Accountability

The citizens of Utah demand ethics reform. It's about time!

2009-10-09T22:32:00.012-06:00

I have watched with excitement as a group of citizens from a broad variety of political make-up and diverse career backgrounds launched a citizens initiative to take matters into their own hands and do something about ethics in the Utah Legislature. I have also delighted to see certain legislators squirm and scream as they envision the future of politics on the hill. It won't be as comfortable for them after the citizen's of Utah demand the change that they've been asking for from the Legislature for many, many years.

I knew nothing significant would ever come from the self-governing lawmakers after the last legislative session that ended in March with celebration over very little ethics legislation. It was a session that promised big change and rightly so after the allegations of bribery brought against one representative in October, 2008. The ethics committee was split along party lines on any decision of conduct unbecoming a legislator, but all signed a letter of reprimand. They proved that they're unable to govern themselves.

I appreciated UtahTeacher's recent report (a four part series) on one of the eight required public hearings that she attended. I wanted to attend the Provo hearing specifically because of the memo that was reportedly distributed among lawmakers which encouraged them to attend hearings and speak out against the initiative. I noticed that the hearings were video-taped and posted by the Lieutenant Governor's Office on YouTube a few days ago. It was hard for me to watch, however, because they are not labeled or posted in order, as far as I can tell. To this end, I've decided to make it easy on you and I've posted the hearings and the links to the video segments in order. You'll notice that there are citizens that speak in each of the hearings that are in favor of the initiative and others who aren't happy about it at all. I think it's important to hear both sides and decide where you stand on the issue. I agree with the initiative, if for nothing else, perhaps it will cause the legislators to actually make some change in 2010. Maybe something that will REALLY make pigs fly!

PUBLIC HEARING VIDEOS:

Thursday, September 17, 2009—7-9 p.m.
Southeast Region (Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties)
Grand County Council Chambers
125 E. Center St. (w. entrance)
Moab, UT 84532

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6

Monday, September 21, 2009—6-8 p.m.
Central Region (Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties)
Sevier Valley Center, Theatre
800 W. 200 South
Richfield, UT 84701

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8

Tuesday, September 22, 2009–7-9 p.m.
Wasatch Front Region (Davis, Morgan, Salt, Tooele, and Weber Counties)
SLC Main Library, 4th floor conference room
210 East 400 South
SLC, UT 84111

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.
Bear River Region (Box Elder, Cache, and Rich Counties)
Cache County Office Building, Multipurpose Room
179 No. Main St.
Logan, UT 84321

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.
Mountain Region (Summit, Utah, and Wasatch Counties)
Provo City Library, Brimhall Room
550 No. University Avenue
Provo, UT 84601

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—6-8 p.m.
Southwest Region (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties)
Washington County Library, St. George Branch, Conference Room B
88 W. 100 South
St. George, Utah 84770

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11

Thursday, September 24, 2009–7-9 p.m. NEW!
Uintah Basin Region (Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties)
Uintah Basin Applied Technology Center, Multipurpose Room
450 No. 2000 West
Vernal, UT 84078

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10 - Part 11

Thursday, September 24, 2009—7-9 p.m. NEW!
Southeast Region (Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties)
Grand County Council Chambers
125 E. Center St. (w. entrance)
Moab, UT 84532

No Video Provided on Lieutenant Governor's YouTube Site

Tuesday, September 29, 2009—7-9 p.m. (An optional 8th hearing)
Weber County
Mound Fort Middle School, Media Center
1400 Mound Fort Drive
Ogden, UT 84404

No Video Provided on Lieutenant Governor's YouTube Site

Board of Education making crucial decisions

2009-05-18T08:31:00.004-06:00

I'm always interested in what is happening at the State Office of Education. It seems that they've been making headlines more frequently in the last month. From hiring a new Superintendent to firing their two internal auditors to changing Board Rule concerning their auditing process. A few questions have come to my mind as I watch the changes that the State Board members are making or considering.

