “non-issue”…vouchers.

The polls showed that the public overwhelmingly rejected the concept of private school vouchers before, during, and after the referendum debate. The legislators who sponsored and voted for vouchers knew the public in general disliked the idea and knew who their dependable campaign donors were.

The legislators then strangely formed their own lobbying fund and lobbied the public using slick Utah Taxpayers Association materials, getting reimbursed for their time, mileage, etc. from the funds donated principally by Patrick Byrne.

In fact, due to lack of grassroots support, Patrick Byrne provided almost all of the funding for PCE’s entire pro-voucher campaign.

Many, many voucher supporters of all stripes based their financial arguments on falsehoods.

The public strongly rejected the flawed idea in the referendum vote. Voucher supporters, both within the legislature and from the general public, proceeded to insult 62% of Utah voters who just “didn’t understand” vouchers and were “afraid.”

The point:

But you are supposed to forget all that and just “move forward.” The voucher vote was a year ago and is not relevant to the election today. Punishing legislators would be wrong. Just look at their record…except for vouchers. After years of stagnation, they voted to actually educate the large percentage of new student growth as well as increase school funding during two of the three largest budget surplus years in the history of the state of Utah, so all that other stuff doesn’t matter…especially vouchers. Forget the fact that more moderate legislators would have voted for those same measures AND listened to their constituents by rejecting vouchers. And really, you shouldn’t evaluate many incumbents’ entire anti-public-education attitude continued by the omnibus bill, corporate-handout laptops for preschoolers, $190,000 a year spent on additional bureaucracy just to spite a State Board of Education employee who dared run for public office against Greg Hughes, and successful manipulation of the State School Board election process. Ignore the double standard when candidates rightly disagree with their opponents' records, but expect you to ignore theirs. (That is an affliction common to all politicians of all political parties, but especially prevalent this year in regards to vouchers.) And ignore the extremism dominating much of the public policy discussion in our legislature, such as Senator Stephenson believing public education is "socialism." (The last two paragraphs of the post.)

Speaker of the House Greg Curtis has said vouchers are dead under his watch. Senate President Valentine said he thinks Utah voters would “support vouchers with the right information.” (i.e. bad numbers and propaganda…) Both my House Rep. and my State Senator have told me they would vote for vouchers again if it came up. People in the audience at the Utah County Republican Convention this year agitated for vouchers, and the only organization I remember having a booth in the display room along with the candidates was Parents for Choice in Education. That group continues to pour out-of-state money into legislative races this year to further their agenda. But don’t worry. Just trust your legislator that it will be all right. House Majority Whip, Dave Clark, for example:

"I don't know why folks keep dragging (the issue) up," Clark said. "To waste so much time looking backward when we have so many challenges ahead of us is a poor, poor direction."

Learning from the past is poor judgment. Got it.

Education is a voting issue! It is a cornerstone of our democracy and accounts for over half of the tax money spent in this state. Vouchers are a wealthy subsidy that would erode that funding for public schools. Basing a large part of your voting decisions on the differences between candidates’ positions on education—including vouchers—is prudent morally and financially. Don’t listen to vague name-calling and discussions of “one-issue” voters meant to divert attention from the many dismal legislative records in support of public education.

.

September Tribune article detailing some of PCE's donations to candidates in '08 legislative races

.

All of the underlined passages, italic text, and the extra comment in brackets were added by me:


