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.

Has EVERY educational technology company that made political donations in Utah gotten a state contract? Open question, but I think the answer is yes.

How do you win a statewide contract to provide educational software for schools in Utah?  You could spend time pitching your wares to individual schools and districts--I've sat through a number of demonstrations myself.  "If you use whatever program for a whole bunch of minutes each week, it will drastically improve an important skill x in the students.  We will then print reports showing that they improved."

But why waste your time thinking small?  Only 1 or 2 of our state legislators taught public school, and they hold the purse strings to much larger sums of money than the districts with much wider latitude on how to spend it.  Convince them that your product is a silver bullet--but making sure to repeat "I'm not saying this is a silver bullet"--as you hand them "research-based" reports showing your program drastically improved test scores in that one district in that one state.

Those legislators can then write a bill with a Request For Proposals (RFP's).  Those requests can be for "personalized teacher professional development plans," "special education specific reading software,"  "handheld reading devices to give reading tests,"  "reading software for preschoolers on a laptop with a dashboard," or whatever.  These open Requests for Proposals are supposed to open up a competitive bidding process that ensures the taxpayer-funded school system has the latitude to purchase the best product at the best price.  However, just Imagine the potential power in helping determine the specific wording and feature requests for one of these "open" proposals...  I've taken to calling them Referrals to Friends of stePhenson.

I was put back on this horse when I was contacted by a blogger in Arizona, a retired high school English teacher, who had read my posts on Imagine Learning and Waterford's political spending and custom RFP's.  A state senator there is running a bill opening up a $30 million RFP for reading software with a suspiciously specific list of requirements.  This teacher and his commenters tracked down the company posed to benefit from this custom bill, Utah's Imagine Learning.  He broke down the specific language of this year's bill and a past proposal to show how it was specifically crafted for Imagine Learning.  Then he posted about the fact that Imagine Learning is a paying member of ALEC and then linked to my posts about Imagine Learning's political donations in Utah that of course had nothing to do with their statewide contract.

Statewide funding to Imagine Learning was first authorized in 2008.  I obviously suspect it was in SB 2, the omnibus, but I can't find it.  Here is my post about Imagine Learning's political donations in 2009.  The system has been updated since I first wrote that, and the political donations actually started in 2008, including money given to Becky Lockhart, Carl Wimmer, Aaron Tilton, and a candidate for the Canyons School Board. 

Imagine Learning has kept up the pattern of political donations in 2010, 2011, and 2012, only with a larger net.  They have spent over $57,000 (Is part of the return on that advocacy at the ALEC conferences from the Utah legislators?) over 3 years, donating principally to powerful Republicans (Herbert most of all, Jenkins, Hughes, Urquhart, Bramble, Osmond, many others), but plenty of Democrats too, especially strong education advocates. (Carol Moss, Marie Poulson, Karen Morgan)  None of the legislators were even up for election in 2011 when Imagine Learning cheerfully donated $18,000 to various campaigns.  They also donate money to groups that are code for donations to legislators, but they don't have to put their name on the forms.  Donating to the Utah County Legislative PAC is giving money to Speaker Lockhart's control. Donations to the Utah Taxpayers Association are a donation to Howard Stephenson that he doesn't have to report either.

Imagine Learning has also partnered with the Utah State Office of Education to sponsor teams to a popular road race run in teams, Ragnar, in both 2012 and 2013.  There's nothing inherently bad about helping teachers run in a race, but any connection to learning or K-3 Reading is tenuous at best (healthy teachers is a good goal...except any teachers participating in this long race already run anyway...). I believe the firm is just cultivating influence wherever it can.  Does buttering up the USOE decrease criticism of the political nature of their contract?  I have to say the answer is possibly, "Yes."

The program was reauthorized in 2010 in HB 2.  The language is for reading software, but it apparently just continues the existing Imagine Learning contract.   Imagine Learning received $8,400,000 over 2010, 2011, and 2012, which is really a nice return on investment for their $57,000 in contributions. The amount the legislature gave the company detailed in their "accountability" report which I will discuss more in a moment.

I searched the entire list of corporate donors in Utah, and only one additional education company has donated any money since 2008.  (The big national virtual school company, K-12, had a folder, but appears to have not donated since at least 2008.) 

That one other company out of thousands of educational technology companies, iSchool Campus, spent almost $10,000, all donated to Republicans, in 2012, and...wait for it...they won a state wide contract too!  It was even publicly acknowledged that they got to help write the bill, and several representatives from iSchool accompanied the sponsor to the legislative committee presentation.  No, I am not making this up.  The bill sponsor, Sen. Jerry Stevenson, insisted the process was "fair". Sure they helped write it; sure I had them with me when I advocated for the bill; but they beat out three other vendors for an RFP they wrote, "fair" and square.

