Omnibus Bill - Bungled and Illegaly Bundled

Senate Bill 2 (second substitute), otherwise known as the Education Omnibus Bill, has received much attention since the filing of a lawsuit by a group of non-partisan, citizen voters. I commend their efforts to heed the Utah Constitution and hold others accountable who don't seem to care about it. It's interesting to me that the same people keep coming up when it comes to dirty politics, vouchers, campaign war chests, leadership positions, etc. (I'll save that for another day.)

As I think about how the Omnibus Bill came to pass I really am perplexed. It seems to me like some people were a little sneaky about getting these bills all put together. Some things happened that didn't need to happen or normally wouldn't have happened. I recently received some information from the retired Chief Clerk of the Utah House of Representatives that illuminated that line of thought. Carole E. Peterson was the first woman ever to be appointed Chief Clerk of the Utah House of Representatives. She received high accolades for her 30 years of service when she retired in 2005. She's an expert when it comes to the rules.

Carole pointed out to me a few rules regarding the passage of bills:

JR4-4-107. Legislation Transmitted to Other House.
(1) The Secretary of the Senate or Chief Clerk of the House shall:
(a) transmit notice of passage on third reading to the other house;
(b) comply with the requirements of Subsection (2) if necessary; and
(c) if sent to the other house, enter the date of transmission in the journal.
(2) The Secretary of the Senate or Chief Clerk of the House shall, before transmitting a piece of legislation to the other house, ensure that, if the legislation passed with amendments or was substituted, the amendments or substitute are:
(a) retyped or reprinted in the typeface and on the color paper designated for each house; and
(b) transmitted with the legislation.

So the question that troubles me and others is why was a bill held after having been passed by both houses, only to be voted upon again in S.B.2? This rule is perfectly clear as noted in (1) above. The key word is "shall". There was no need to re-vote for final passage on H.B 67 and H.B. 270.

Another rule to consider is CHAPTER 6. DISPOSITION OF LEGISLATION AFTER PASSAGE:
I'll spare posting the entire thing, but the important parts that Carole brought to my attention are:

Part 1. Certifying and Enrolling the Legislation

JR4-6-101. Certification and Signature.

(1)(b) When a piece of House legislation has passed both houses, the Chief Clerk of the House shall certify its final passage by identifying:
(i) the date that the legislation passed the House;
(ii) the number of Representatives voting for and against the legislation;
(iii) the number of Representatives absent for the vote;
(iv) the date that the legislation passed the Senate;
(v) the number of Senators voting for and against the legislation; and
(vi) the number of Senators absent for the vote.

(2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), within one legislative day of final passage, each piece of legislation shall be signed:

(i) first by the presiding officer of the house in which it was last voted upon; and

(ii) second, by the presiding officer of the other house.

(b) Within five days following the adjournment sine die of a legislative session, each piece of legislation passed on the final day of that legislative session shall be signed:

(i) first by the presiding officer of the house in which it was last voted upon; and
(ii) second, by the presiding officer of the other house.

(c) Unless the session has adjourned sine die, the Secretary of the Senate or Chief Clerk of the House shall note in the journal that the legislation was signed by the presiding officer.

JR4-6-102. Enrollment and Transmittal of Legislation to the Governor.

(1) (a) After a piece of legislation that has passed both houses has been signed by the presiding officers, the Secretary or Chief Clerk shall deliver it to the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

(b) The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel shall:
(i) examine and enroll the legislation;
(ii) correct any technical errors as provided by Utah Code Section 36-12-12; and
(iii) transmit a copy of the enrolled legislation to:

(A) the Secretary of the Senate for legislation originating in the Senate; and

(B) the Chief Clerk of the House for legislation originating in the House.

(2) When enrolling the legislation, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel shall:
(a) include the name of the House floor sponsor for Senate legislation under the heading "House Sponsor:"; or
(b) include the name of the Senate floor sponsor for House legislation under the heading "Senate Sponsor:".

(3) The Secretary of the Senate or Chief Clerk of the House shall:

(a) certify each enrolled piece of legislation;
(b) ensure that a copy of the enrolled legislation is:
(i) transmitted to the Governor;
(ii) filed with the Secretary or Chief Clerk;
(iii) transmitted to the chief sponsor upon request; and
(iv) transmitted to the Office of Legislative Printing.

She concluded by saying:

"The purpose behind constitutional limitations of legislative power is to promote fair, open, and honest legislative proceedings. It is certainly appropriate to use the system of checks and balances available through the courts to determine what legislative procedures are constitutional and what legislative procedures are not. Our legislative leaders could take prudent action and reconsider some sections in the current SB 2 as stand alone bills in a special legislative session."

Seems like a reasonable response! There are rules for a reason. There are checks and balances for a reason. The Utah Constitution has not been upheld and the plaintiffs are standing up against that. The belief that the Rules of the Fifty-Seventh Legislature may not have been followed, specifically for two of the bills (H.B. 67 and H.B. 270), does not make the bundling of the bills more or less wrong. The procedural wrong occurs when bills are bundled; it does not necessarily matter how you get to the point of bundling. The hostage taking occurs through the combination of bills -- whenever that happens during the legislative process; what happens before you combine bills (and hence take one or more of them hostage) is incidental to that fact. It's nonetheless interesting to point out that rules were clearly violated and that someone very familiar with the rules finds it to be clearly a violation, one that couldn't be overlooked simply by accident. That's why Carole decided to become one of the plaintiffs on the case. It's not because it's an election year stunt, as Senator Stephenson and others have accused. Carole knows a breech of the rules when she sees it.

Furthermore, the holdup of bills that should have stood on their own further illustrates that something is amiss. Why didn't a few of these bills go all the way, standing on their own? They certainly could have, and they should have!

UtahTeacher at Utah Education Issues has put together several enlightening posts on the Omnibus Bill, including:

• Clearing up "potential misconceptions" and one bald-faced lie about the education omnibus bill (March 3, 2008)
  
• Various editorials on the omnibus bill lawsuit (June 2, 2008)
• A couple other interesting articles about the omnibus lawsuit with relevant quotes highlighted (June 2, 2008)
• With friends like these…The Daily Herald sets a new—low—standard with June 1st editorial on the omnibus lawsuit (June 2, 2008)
• Governor Huntsman openly stated that he views most of the omnibus bill as "statutory"...which is clearly prohibited by the Utah State Constitution (June 3, 2008)
• A list of the bills contained in SB2, the omnibus education bill, that shows the majority would have passed easily on their own (June 6, 2008)
  

Most of you have likely already read the posts, but if you haven't I would recommend giving them a read.

Finally, I want to point out what others have pointed out -- I don't believe the plaintiffs taking action are doing so for political gain. I believe that's an easy out (typical cliché response when you've got nothing better to say) for those defending their actions and it's too bad for them that the public is seeing right through it. The complaint states:

"...all plaintiffs are concerned with the openness, fairness, and integrity of the process by which the Utah State Legislature enacts legislation and the extent to which that process, if constitutionally impaired, impacts their ability, as representatives, senators, education officials, or constituents, to affect that process."

I don't see how it could be any different. Thank goodness for 38 individuals who have the guts to do what it takes to hold people accountable and to make sure Legislators heed the Utah Constitution. What good does it do us if it's not upheld? If we can just do what we want when we want and after the fact say that it's not a big deal, what part of the Utah Constitution will be violated next? Rules, policies, constitutions - they're all only as good as how strictly they are followed and enforced. It's wonderful that there are people who care about that!