http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10432268

Voucher battle carries into this year's elections

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 09/10/2008 10:10:45 PM MDT

Posted: 9:40 PM- The echoes of last year's voucher fight are still ringing, as both sides in that pitched battle continue to slug it out in this election.
Parents For Choice in Education, the leading backer of the failed voucher proposal, has spent nearly $200,000 on expenses such as polling, mailers and fundraising in an effort to defend legislators who championed their cause, including endangered House Speaker Greg Curtis.
"We continue to be supportive of legislators who work for [education] solutions and vouchers are one of them," said Judi Clark, executive director of Parents for Choice in Education. "We don't want last year's defeat . . . to be a catalyst to stop them from doing the great work they are doing."
Nearly 99 percent of the $222,000 Parents for Choice raised came from two sources: Overstock.com entrepreneur Patrick Byrne and Michigan-based advocacy group All Children Matter.[I.E. Patrick Byrne, Amway, and Wal-Mart are still fighting for vouchers in Utah.]
The Utah Education Association, meantime, has invested nearly $100,000 this year, much of it going to the campaigns of challengers looking to knock off the same legislators PCE is defending, and mobilizing its troops for the ground war.
"We're going to be as active as we can afford to be and we're going to play in races where we feel our involvement can make a difference," said Vik Arnold, director of government affairs for the teachers' union.
Parents For Choice, meantime, spent thousands of dollars on phone banks to identify potential voters and raise funds for their legislative backers. The group provided more than $5,000 in phone banks and voter lists to Curtis and gave a $2,000 contribution to Senate President John Valentine.
Legislators like Reps. Craig Frank, Steve Sandstrom, Steve Urquhart and others received phone bank services, and more than a dozen others received direct contributions to their campaign.
The group's biggest expenditure was $105,000 spent on polling between the months of February and June. Clark said the group was testing the public's response to various education reforms and also doing some voter identification work.
"We were really seeing in Utah what are people's major concerns and what are some ideas" they would be receptive to, she said.
The group provided more than $7,000 in phone bank calls to try to get out the vote for Rep. Glen Donnelson and Rep. Paul Neuenschwander, but it wasn't enough for either to make it through the primaries. Each lost to his UEA-backed Republican opponent, Ryan Wilcox and Becky Edwards, respectively.
"We're obviously sad to lose Representatives Donnelson and Neunschwander. They'd done good things for education as well as all of their constituents," said Clark.
Rep. Carl Wimmer said Parents for Choice set up phone banks to help his campaign raise money to help stave off a challenge from Dave Hogue, a former Republican legislator who changed parties to run for his old seat.
Wimmer said he expects Hogue to try to beat him up over his support for vouchers, but he says it will "be a non-issue."
"I won my last election with 66 percent of the vote and I campaigned in favor of school choice. Everyone in my district knew I supported school choice and they voted for me," he said. "So its obviously not as big of a wedge issue as the Democrats and my opponent think it is."
UEA, meantime, bought $1,000 worth of signs to help Hogue's campaign.
In many cases, the UEA-backed candidate was running against an incumbent who had voted for vouchers.
"For the most part, it is fair to say that [the voucher vote] was a litmus test, it always has been and it will continue to be," said Arnold.

Education is a voting issue in local 2008 races!

I generally agree with the idea that our state is generally well-run fiscally. I am very happy that we have a Rainy Day Fund earning interest and that $100 million in education money was set aside last session. I was fully supportive of the special session and saving the money through ongoing cuts when the forecasts are for state revenues to only get worse.

That said, how would voting for non-incumbents in local races lessen that emphasis on fiscal responsibility? In my opinion—not much at all. The moderate Republicans and many of the Democrats in this state would be hardcore Republicans in other states, while many local Republican legislators like Howard Stephenson and Craig Frank would be marginalized Libertarians. And most of the challengers can only be more trustworthy, more courteous, and more representative than Stephenson, Frank, Curtis, Hughes, Bramble, Buttars, etc.

Thus I feel free to search for candidates who more closely represent my views. It is possible to find legislators who better represent moderate viewpoints and avoid silly partisan power games. It is possible to find legislators who are both supportive of the ideals of public education AND fiscally responsible. Don’t buy into the false dichotomy being preached by many local incumbents: vote for me or Utah’s government will fall to Godless, spend-happy socialists.

Many legislators speak out of both sides of their mouth, constantly explaining how they are handcuffed because the state invests a high percentage of its revenue in education, but then dismissively trying to label voters who prioritize education as “single-issue voters.” Education spending accounts for over half of the money spent by the state government, so why shouldn’t it be at least half of voters’ criteria when selecting candidates? If new legislators would continue the good policies of our current legislature, but support public schools rather then attack them or manipulate their funding through suspect bills, I view it as a moral duty to vote for them.

These are some education issues that I believe are important both in their specific implementation and their longterm ramifications:

1. The voucher debacle willingly undertaken against the wishes of the people.

2. The omnibus education bill passed last session, SB 2, which abused all notions of good government ( besides being unconstitutional according to the Utah State Constitution) by stockpiling popular bills, and then rolling them together with pet projects of the influential Howard Stephenson on the 2nd to last day of the legislative session and passing the whole lot with little debate on the last day.

3. The constant chipping away of the citizens’ right to bypass or overrule those elected to represent them through initiatives and referendums like the one that overturned the voucher law. One of those unconstitutional laws passed this year, SB 53, which took away the right of the people to contest political bodies’ decisions on land use and was just overturned by the state supreme court, could also cost tens of thousands of dollars beyond what the state already wasted defending it if the complainants get their money reimbursed. I fear they have a great case.