So the only two companies listed as making political donations, Imagine Learning and iSchool, got what are essentially no-bid contracts despite proposals from other companies. And Waterford paid an unknown amount of money to a contract lobbying firm headed by an ex-state senate president which in turn spent an unknown amount on gifts, meals, and other methods of lobbying the legislature via various loopholes, leading to Waterford's software being bought for individual preschoolers around the state, via last minute inclusion in an omnibus education bill.


All three companies, Imagine Learning, Waterford, and iSchool arrange for "news" articles that basically serve as free advertising with no investigation of their claims:
Imagine Learning
iSchool
Waterford

However, NO data has been released publicly on the performance of Imagine Learning or Waterford.  (iSchool just started last fall)   There have been some hyperbolic statements made by school choice people and legislators about how great they are, or anecdotal fluff like the articles above, but no proof of the software's quality or worth. There have been reports made to the legislature, but you probably haven't heard anything about them.  Howard Stephenson doesn't insist that letter grades about his expensive pet programs be mailed to every home like he does for those lazy teachers.

Here is Stephenson's Utah Taxpayers Association Newsletter from Sep. 2012.

Stephenson opines on technology in schools on pages 2 and 3.  You can see his disdain for backward teachers who don't realize that iPads are smarter than them.  The 3rd to last paragraph features his specific references to Imagine Learning and Waterford, just not by name, and his claim that they "improved student performance."  But no evidence.  That's just for socialistic reading teachers and the PTA.

The next paragraph details the "best new" iSchool pilot program.  He literally claims ALL students are on task ALL the time as they rotate on and off of the iPads.  It's magic!  And make sure you realize he had to have written this at the end of August/very beginning of September when school had been in for at most a couple of weeks in the first year of this pilot program. 

He has been finding tangentially related reasons to repeat how wonderful these schools are in every committee or floor hearing he can during the entire session. I would love to hear in the comments or via email from any teachers or staff at the three iSchool pilot schools. I listened to Stephenson during one of the first education appropriations committee meetings of the session, and on the radio, wax on about how these students were ALL glued to the screen with no disruptions all the time.  He made it sound like he was a frequent observer, while I bet he went to one of the schools one time in August.

Technology doesn't magically "personalize" and accelerate learning.  It's often handy, and students do like using iPads, but it is not a silver bullet for better reading, writing, and thinking, especially not higher level skills.  The "personalization" consists of ranking the students on a scale according to how many multiple choice questions they answer correctly, and then giving them a different ranking after the next test according to whatever unique and proprietary system of measurement that particular program develops. 

Senator Urquhart, although I frequently disagree with him, is usually someone I find willing to talk and reason with those in opposition to his bills.  But he came down hard on education officials during another educational appropriations officials, saying something to the effect that "All the elementary reading gains in Utah are due to Imagine Learning."  Really?  Based on what evidence?

Yes, Imagine Learning donated  a relatively small amount of money to his campaign.  And yes, Sen. Urquhart is also running a bill, SB 260 First Substitute, giving more money to Imagine Learning based on their claims of results. In fact, the bill allocates just over $5,000,000 to Imagine Learning for 2013-2014, which is $2,000,000 more than they've ever received in a past year.  Please look at the two-page accountability report given to the legislature which is apparently the basis of Senator Urquhart's and Stephenson's claims of increased student achievement. 

The Imagine Learning report is basically useless.  It is not an independent report generated by the users of the product, the schools or Utah State Office of Education.  It is two pages provided by the vendor detailing how they fulfilled their contract and their claims of student achievement.  They report that they fulfilled their contract by having friendly customer service, installing the program, and delivering headphones.  Then they provide a table of student skill mastery data as measured by themselves.  There is no context to understand it.  80% mastery of those concepts as defined by Imagine Learning in an unknown number of exercises would correspond with what CRT, DIBEL, or anything?   The 4th column reports much higher percentages of students with skills mastered than I get from dividing the second column of total students by the first column reporting how many students mastered at least 80% of the skills per area.  What numbers and context are missing?   This is data by the vendor to show that the vendor's program worked.  What was the chance of those numbers showing low achievement?  0%?  The data just seems cherry-picked to appear high with further results available "on request."  Take a guess how many legislators requested any more specific data... Or take a guess how many times Howard Stephenson ranted about "funding inputs" in relation to Imagine Learning's intrepid providing of headphones.

I have only done a cursory read through the extensive Waterford 3-year evaluation data.  This at least gives the appearance of rigorous comparison with the state's scores, but I have not put the necessary time in to dig through this all and see if it's valid.  This was presented by a Waterford Rep. and the first page is another mini-sales pitch. There is a claim that a test given halfway through kindergarten shows that children who used the Waterford software program score higher on a reading test than those students who did not take the test.  There are still many questions about that test, whether the difference is meaningful and will still be there in first grade, and whether the degree of any positive effects justify the cost.