Crucial Decision #1 - Hiring a new Superintendent

With the announcement by Superintendent Patti Harrington that she would be retiring, a Selection Committee made up of board members was formed, chaired by board member Denis Morrill. There were a few details made public in a Deseret News Article mid-April. I emailed Denis Morril and board secretary Twila Affleck for some details on what the Deseret News article called "committee interviews". I was hoping for some information about the committees but failed to receive a response. However, it was rumored that some high-profile people were seen at a downtown hotel, consistent with selection committees formed in other scenarios. Legislators such as Howard Stephenson, Deputy of Education Christine Kearl, Chief Justice Christine Durham and PTA Education Commissioner Holly Langton were among some of the people seen on Wednesday, May 13. Whether they were there for committee interviews is just a good guess, but most likely that's the case. Why the committee makeup is being kept from the public is a question for the Selection Committee. When it comes down to it, I'm just happy that the board is getting outside input and I think that's a good move, although they are more than likely just helping to whittle down the selection and not necessarily weighing in on the final decision. We should be hearing who they narrowed it down to as early as today. The final decision will be made by the Board Selection Committee on Friday, May 29. Hopefully we'll be hearing an announcement soon thereafter, but the paper reports that we'll know on June 5.

Crucial Decision #2 - Firing internal auditors

During the last board meeting on May 1 the board got into a lengthy discussion about the changes they were considering for the internal auditing process. Current board rule has the internal auditors reporting directly to the board. That's the way it should be, but we'll get to that in a moment. The board was reminded that this was just a discussion of possible changes. They scheduled more discussion for the June board meeting. That being said, it was a complete surprise that the board immediately thereafter (behind closed doors in an executive session) voted to fire the two internal auditors, Kent Mohlman and Tim Salazar. The now former internal auditors say they were equally surprised and have cited various reasons as to why they believe they were let go. Tim Salazar was the first to admit that he knew he worked at the pleasure of the board and could be let go at any time. But he also believes that it was a recent School Community Council audit that Superintendent Harrington disagreed with that led her to convince the board to let them go. Superintendent Harrington defended her actions, so at this point there is a bit of he-said-she-said going on. We can only speculate, but one thing is certain - the timing! What led them to take action so quickly before even solidifying the proposed changes to the internal auditing procedure? Which leads us to crucial decision #3.

Crucial Decision #3 - Changing Internal Audit Board Rule (R277-116)

Since the board is debating changes to their internal auditing process, the question remains, what changes are they considering and are they good or bad? Let's break down the proposed changes found in a draft of board rule R277-116. If they make the changes that have been proposed thus far, the following might be true:

There would no longer be a board-controlled review process that is independent. The auditors reported directly to the board, which allowed them to speak openly and not be afraid. This must continue to be the case if the auditing process is to work.

The state board would be giving up authority. It would not be prudent for an elected body to give away their authority to independently review and monitor the people they hire to do the day to day work.

A Tribune article said that the board was having a hard time overseeing the audit group, but auditor Tim Salazar reported that there weren't a lot of efforts made by the board to be aware of what the auditors were doing. Changing control to the Superintendent won't help the board know the auditors any better and would make honest reporting without fear of retribution even more difficult.

The paper stated that the state board felt they were not capable of effectively managing the audit group. But if they, as a part time board, cannot manage the audit group, how can they effectively manage the Superintendent, who has enormous responsibilities in comparison to the auditors? Also, wouldn't the audit group, if used effectively, help the state board manage the superintendent?

These are just a few concerns that should be considered as the State Board of Education moves forward with their discussion, and eventual decision, in the coming months. There are people that are concerned that the state board is being manipulated by the Superintendent, and that the Superintendent, or other staff, are taking responsibilities that should rest with the elected board. We'll be keeping an eye on things, but hopefully they'll come to the right decisions on their own.

Secrecy in choosing vacant School Board replacement is bad. Hypocrisy is worse.

2009-05-06T21:40:00.006-06:00

I surprised myself last month. Upon hearing the news that former Tooele District Superintendent Michael Johnsen was chosen as outgoing State School Board member Richard Moss' replacement, I was thrilled that the Governor actually made a good decision. Not just a good decision, a great decision! However, my elation blinded me to the fact that there was not a shred of transparency in the process. Had the person been someone that I felt was not good for public education you would have been reading this post a month ago when the selection was made! Shame on me for being a hypocrite. Unfortunately, I'm not the only hypocrite.

There is already a problem with how the State School Board is elected in Utah. I've written at length about the process, but to quickly summarize, a committee is appointed from within the Governor's office. They interview candidates and narrow them down to three from within each district. They recommend three candidates to the Governor who likewise narrows the field down to two whose names are then placed on the ballot where the people decide who will be elected. This process needs to be changed and attempts were recently made in the last legislative session but were blocked in the Senate Education Committee.