4. Legislators lying about voucher opponents and costs (The USU Study), current school expenditures, and their views on public education.

5. Legislators not reading relevant materials to bills they’re discussing or actually visiting schools with programs they are discussing, but instead making decisions about education in Utah based on kook, conspiracist websites for information.

Get informed! Vote!


.

October Admission--Representative Frank talks out of the other side of his mouth in a national forum as Senator Stephenson's little sidekick

I want to take us back to two bills that became laws and one that failed. They all dealt with forced privatization of public services and were sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Howard Stephenson and Representative Craig Frank. HB 75 and SB 45 passed; HB 76 did not.

Voice of Utah wrote a post in January that made fun of HB 76 and Rep. Frank a little bit. Rep. Frank eventually saw the post and responded with two posts of his own on his Under the Dome blog, claiming that his bill was misrepresented. (Rep. Frank's blog is currently inactive and malfunctioning--the formatting is all messed up and there were comments from Voice of Utah and others that no longer show up, though you can still read his posts and watch the embedded video. Notice his most recent post on Mar. 24th with his coded claim that teachers can't be Republican delegates.)

In that second post of Rep. Frank's, he titles specifically references the Voice of Utah blog and says "STOP THE LYING, DUDE…READ THE BILL… HB75 (2nd SUB) DOES NOT PROHIBIT MUNICIPALITIES FROM BUILDING COMMUNITY POOLS"

He types his command to not lie in caps while ironically ignoring the fact that the post in question specifically mentions the failed HB 76 and even quotes from it. The now missing comments contained some further disagreement about Rep. Frank's misinformation. Rep. Frank also specifically denies in his video in the first post that he is going after community "recreation centers, and swimming pools, and other local entities."

Wednesday's UPD gets a big hat tip for showcasing the recognition that Sen. Stephenson and Rep. Frank received from a national advocacy group for smaller government called the Reason Foundation. (I agree with many principles espoused by smaller government advocates. I definitely agree with the Reason Foundation's apparent push against mandated, universal preschool. I strongly disagree with Reason Foundation's ""Director of Education and Child Welfare," Lisa Snell, that all public education is wrong and that vouchers should be mandated in all states.)

The two Utah legislators were recognized as Innovators in Action for "getting government out of the business of business." The detailed interview with Frank and Stephenson is on pgs. 14-20 of the newsletter, but because of the unnumbered introductory pages, it shows up as pgs. 18-24 when I'm looking at it in Adobe. When interviewed in a setting outside of Utah, which government activities does Rep. Frank consider to be illegitimate?

Quoting Rep. Frank from pg. 16:

It’s my belief that government shouldn’t be in the business of business. For example, you’ve got some of our local governments that are providing rec centers, pools and other facilities that are going head-to-head with local, private gyms...

And on pg. 20:

As the inventory and accounting systems are further developed in the future, I’d like to see some of those “taboo” entities that were excluded through this process, reintroduced for further investigation—independent entities, public and high education, etc. ...
Every time we say “less,” we increase freedom. If we don’t do these things, we do just the opposite—take away someone’s freedom. Because I’m part of the process, I know that for a fact.

First, Craig Frank purposely misled his constituents. He heard the outcry criticizing his HB 76 bill which specifically addressed county and municipal functions and forbid even potential conflicts with conceivable businesses as detailed by Voice of Utah. He then misled voters by pretending the claims were false attacks on his HB 75 and denied on his local blog that he would get rid of community pools and rec centers. But when Rep. Frank discussed the bills with the national advocacy group whose water he is carrying (and who apparently sent "experts" to help convince the legislators to vote for the bill. See pgs. 19 and 20), he voiced his true opinions, apparently secure that either no one would see, or that no one would care. He may very well be right when speaking of his district.

Second, Rep. Frank has the sadly common view among extreme right-wing Republicans in Utah that education would be improved by being totally privatized. It's "business" that should be done by business, rather than a public necessity. Senator Stephenson predictably agrees and throws around the false boogie man of socialism to justify his extreme views. You can get quality cars and toasters on the free market...if you can afford them. So education would be better that way too...

From pg. 15:

Somehow we like the idea that free markets bring us the highest quality of food anywhere in the world at low prices, that we get quality cars and appliances, you name it…the free market works just great. But when it comes to the education of our children, socialism is good enough. When it comes to golf courses, socialism is preferable. When it comes to fitness centers, socialism is great.