Or put differently, could we accomplish the same and more by spending that money somewhere besides to one well-connected company? And why didn't Stephenson or the legislature talk publicly about this or past reports they assumably received about the Waterford UPSTART program?  There is often no real attempt to negotiate with educators about the best use of funds when Stephenson determines a software vendor can do something better than teachers. 

I was surprised, though maybe I shouldn't have been, that both "accountability" documents were written up by the vendor themselves.  The claims to "increased student achievement," merited or not, were apparently carried through the ALEC network to Arizona as well, where Imagine Learning is trying to repeat the same pattern by winning education contracts from politicians rather than educators. 

Howard Stephenson has a record believing marvelous "21st century" claims of vendors and then shilling for specific companies. (That last link has so many revealing underlined quotes.  Read and see Stephenson's numerous comments.)  A Utah district got suckered by a vendor I have had some experience with, Plato Learning, into spending over $75,000 on worthless learning "games," that last I heard are boxed up and ignored after less than a year of use.  I've attended various sales pitches in our district and a lot of them are solutions looking for problems...and really broad problems like "reading" where they can claim "It's only one piece of the process" if scores do not go up, but claim to be the definitive cause of any improvement.

Software can be an important tool, but programs are receiving state contracts via custom RFP's because they can convince or donate to one or two key legislators, or just based on the ideology that technology can more cheaply accomplish something as complex as educate a child. 

Howard Stephenson and his buddies, along with Parents for Choice in Education, are running vendor specific bills cloaked in language of open RFP's.  We know those who have openly donated in the past; we will find out more in months to come when 2013 political donation reports are due; and we may never learn if some companies are members of ALEC or the Utah Taxpayer's Association, where their payments are merely a "private transaction" rather than a bribe.  It's an open secret that is just as bad as anything John Swallow did.

It should be illegal.  It certainly isn't ethical.  And in contrast to all of their rhetoric, it is certainly not about helping kids learn.  It's all about directing easy chunks of taxpayer money to political cronies. 

Just a few 2013 vendor bills:

SB 133, SB 82, and SB 257 which are a package deal literally meant to enable a private database of individual, identifiable information of every student in Utah so vendors can use the data to sell us stuff. SB 82 and SB 257 have specific vendors already chosen by the bill sponsors.

SB 260 More money for Imagine Learning as detailed above.

SB 175 requires the state contract with an ACT Prep software company with a strangely specific $150,000 cost, leading me to believe Stephenson already knows a company will make that bid. Even though the official ACT site already has as many free test questions and study materials as I think most students need, the official ACT purchasable online prep program may be the target company here.  Its buzz words match the prewritten RFP in the bill very well. (Lines 229-258) But at $19.95 a pop, that would only cover 7500 students, not nearly enough.  This one even makes it law that districts have to "encourage" the use of the program.  No micro-managing here.

SB 79 Makes an RFP for a "consultant" to guide the state and schools in creating "blended learning models." Money can also be granted with no oversight to buy software or online curriculum material.  Who does Stephenson know who consults and has a handy set of online materials ready for purchase?

HB 343 tried to ban schools from purchasing paper books....Well why don't you try our lovely daily online reading program?

SB 284  More money for iSchool? A 1-to-1 device to student ratio pilot?

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.

Bob Bernick is not trustworthy…but Urquhart, Killpack, and co. are not telling the whole story about referendums either. A look at SB 53 and SB 54.

Bob Bernick is biased and unreliable and is correctly being called on it by Rep. Urquhart, BUT…our state legislators are also using his dishonesty to dance around the important issue of citizen redress because they ALREADY made major changes in referendums and initiatives this past session, making most submission dates even more difficult to meet and eliminating any land use referendums as another bone to powerful developers.

Bernick:

I first saw Bernick’s sloppiness clearly in his February story on conflicts of interest (Not saying it wasn't there before—I just wasn't paying attention to individual reporters until recently). I think it is a legitimate and very important issue, but Bernick lazily mixed the lesser number of substantive conflicts with broad accusations of conflict on very flimsy grounds (e.g. any lawyer proposing any bill having to do with law was conflicted and similar claims about other professions), even accusing Senate President Valentine of having conflicts on 3 completely empty "boxcar" bills. When the Senate leaders responded, Bernick threw a fit at being called lazy and unethical and counter-attacked Senators Dmitrich and Bramble for the extensive amounts of lobbyist gifts they accepted. Once again, I 100% agree with his position that Dmitrich and Bramble compromised their public trust and showed a continuing lack of ethics by accepting those trips and gifts (During a January Q&A session, Bramble tried to browbeat attending teachers in defense of his trips and Jazz games, daring us to “Raise your hand if you think that was a conflict of interest. Anyone? Anyone?” as he glowered around the room inviting some poor teacher to take him on.), but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether Bernick fabricated conflicts of interest about empty bills or not. Bernick’s latest claim that the legislature intended to make the signature gathering process for referendums more difficult, but then reversed course, is apparently another instance of “creative reporting” judging from the callout by Senator Killpack and Rep. Urquhart’s confidence that the tapes of the discussion will vindicate the legislators.