The current vacancy came when Board Member Richard Moss moved to Arizona in mid-March. A couple of weeks later, Governor Huntsman decided that Michael Johnsen would be the best man for the job. I agree! But the Governor didn't get advice from the Legislators as he should have. The Legislators will need to approve the newly appointed board member, which will likely happen later this month, but Richard Moss has called for them to block the Governor's pick on grounds that it wasn't a fair and open process. He makes an excellent point!

20A-1-507. Midterm vacancies in the State Board of Education.

(1) If a vacancy occurs on the State Board of Education for any reason other than the expiration of a member's term, the governor, with the consent of the Senate, shall fill the vacancy by appointment of a qualified member to serve out the unexpired term.

(2) The lieutenant governor shall issue a certificate of appointment to the appointed member and certify the appointment to the board.

The biggest hypocrites in all of this is Senate leadership, specifically Senator Howard Stephenson. He was quoted by the Salt Lake Tribune as saying, "We've heard a lot about transparency in government and the need to choose representatives of the people in an open process," he said, "and this didn't appear to be open." Stephenson said that the Governor should consider withdrawing Johnsen's selection.

Senator Stephenson is the man who, as President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, bragged that they were able to "beat back a challenge to the committee which recruits and nominates candidates for the state school board". Since I just wrote about his conflicts of interest, I'll simply suggest that you read my recent post on the topic. It's really quite unbelievable that he, out of anyone, would have a valid opinion on the matter. Senator Waddoups chimed in, too, and we all know the problems he's been having; removing Senator Buttars from one committee position and assigning him to another.

I agree with the selection by Governor Huntsman. I hope that the Senate will confirm Michael Johnsen. If they don't give their consent and instead cry foul due to the lack of openness, then I expect them to do something about the flawed nomination process that doesn't allow the people to fairly elect those who represent them. I expect that anyway...I'm just sayin'.

School Choice: Actual "Choice" or Emotionally-Laden Mindtrap?

2009-04-29T08:37:00.002-06:00

As the traditional school year winds down, I've been thinking about the apparent complexitites of education and the chasms between the differing philosophies therein. This post errs a little on the philosophical side, so bear with me.

"School Choice" and Other Euphemisms

Euphemism: a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive.

In my experience, and as the fruit of many conversations, I've come to believe that the term "school choice" is a euphemism for many things, and probably varies somewhat by person and group.

Here's a partial list:

1. Parents, not the government, should be responsible for educating their children.
2. Our public school system is failing miserably and is far too liberal.
3. Education should be privatized and compete on the free market.

Personally, I don't think "school choice" has much to do with choice in education at all. I think it tends to be a euphemism for promoting whatever agenda it is disguising. In Utah, I think it serves as a smokescreen for the range of ideas I've just listed. I also think it's a term that hooks people emotionally and rallies them around a bandwagon that is not entirely transparent. For example, in the name of "school choice", groups of parents have started charter schools and/or supported vouchers for their children and communities...but have they unwittingly furthered an agenda to ultimately privatize education in Utah? I don't know, but I sure do wonder.

Now, I can be fair. Do I think there are many school choice advocates who sincerely want to improve education? Of course. Are many school choice advocates open to ideas, dialogue, and collaboration? I believe so. To any of you who fall into this category, kudos and please read on. Utah needs you.

Euphemisms and False Dichotomies

The problem I have with a euphemism like the term "school choice" is that it's an emotionally-charged way to set up a false dichotomy. It's a mindtrap that forces a complex issue into two false options. Even in casual conversation, let alone heated political debate, the very term divides people into proponents and opponents. However, the ideas around school choice are not mutually exclusive....we don't simply have choice or no choice. In my experience, it's a complicated mix of competing political, social, and economic ideologies.

In a free, democratic (okay, representative republic) society like America, aren't we all theoretically supportive of "school choice"? I mean, honestly, who in their right mind doesn't want to have a choice in how, where, and in what form they and their children are educated? The reality, at least in Utah, is that we all have choice in education. The public school system allows open enrollment options and non-traditional options like charter schools. Home schooling is a legal option, and private schools are available. For some families, I realize that these options might be purely theoretical. Open enrollment is nice, but you have to drive your students to the school of your choice. Charter schools enroll by random lottery, and private schools require often exorbitant tuition. For some families, these are practical barriers to real choices. I see many of the problems, but there must be better solutions than hiding behind divisive euphemisms. We all want choice, we currently do have choices available, and yet we deal with some very real barriers and challenges. What we need are real solutions.