I don't expect Representative Frank to lose his election, but I believe that is due more to party loyalty rather than the majority of his constituents holding his extreme views. I think most of them would be angry if Rep. Frank and Sen. Stephenson tried to force their ideological agenda by butting in on local rec centers, golf courses, or Pleasant Grove's rights to contract garbage service. The two legislators view public education as "socialism" and belittle anyone with views more moderate than theirs. I know Utah can do better than that.

Are vouchers the litmus test for “good” Republicans? Are teachers liberal? Is Craig Frank trying to eliminate teachers from precinct positions?

I didn’t get to pasting in the comments from a fellow teacher that I discussed in my last post. Here they are and it looks like I made a minor error in my previous summarization. Dan Early interrupted the delegate nominee who was responding to a question from the teacher, not the teacher herself.

Last night, at our Republican caucus meeting, when I asked for clarification about the platform, I had a disturbing experience. I was asking about this specific clause of the Utah Republican platform, " Parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children, and we support their right to choose public, private, or home education. We support incentives to promote competitive excellence."

I wanted to know if Parents' Choice = vouchers. I support the ideals of parents choosing the best educational experience for their children. I don't think vouchers would be as fiscally sound nor the best way to bring that about. I just don't agree with the means (vouchers) and wanted to be assured that our delegates would continuously be open to other ways to accomplish the end. There was a wonderful delegate that politely and considerately stated her stance and was very accepting of my questions.

However, in the middle of her explanation, another man, who had just walked into our meeting, raised his hand. He introduced himself as a Mr. Early and informed us that he had helped write the voucher bill. Then he proceeded to tell me that I was to agree with vouchers because they embody "Parents' Choice for Education," (the ideals of which I support, just not the voucher means). If I don't agree with vouchers, I should just support delegates that do, for the good of the party. If I won't, then I'm just as bad as a liberal Democrat and should register as one. This came from the mouth of an "observer" of our precinct caucus, not even a resident. He's not even supposed to say a word at our meeting.

When I attempted to speak up to clarify my thinking, he interrupted me (a true member of the precinct) and continued to rant about how the Republicans are the last hold out for vouchers. The ACLU and the teachers' unions are trying to destroy Parents' Choice. Unfortunately, the precinct chair saw it was getting heated and tried to move forward. I was cut off, interrupted, and told off by a person who wasn't even a precinct member! That is unacceptable!

I think that debate and dialogue are healthy and necessary to be an educated and informed citizen. Instead of questioning being perceived as an enemy tactic, it should be possible to disagree with aspects of the platform and still maintain good standing in the party.

Among all of the silly things that happened, the last statement is what I want to focus on. This goes along with the last paragraph of my previous post. Does disagreement with a plank of the party platform equate to treason, heresy, or being a “liberal Democrat?” The faction of the Republican party—and yes, it is a faction—that calls Governor Huntsman a liberal is the most active and dominates the leadership much more than their proportional demographics within the party. As I said, much of that is the reward for showing up and being willing to serve, like what happened in my precinct. Political participation is good and that disconnect is something that needs to be remedied by more of the silent, moderate majority stepping up. But it seems like this over-represented right wing of the party is trying to impose their views as the “doctrinal purity” of the party. Those who disagree, from Senator McCain to Governor Huntsman to delegates who dare speak against vouchers, are being labeled “liberals” or RINO’s (Republicans in name only) and told they shouldn’t be members of the party. Why does the Eagle Forum get to decide what a “true Republican” really is? The party is a willing association of individuals who broadly agree on some or many principles, not a clone factory or a church. And the committees that devised the official county platform are certainly not prophets. If a large percentage of people who self-identify with the Republican Party have more moderate views than you, than why would they or delegates who represent them be RINO’s? I believe that moderate voters who generally vote Republican outnumber the right wing.