SB 53 and SB 54—Citizens’ rights of redress

That said, I feel Rep. Urquhart and Senator Killpack are being disingenuous as well. They didn’t make that one, specific change to the signature gathering requirements that Bernick is claiming, but they did pass two new laws restricting certain referendums and making the hoops more difficult for every type of referendum and initiative except statewide referendums—and I believe that is only because they were wary of just such an attack as Bernick made. So they left out the type of referendum they lost on to provide themselves some false moral high ground while simultaneously restricting the right of their constituents to affect the decision making process at all other levels of government. I don’t think there was a problem with the former requirements that needed to be addressed or any defensible rationale for the new restrictions on citizen redress. I personally asked Senator Bramble about his opinion on referendum law and the signature gathering requirements in the January meeting, heard his disdain for it as he explained similar points to what Bernick quotes him as saying (the people aren't informed, ancient pure democracies failed, California is worst state, etc.), and finally got his statement that he thought the bar for signatures was probably high enough so they wouldn’t change it this session. I feel he wasn’t quite straight with me on legislative intent since he didn’t mention the other crucial changes they were planning for referendum law.

Let’s look at the two laws. I want to start with the fact that both of these bills enjoyed near unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. Insulating elected officials from those pesky citizens seems to be a bipartisan issue.

First, SB 53. The only legislators to vote against this boon to developers were Rep.’s Kiser and Newbold. I don’t know either well, but neither has previously voted against the Republican grain much, especially Newbold. I would love to hear their reasoning.

Here is pretty much the entire text of the bill. It’s one page, short and deadly. The law changes the previous text of state code which only referred to budgets (new stuff in italics).

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
prohibits the use of local initiatives for land use ordinances or changes in land use ordinances; and prohibits voters from requiring the implementation of a land use ordinance to be submitted to voters.
(1) The legal voters of any county, city, or town may not initiate [budgets]: (a) a budget or [changes] a change in [budgets.] a budget; or_(b) a land use ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance.
(2) The legal voters of any county, city, or town may not require any budget adopted by the local legislative body or the implementation of a land use ordinance adopted by the local legislative body to be submitted to the voters.

Why?! What purpose does this serve? I can see why changing an established budget would be problematic. Planning would be impossible and many companies would not contract with the city, county, etc. if they thought the rug could be pulled from them on a vote in a couple of months. And as important a duty as the budget is for a council or legislature, it is relatively short-term and impermanent. A newly elected administration can easily make changes to the next year’s budget.

Other laws and policies, however, have much more long-lasting effects that can be difficult or impossible to change after the fact. Land use laws seem to fit squarely in that category. City or county bodies making those important decisions can be as small as three people. If they change the zoning and allow a company or subdivision to be built, the government can’t go back and tear down those structures if the decision makers or general population have regrets afterwards. Now, there’s a philosophical argument against zoning and land use laws in general in favor of increased private property rights, but that’s a different issue. If zoning laws in general were to be refuted, that would affect both legislative and public decisions. But as long as we as a society have decided that some form of land use regulation is legal and in our best interest, and those decisions have irreversible, permanent effects, then why shouldn’t the people be able to hold initiatives or referendums on land use ordinances?! I can honestly see no other reason than to appease developers.

I suspect the true motivation behind this bill came specifically from Wendell Gibby, the controversial developer trying to build a subdivision on land Mapleton City contends is environmentally sensitive. Gibby is extremely well-connected and high-ranking state legislators have communicated their ability to curtail the powers of local government and written letters threatening the job of the judge of the lawsuit. Concerned citizens at one point tried to hold a referendum overturning a decision by Mapleton officials allowing Gibby to build, but were not allowed to contest "an administrative action." There may actually be some legitimate concerns and debate over the proper use of the government’s eminent domain powers in the Mapleton case, but why should the people’s right to question officials’ land use decisions in general be taken away? Who does that serve?

Another current example is the upcoming and hotly disputed referendum in Sevier County where many residents are trying to overturn a county commission’s decision to allow a coal power plant to be built in a certain valley. This referendum was grandfathered since the process began before the passage of SB53, but would currently be illegal. The fundamental question is whether a county’s general population should be able to decide whether to allow a power plant? Or should some maneuvering and designations of different acronyms allow a small number of county commissioners to make this irreversible decision?

As illustrated in the last link, the power company is using SB53, which passed after the referendum process had begun, to justify a lawsuit attempting to halt the referendum. A Beaver County development group is using the same tactic to try and stop a vote on their project as well.