So, if we're not talking about choice, what are we talking about? I think its about a clash of idealogies, barriers to practical solutions, and often, ego. There, I said it.

A Call for Real Dialogue, Not Idealogues

Idealogue: an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.

I tend to believe that if people can find enough common ground, solutions to previously perplexing problems often reveal themselves. I'm not completely delusional...I've seen it happen time and time again. However, it takes courage, honesty, humility, and genuine dialogue. Idealogues (and egomaniacs) need not apply. We need creative, collaborative, solution-oriented people who can move beyond tired euphemisms and over-zealous partisanship. I realize there are many idealogical chasms, but there must also be bridges.

As an observer of the complexities of education, I notice that using a term like "school choice" immediately creates division between the very people who could potentially create solutions. It creates a spirit and practice of partisanship that prevents solution-oriented dialogue and cooperation. Language is persuasive. It frames and defines our experience....it liberates or confines, it allows or denies, it illuminates or confuses.

Let's let go of the emotionally-laden mindtraps, open up some real dialogue, and figure out how to work together. Education is too critical a topic for euphemistic games.

Senator Stephenson's Blatant Conflict of Interest

2009-04-28T08:11:00.001-06:00

I'll lay out the plain and simple facts. You try to process the paradox.

March 30, 2009: Governor Huntsman signs H.B. 345 (Elected Officials - Restrictions on Lobbying sponsored by Rep. Dee) and the bill becomes law. What does this bill do? It simply says that a former legislator is not allowed to register as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office. Why? Because a former legislator could exercise undue influence over their former colleagues. Of course, there are loopholes in this law, but we're talking about the intent of the bill for the purpose of this post.

If there is a concern that a former legislator could possibly exercise undue influence, what does that say about a powerful, current legislator? What about a powerful, current legislator who is also a registered lobbyist? What about a powerful, current legislator who is also a registered lobbyist AND the president of the Association that he/she lobbies on behalf of?

Here come the plain and simple facts!

Senator Howard Stephenson is a powerful Senator serving on an influential committee, namely the Senate Education Committee.

Senator Howard Stephenson is a registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association.

Senator Howard Stephenson declares a conflict of interest with legislative subject areas involving the Utah Taxpayers Association.

Senator Howard Stephenson is the President of the Utah Taxpayers Association.

The latest issue of the Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter boasts the defeat of HB150 that would have made the State Board of Education seats a fair, open and non-partisan election. From the newsletter:

"Reflecting the Association’s broad mandate, the Taxpayers Association’s key bills fell into four categories this year: Education Reform, Government Transparency, Taxes and Miscellaneous. In education reform, we continued to champion parental involvement in their children’s education by making sure HB 2 did not cap the number of Utah charter schools. In addition, we beat back a challenge to the committee which recruits and nominates candidates for the state school board. With a membership balanced between representatives from the education and business communities, this board has done a remarkable job of recruiting candidates with a broad array of backgrounds to run for the State School Board. Despite the board’s well-documented success, Rep. Carol Spackman Moss sponsored HB 150 to eliminate the committee. Although the House approved HB 150, the Senate Education Committee did not approve it." (emphasis added)
Senator Howard Stephenson is a member of the Senate Education Committee and voted "nay" on the motion to recommend H.B. 150!!

Can you see how blatant and wrong this is? Senator Stephenson openly admits a conflict of interest and at the same time admits that the organization that he is the President of and registered lobbyist of is the one whose "key bill" they "beat back" and that the Senate Education Committee which he is a member of "did not approve it" and he boasts it openly and publicly. Wow!

Perhaps this is something that can be discussed at the Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy. Their next meeting is on May 21 (location to be determined) and the focus for the meeting is lobbying regulations. They even want our opinion so this is our opportunity. We can continue to allow the people in charge to continue to abuse the system, or we can get involved and try to make a difference. If we don't try then we only have ourselves to blame.