Besides the comments to others at the caucus meetings, a commenter here yesterday automatically labeled my blog as “liberal.” Why? A discussion of education issues is a “liberal” thing if it doesn’t advocate vouchers? Support of public education DOES NOT equate to support of the “homosexual agenda,” anti-family values, the U.N., universal healthcare, or any other “liberal” cause. That assumption is offensive to a lot of good people beyond just teachers. Teachers are generally representative of the area they live in. In Salt Lake, you will have a higher percentage of teachers with more liberal views as reflected in the general population. In Alpine District, teachers voted for Romney in the same huge percentages as the rest of the valley and they will probably support McCain and Huntsman in November just like the majority of the people in the valley. About 30% probably vote Democratic, as most elections featuring a Republican and a Democrat in the valley end with a Republican victory 60 something % to 30 something %. The difference I see is that teachers are generally not a confrontational bunch. That’s saying nothing of individuals, but in direct contrast to the common portrayal of the evil UEA, most teachers in my experience don’t like to argue and feel a little uncomfortable in political squabbles. Another teacher I spoke with on Wednesday, from the opposite end of the valley in Nebo District, went home from her caucus nearly in tears after she was attacked and told to join the Democratic Party in response to her opinions on vouchers.

In Pleasant Grove, Rep. Craig Frank stopped by the various precincts to shake hands and leave campaign material for distribution. The materials consisted of a stapled packet with a little card about his record on education (basically voting for increased funding in years of surplus--no mention of vouchers), a copy of the Utah County Party Platform with two sentences highlighted, and a sheet of questions to ask candidates for precinct office. The two highlighted sections in the platform were: On the first page, "To promote excellence, consumer choice in education should be encouraged," and at the end of the second page, "All Republican elected officials, candidates and party officers are expected to endorse these principles and agree to be held accountable to the people and the party."

His questionnaire for candidates included a few basic questions such as asking your position on various issues and who you support for State Representative, Congressional Representative, and Governor. But the first few questions, in the context of being stapled to Rep. Frank’s "Record on Education" and a party platform with highlighted sections emphasizing loyalty to vouchers really bother me, especially coming after the refusal to deal with any ethics reform or conflicts of interest in the past legislative session.

Have you ever been affiliated with another Political Party? If yes, which one and how long ago did you become a Republican?

Do you support the Utah County Party Platform? When is the last time you read the Utah County Party Platform? Are there planks of the Platform you don’t support? Which planks?

What is your occupation? Do you believe your occupation is in any way a conflict of interest to your running for Precinct Leadership or as a County or State Delegate?

What or who do you think is on Rep. Frank’s mind? He claims on his blog that the questions are meant to eliminate "one-issue" candidates and ironically that "The caucus system is designed to “flush out” factionists." Hmmmm... Most would argue that the caucus system enables well-organized factions.

Is he really worried about lawyers or municipal garbagemen or Intel employees becoming delegates? (Although the garbagemen may not appreciate his attempted HB 76…) What if someone supports the plank on the first page that says local governments are most aware of the needs of the people, and therefore opposes his push to privatize municipal garbage service and rec. centers approved by local government and voters? Are they “unclean” too? What jobs would represent a “conflict of interest” and which others would be acceptable to Rep. Frank? I think a realtor or property developer as a politician or delegate can do a lot more to directly benefit themselves than any educator trying to influence education policy. I submit that a teacher who has previously remained unaffiliated like myself, or even recently switched over from the “liberal Democrats,” and opposes vouchers is just as representative of the population as Craig Frank or any other Utah County politician.

What do you think? Do the actions of Rep. Frank look like good government and respect for the will of the people? Or do they more closely resemble cheap jury stacking tactics used by an unethical lawyer in order to avoid legitimate, but uncomfortable questions? Are teachers allowed in the Republican Party?

What do Utah state legislators say to themselves before they go to bed at night? Or legislative mixed messages…

State legislators, to put it mildly, seem to be sending some mixed messages these days. I’m not asking how do they sleep at night, just what they say to themselves. I wonder, from their perspective, what does the world look like? I seriously wonder what goes on inside of their heads. How do they internally reconcile conflicting actions or input? What is truth? These are just some of the recent education-related mixed messages:

1. As I blogged about on Jan. 21, the legislative audit of the classroom size reduction money specifically said that the school districts money were spending the money correctly…but that the legislature hadn’t allocated enough to cover smaller sizes and normal population growth. The lack of reduction was purely about not enough money for too many kids; NOT mismanagement by the districts. Cameron at Magic Valley Mormon explains the findings of the audit even better here and here.

But the Senators I heard speak at a neighborhood meeting claimed the opposite. Senator Stephenson has gone further and said that it’s not the state’s job to reduce classroom size. He wants to take away the classroom size reduction money the districts now receive unless they magically reduce classroom size.