Knowing some of the recent history of the legislature helps. The Realtor Association and PAC and property development lobbyists are by far the best-connected and influential special interest groups on Capital Hill and in my opinion behind some horrible laws and tax breaks. The most egregious example of literally taking away the voting rights of ordinary citizens is HB 466, commonly known as “The Developer’s Dream Bill," which the legislators unanimously passed in 2007 with little debate. This bill honestly gave a large land owner permission to start their own town, include other property owners against their wishes as long as the cumulative amount of their property was low, and then appoint the city council for the first two years, while the other US citizens who were annexed received no vote on their public officials for two years. The famous Ruby’s Inn right outside the entrance to Bryce Canyon National Park immediately incorporated, and now this literal “company town” where 73 of the 138 residents are relatives of the inn’s owner gets to pay itself $300,000 in taxes that used to help provide public services in sparsely populated Garfield County. There were at least two contentious attempts to incorporate towns of barely 100 people in Wasatch County, (Aspen, Utah unsuccessfully and Independence, Utah) and a contentious process is still going on today over the grandfathered incorporation of Powder Mountain as its own town with again the large corporation getting to hand-pick the mayor and city council of the town of under 150 people. The Weber County Forum and Ogden Valley Forum have frequently addressed this topic and examined the ridiculous nature of the bill’s process of incorporation:
http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2008/08/powder-mountain-update-last-chance-for.html
http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2008/08/powder-mountain-update-two-more.html
http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2008/08/powder-mountain-update-81908-commission.html
http://wcforum.blogspot.com/2008/08/powder-mountain-update-standard.html
http://ogden-valley.blogspot.com/2008/08/standard-examiner-steps-up-again.html

The legislature soon recognized how stupid their unanimous vote looked with the law’s “variety of unintended, and unpleasant, consequences” (This is a Senate Site post written by two senators and titled “The Unintended Consequences of 2007’s HB 466." Be sure to read the comments from angry residents of Daniel, Utah in Heber Valley, victims of one of the aforementioned incorporation attempts.) and “clearly” it needed amending. They passed a new law this year, HB 164, that changes the incorporation rules to not allow wealthy land owners to take away the vote of other citizens, but refused to make it retroactive, claiming it would be “unfair” to the developers. If you’re going to read only one of these links, read this WCF post on the amendment process, where Senator Christensen is quoted “I had no idea it was wrong at the time,” he said. “I think it flew past all of us.” I think that sums up why us citizens question the legislature anytime they want to take away our ability to vote on their decisions because they are so much better informed than us. As I said in a post earlier today, we often don't know as much about the inner-workings of many laws and processes, but we are just as capable of getting informed when something becomes very important to us. Many residents of Eden who are getting scooped up into Powder Mountain Kingdom know plenty about HB 466 now; many Beaver and Sevier County residents could tell you all about the flaws of SB 53; and it happened in the voucher debate. The elected representatives should gather information and legislate the majority of the time, but not feel territorial when the people want a say or try and protect their work from us.

SB 54 is a quieter bill that just tightens the screws a little bit, making it more unlikely that any of the above county or municipal referendums could ever happen. Speaker of the House Greg Curtis is the only legislator who voted against this bill on the floor. My negative opinion of Curtis leads me to believe this was some kind of stunt, and I did hear this mentioned once as “proving his independence” (on a bill he almost certainly knew would be passed unanimously before he allowed it onto the floor), but I don’t know for sure. I would love to hear his reasoning if indeed he disagrees with this bill.
The bill’s text is pages and pages long. Here’s the summary at the beginning of the bill—I’m leaving in the line numbers as I cut and paste this time because I don’t feel like deleting them all:

8 General Description:
9 This bill modifies provisions that govern requirements for state and local initiative
10 petitions and local referendum petitions.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 . requires that a law that is proposed through a state or local initiative contain a title
14 that clearly expresses the subject of the proposed law;
15 . requires that a law proposed through a state or local initiative contain only one
16 subject;
17 . changes the deadline for submitting signature packets for statewide initiative
18 petitions from June 1 to April 15;
19 . changes the deadline for submitting signature packets for local initiatives and local
20 referenda from 120 days before the election to April 15;
21 . changes signature verification deadlines, circulation finance disclosure deadlines, and
22 appeal deadlines to accommodate the change in the deadline for submitting the
23 signature packets;
24 . moves referenda provisions related to the imposition of a county option sales tax
25 ordinance from Title 59, Revenue and Taxation, to the Election Code;
26 . provides that uniform signature verification timelines be applied to all local
27 referenda; and
28 . makes technical changes.

First, a side note. Think about the omnibus education bill lawsuit and notice the mind-boggling irony of lines 13-16. This is an addition, requiring the initiatives or referendums to have “a title that clearly expresses the subject of the proposed law” and that the proposal “contain only one subject.” It was specifically added under the sections for both state and local initiatives. Wouldn’t it have been funny if someone had filed an initiative with a broad title this year and the Attorney General’s office had to sue the filers for breaching this law while simultaneously defending SB2 on the same charges of breaking the Utah Constitution’s requirements for a clear title and single subject?

More on point, SB 54 moved the filing deadlines up almost 3 months for county and municipal referendums and initiatives (sometimes lumped together as “local” referendums and initiatives) and from July 1 to April 15 for statewide initiatives. I repeat my question: Why? What purpose does this bill serve or what problem does it address? The justifications used were to make it easier on county clerks and to make things “uniform.” I don’t see either one of those as justification for making an already onerous, difficult process even harder. As I understand it, an initiative or referendum drive has to gather signatures of 10% of the registered voters in a county or municipality to hold a local initiative or referendum. (And 10% of the registered voters in 26 of the 29 Utah counties for a state wide item. It was an amazing feat for the education community to gather those signatures in roughly 40 days. Does anyone reasonable think that is too long?) An occasional stressful period for clerks notified by the previous deadline, 120 days (4 months) before an election, is worth empowering the people to affect the legislative process. I can see the legislator’s arguments that there should be a relatively high bar to avoid crank legislation being on the ballot, but I see no evidence that frequent, “frivolous” referendums or initiatives have been on the ballot in Utah. I can personally remember a handful of initiatives, all in Salt Lake County, most dealing with some form of funding for public transportation, ZAP tax, and the like. I don’t agree with the outcome of all of those votes, but I feel the public is certainly justified in voting on the issue. Is there a list somewhere of what state, county, and local initiatives have been swamping our system with frivolity? (Here's a list of the 18 state wide initiatives and 2 state wide referendums in the last 48 years.)

And what about referendums? Again, I haven’t always been following the topic closely, but I don’t remember hearing about a public referendum on any level until the voucher vote last November. I certainly feel that vote was important and vindicating for the voice of the people, and the bar’s adequacy, or possibly overly rigorous nature, is illustrated by the fact that Referendum 1 was the first statewide referendum to successfully make it to the ballot in over 30 years. In fact the successful Referendum 1 on vouchers in 2007 and one other land use referendum in 1974 that failed to overturn the law it challenged are the only state wide referendums to make the ballot since 1960. Ballotpedia claims that hunters scared of animal rights initiatives were largely responsible for Utah's restrictive initiative and referendum laws. I don’t know enough to evaluate that assertion, but I don't view one successful referendum in 50 years as excessive. One could easily argue the opposite. I also agree with the premise that the Sevier County power plant referendum, the Beaver County zoning referendum, and the Box Elder County referendum on the sale of a county landfill approved by two possibly conflicted commissioners out of a three member county commission, are all appropriate and important exercises of the public’s right of ultimate authority over those voted into office to represent them, not rule them. These are the first local referenda I can recall hearing about and definitely not frivolous. If these important votes were the impetus for SB54, I think that making these local referenda more difficult was a corrupt decision from a bill largely designed and pushed by powerful development interests through their lobbyist, Steve Barth. Another argument for the too high bar is the difficulty of getting these referendums off the ground without some sort of organization. The forced stadium funding, where the state legislature passed a new law about county-assessed taxes in order to bypass the decision of the locally elected government body with which they disagreed and fund the Sandy soccer stadium (to benefit, of course, a very well-connected and wealthy developer, Dave Checketts) was an even more unpopular decision than vouchers. The referendum to overturn the law barely got off the ground and couldn't get close to the required number of signatures by the former, easier deadline because it was too hard to get volunteers and action organized. If something as stinky and top-down as the stadium funding switcharoo can’t get access to the ballot, that bar is very, very high. In their supposed quest to guard the process from "special interests," legislators may have effectively barred the process to all but those organizations with large numbers of motivated volunteers.

And finally, my argument about the relative hypocrisy of the legislator’s impassioned defense of current law. Notice they changed both referendum and initiative requirements at the municipal and county level, and also the state wide initiative requirements. If the new dates are so important and justified by the overworking of the clerks, why omit state wide referendums, which require a much higher number of signatures and verification work than local referendums? Political cover. The legislature can’t justify the new requirements because of any actual problems, but they are willing to restrict the voice of the people anyway, understanding that 99% of the population will never notice or think about a low-flying law like SB54. As long as they don't touch the current lightning rod of state referendums, they feel safe in cutting the people out of the process more and more.

So when an editorial claims that “Bramble, Valentine, and Rep. Steve Urquhart, of St. George, unequivocally told the D-News from the start that there was nothing wrong with Utah's referendum system and it wasn't up for change.” take it with a large grain of salt. I totally agree the Deseret News should release the recording and that Bernick is often an inaccurate blowhard, but I don’t take the righteous chest thumping of vote-restricting legislative leadership figures at face value.