Mixed message to districts: We didn’t assign enough money to reduce classroom sizes, but we’re mad that you didn’t reduce classroom sizes. Now as punishment for not accomplishing what we didn’t assign you enough resources to do, we’re going to take the already insufficient state money away and demand you reduce class size with local money. All of this, even as Rep. Dougall runs a bill eliminating some of the local revenue streams in favor of taxes distributed by the state legislature. (Does this sound like an educational Dilbert comic to anyone else?)

2. The legislators insisted that the voucher bill was not about privatizing the public education system. In fact, vouchers were only going to strengthen public schools.

That assertion is hard to believe when Rep. Frank and Sen. Stephenson are running HB0075 and HB0076. These bills seek to create special “Privatization Commissions” at both the state (both HB0075 and 0076) and local (HB 0076) levels with business interests representing the majority of the commissions. These commissions would have authority to disallow any government service that could be provided privately (with very few exceptions), regardless if that service would be more expensive or of it even would be provided. Local governments would have to comply with large amounts of paperwork to justify their actions to the commission. (Rep. Frank has been correctly zinged for the bills’ effects and for talking out of both sides of his mouth on his blog. He passionately claims that he is ONLY going after state government, citing HB0075, while conveniently ignoring the other bill he is sponsoring, HB0076, that would specifically disallow public pools from “competing” with private pools.)

So the legislators want to privatize public pools, recreation centers, golf courses, garbage collection, etc. but they of course have no interest in privatizing education…or financial stake.

3. Senator Bramble similarly danced around the truth. I asked him at the local meeting if the legislature was going to change what I regard as already tough referendum laws to make it even harder for citizens to vote on a controversial law. (The referendum last November was the first successful state referendum in over 30 years. Not successful as in passing—it was the first state referendum to even get enough signatures to be voted on in that time.) The senator went on for several minutes about why he thought referendums were a bad thing. I thought the arguments didn’t hold a lot of water. But he finally said that they weren’t going to change the requirements, though they might for citizen initiatives. (To the best of my understanding, voter initiatives are bills/proposals/laws written by non-legislators. If a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the bill is put on the public ballot, thus bypassing the legislature. Voter referendums involve laws that the legislature has already passed. Afterwards, if a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the passed bill is put on the public ballot, thus potentially overriding the vote of the legislature. The legislators I heard speak seem to hate both. Go figure.)

Senator Bramble was misleading. They are leaving State Referendums alone, but SB0054 attempts to change both county and municipal referendums, as well as state, county, and municipal initiatives.

If it passes, the deadlines will be moved up over two months for all of those vehicles of citizen redress, making it even harder for a group to gather the necessary signatures before the arbitrary deadline. They left state referendums out because that move would attract too much attention after the successful referendum last November. Does anyone doubt that within a year or two the requirements of state referendums will also be changed to match all of the other citizen referendum and initiative laws?

4. Last, the legislature has been hit hard in the media and by bloggers this year over the influence of lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions. Speaker Curtis, State Attorney General Shurtleff, and Senator Dmitrich have all publically claimed that these perks do not corrupt or influence the legislative process. Senator Dayton told the Cherry Hills meeting that “The voters should be offended” that the media would make such a claim. Senator Bramble gave one-sided examples where supposedly lobbyist gifts helped the legislative process and childishly asked the attendees to raise their hands if they disagreed with him.

This is where I really wonder. What are they thinking? Really. They can’t see the appearance of impropriety…even if we buy their claims of perfect integrity against all financial temptation? I wish I had been saving articles last year and knew the details of the proposal last legislative session to ban teachers from accepting Christmas gifts from students. I don’t think it ever got anywhere, but can’t they see the disconnect there?

Look at this scenario: I’m a teacher. Let’s suppose that I honestly am a longtime friend of two families. All of our families have honestly spent time as legitimate friends before now. Let’s say the other two families have children of the same age and I end up with both of them in my class at the junior high. The night before an end-of-level test, the other two families just happen to treat my family to a nice dinner followed by a Jazz game with luxury box seats. My family pays for none of this. The test is given the next day and both of those students just happen to get perfect scores.

It is course possible that their scores were legitimate and that these families always give me generous gifts in appreciation for my friendship. But would you believe that was the case? Can you not see how it appears? Would you blame other students and parents for being suspicious or angry if they found out about the situation? Would you perhaps propose rules regulating teacher/student relationships?

Can you see that the public and you are often viewing the issues from conflicting points of view? Is it at least possible that the public is right?