What else can I say? Brief comments on the omnibus fiasco, positive developments, and some live-blogging of the final 1:15 of the Senate floor debate

As I said last post, I'm just sad. I was talking to some people earlier when I was mad, but I just don't have the energy to express my anger adequately right now after 12 hours of teaching and attending my own class. So I'm copying two comments I made on other blogs and some wonderfully sarcastic comments from a UEA observer of the Senate debate on SB 2 and SB 281 yesterday.

The comments are on a couple of Republican blogs that are pretty open to constructive criticism if you keep the ranting to a decent tone. Here's my comment on the Senate Site, minus the name of another commenter I was responding to:

[T]he legislature does not practice what it preaches in terms of local management. The recent audit of class size reduction money specifically found that the districts were using the money correctly, but that the money just hadn't kept up with growth.

The point is, the Republican leadership is playing games and pushing a corporate agenda rather than responsibly legislating. Senator Valentine calls the American Board program "tried and proven" in the press conference when their own website explains that it is a pilot program. It's a fly-by-night outfit that sells online courses. What lobbyist even put this organization on the radar? Maybe all the pro-voucher people on the board? It's just weird. That million dollars could go towards WPU which had been appropriately and efficiently used by districts.

Senator Stephenson pushes software as an alternative for class size reduction and family reading--the originally rejected HB 200 bill that gives laptops to preschoolers!--because he uncritically accepts what industry lobbyists tell him. Pushing these bills in a conglomerate is an attempt to avoid public and legislative scrutiny. Claiming that we or they can adequately evaluate all of the pieces of SB 2 in two days is a self-serving lie.

The Senators complain about "media bias" at town meetings and tell themselves that is why the public mistrusts them. Can't they see that it is their determination to push their corporate priorities over sound education funding that alienates us?

The next comment is from Representative Steve Urquhart's blog. I'm hoping he'll be blogging more after he recovers from tonight. My comment was on a post where Rep. Urquhart explained his democratic method of running the House Rules Committee, which was changed, apparently at Speaker Curtis' command, halfway through the session.

Wow. In my opinion, your amendment to HB 473 was one of the few sane things done by a Republican in the last week of the session. I saw you acting as Speaker for awhile today.

I'm still interested in anything you can say about the rules changes.

I'm even more interested in your opinion of the omnibus bill, especially the inclusion of three bills that had been voted down in committee. As a "process guy," why did you vote for the bill?

I am disillusioned and angry. I feel like the talk about moving on from vouchers was just talk and that the legislative leadership is pushing their agenda over good government. Even someone who supported all 12 of those bills should be angered by the lack of respect shown to the process and to public input.

The following description comes from a UEA staffer attending the Tuesday, Mar. 5 Senate debate on the omnibus bills. I'm underlining some more interesting bits and adding a comment or two in brackets. A lot of villains and good guys here:

SB 2, “Omnibus” Bill # 1, (Stephenson)

Sen. Stephenson introduced the bill as the “much heralded” omnibus bill which contains twelve separate education bills. He acknowledged that is it “unusual” for this many bills to be packaged together like this, but claims the purpose is to “reduce the confusion” that would result from the “coordinating clauses” that would be required were the bills to be run separately. (One has to wonder how it has been done in past years).

Sen. Jones pointed out that she has worked on her bill, (SB 61, Financial Literacy), for nine months, marshalling it through the entire legislative process, only to see it now sitting next to other bills that were rolled out late in the game, some not even having passed out of committees. “Next year, should I just wait until the last few days and hope that the ‘powers that be’ put my bill in an omnibus bill?”

Sen. McCoy offered an amendment that would eliminate the $3.5 million for HB 200, Early Childhood Learning (Last), because it failed in a House vote 31-37-7, saying, “I don’t think it’s right to ‘bootstrap’ bills that have been killed with other good bills”. Sen. Stephenson argued against the amendment, saying that it was a “close vote” in the House, and that if we can approve funding for Head Start, we can approve this bill”. (Never mind that he voted against Lou Shurtliff’s $100,000 appropriation bill for Head Start, as Sen Romero pointed out). The amendment failed along party lines. [What?! It was a close vote? So we shouldn't have had to waste all that time and money defeating the voucher bill because it only passed by one arm-twisted vote?]

Sen. McCoy then spoke out against going down the “omnibus bill road”, much like the federal government does, and expressed the “utmost confidence” in the ability of legislative staff to “coordinate” the different bills as they have successfully done for years.

Sen. Romero then offered an amendment to take the $5 million from SB 35 (Differentiated Pay for Teachers), and use it to fund Rep. Morgan’s HB 194 (Class Size Reduction). “We already have $6.9 million for math and science teachers . (HB 270), but my constituents overwhelmingly want smaller class sizes. This way we can do both, and this is a better policy decision”. Unfortunately, the amendment failed, but Sen. Romero requested a “call of the Senate” so that all senators had to vote to support class size reduction, …or not. Only Senators Greiner and Van Tassell joined the Democrats and voted to support the class size amendment.

The bill ultimately passed, with Senators Davis, Dmitrich, Fife, Goodfellow, Greiner, McCoy and Romero voting “No” in protest. Sen. Romero explained his vote by saying, “Yesterday we patted ourselves on the back for how well our state is managed, and today we pass an omnibus bill that contains seven bills we haven’t even discussed. I’m disappointed”. [Over half of the twelve bills stuck into the omnibus weren't even debated on the Senate floor. That is disgusting. Way to go Republican leadership!]

(Note: If you are the local contacts for the senators listed above, please thank them for their efforts to bring some common sense to this omnibus mess.”)



SB 281, “Omnibus” Bill #2, (Stephenson)

Sen. Stephenson introduced this bill by saying, “We’re asking school districts to develop ways to distribute money based on merit”. The bill also provides $5 million for “signing bonuses”, as well as $1 million for teachers who pursue American Board Certification of Teacher Excellence, or ABCTE. (Not to be confused with National Board Certification, or NBC)

Sen. Jones offered an amendment that would make those gaining NBC eligible for financial rewards as well, pointing out that there are 64,000 NBC teachers across the country compared to only 100 ABCTE “pilot program” teachers, and that NBC is recognized in all 50 states where ABCTE is not yet recognized by any state. (Perhaps the reason they came to Utah)

Sen. Stephenson argued against the amendment, claiming that ABCTE is focused on “student performance gains”, where NBC is “too focused on teacher training”. Sen. Madsen chimed in, saying that the ABCTE bill was “completely vetted”, and that, “I wouldn’t want this program watered down”. [Vetted by who? How do you "water down" a pilot program from a shady online teacher course provider? See my posts below.]

Even Sen. Hillyard asked, “Why not open the bill up to both NBC and ABC teachers?” Sen. Stephenson argued that, “NBC doesn’t look at student test scores. Only the ABC program does”. [So screw the taskforce and poor schools. We'll just push through payments for test scores with that determination made by out-of-state, voucher-supporting corporate donors.]

Positive Developments

I was not a big fan of Rep. Daw, but he showed some grit today in the SB 2 debate. He's a charter school supporter, but he called BS on the state's attempt to unethically resurrect another defeated bill, HB 278, via the omnibus bill and to pawn off the cost of charter schools on local school districts. The bill in effect said "We want to require charter schools, but we want the school districts to be the bad guys and raise taxes to actually pay for charter schools." Rep. Daw wasn't able to completely get rid of the bill, but he cut the impacts down to 1/4 of the original cost to districts.

I was listening to the live Senate session and lo and behold, Sen. Stephenson stood at 10:45 and announced that the house had substituted SB 281 and gotten rid of the million bucks for the ABCTE funding. Sen. Stephenson expressed an eagerness to secure the 20 million dollars in top-down merit pay, so he was willing to let go of the ABCTE for now. The bill eventually passed. I looked at the substitute and it was Representative Dougall who proposed it. The $20 million was still a surprise insult to teachers and Rep. Last's taskforce, but at least they will work with/lean on the districts in conjunction with how that money will be spent. The elimination of ABCTE is a victory against corporate crap disguised as "merit."

At 11:25, Senator Hickman inadvertently revealed the utter hypocrisy of the education omnibus bill when he commented how "disturbing" it was to see a bill that his committee had designated as a low priority, HB 3, pop up at the last minute. Where was his anger about Stephenson ramrodding three defeated bills into the omnibus bill? Senator Hickman was so mad that he really surprised me with a reference to the "black baby" controversy. He said something like "I won't quote Senator Buttars, but, uhhh, this is an ugly bill." Huh? As I type this, he is announcing that he won't run for re-election, so maybe he doesn't give a hang what people think.

An example of bad government:
The Senators were rushing through bills in the last few minutes when they received an amended SB 327 from the house. Sen. Neiderhauser requested an immediate vote concurring with the amendments. Another senator asked for clarification on the fiscal note because he had heard it had increased by millions. (Was this the millions for the bid by Speaker Curtis' client?) Sen. Neiderhauser had no idea... no idea, but he wanted it passed anyway. The second senator froze the process when he demanded the fiscal note. Ten minutes later, he waived his request, apparently in a concession to time, and then voted for the bill having no idea how many millions it cost. That's disappointing.

And the final bill that passed, literally at 11:59, was...dang, I think it was SB 41. The amended version... It was something about education from Senator Stephenson. Well there's what I think was maybe the last bill.