Redistricting Rumble: Governor Stands Down, Voters Step Up

2009-04-20T22:11:00.004-06:00

Okay, just because Governor Huntsman acquiesced to House Speaker, Dave Clark, by "standing down" on ethics and redistricting, maybe all is not lost. Take a look at this article in today's Salt Lake Tribune covering the efforts of a new coalition formed to breathe life into an independent redistricting commission.

The Fair Boundaries Coalition is calling for an independent redistricting commission, and wants it put to a public vote in 2010.

The Utah Constitution does identify redistricting as a responsibiltiy of the Legislative branch, but there are broad concerns that lawmakers create districts to benefit themselves (and perhaps close-knit groups of lawmakers with similar agendas) rather than creating districts based on population centers and shared interests that benefit voters and that speaks to a more democratic process. Currently, redistricting is a strong and blatantly-wielded power tool that has already affected the political process.

Because citizen initiatives cannot be used to ammend the Utah Constitution, the independent commission is proposed as an advisory role, leaving lawmakers with the final say in redistricting. While there may be some risk that the commission would end up offering only symbolic oversight, it might also serve as a strong first step toward balancing the redistricting scale.

The Fair Boundaries Coalition brings together a diverse, non-partisan group of Democratic, Republican, Third-Party, and Independent members. They need at least 94,000 voter signatures by April 15th, 2010 to secure a place on the ballot. Democracy in action. Step up, voters!

The Governor's Commission Backs Off Addressing Ethics

2009-04-19T13:41:00.005-06:00

If you haven't already read Thurday's Deseret News article on Governor Huntsman's democracy commission, please take time to digest its content and implications. In a nutshell, what has recently been informally referred to as the governor's "ethics commission" is now nothing of the sort. The governor originally wanted to study why the citizens of Utah were not participating in the political process and had identified several possible reasons, including discouragement over ethics problems.

Originally, five areas were under scrutiny for both study and redress: campaign finance, lobbying, elections, as well as ethics and redistricting. However, House Speaker, Dave Clark (R) asked the governor to "stand down" on tackling ethics and redistricting as part of the commission's work, and Huntsman has agreed. Apparently the idea that ethics reform and redistricting fall solely under Legislative branch purview, and that Governor Huntsman was stepping on toes, has won the day.

Can We Say "We Told You So", Yet?

In a recent blog Did the media dupe us on Huntsman's "Ethics Commission"?, my blogging partner, Sara, questioned the intent behind this commission. Kudos to Sara for seeing, and nailing, the writing on the wall! We have both blogged about various incarnations of ethics blunders and the "clear as the nose on your face" need for serious and real ethics reform in Utah. While some may feel that issues of ethics and redistricting should be issues handled by the Legislative branch, Governor Huntsman's decision simply begs the sad, yet critical, opportunity to say "we told you so". The term "ethics reform" has become a popular buzz word used for spin and hype, but has not come to represent, at least as yet, real change in Utah politics.

I also wonder how serious the governor is about gift bans and holding the Executive branch to a higher standard... Just curious. In any case, as it currently stands, the Legislative branch will continue policing itself...and perhaps the governor will continue wondering why Utahns are frustrated with Utah politics and "democracy".

You can keep up on the governor's commission at StrengthenDemocracy.org.

Still One of Only Ten States Without an Ethics Commission

I feel like a broken record, but we have underscored on this site that Utah is still only one of ten states that does not have an independent Ethics Commission. Come on, folks. What does it take to get some genuine, objective oversight in this state? In December, I wrote:

Utah is one of only ten states that does not have an independed Ethics Commission. In our case, we have Senate and House Ethics Committees, intended to be bi-partisan in nature with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. Utah also relies on the Attorney General's office to provide ethics oversight. However, given the recent ethics debacles and their subsequent investigations (or relative lack thereof), it doesn't take much to realize that legislators policing legislators is not an ideal model.

Ethics reform was the hyped battlecry of this year's legislative session and hope was high for some of us that it would bear the fruit of an independent Ethics Commission.....especially since early talk about the governor's commission on democracy would take a serious look at ethics. What sounded like a genuine step toward a real Ethics Commission now just falls under the category of "business as usual".

Two, Okay, Three, Fundamental Changes We Need

In a recent post, I mentioned:

On this site, we have called for at least two fundamental changes in ethics reform, and they bear repeating:

1. Strong, clearly-written, and enforceable ethics legislation
2. An independent Ethics Commission

In my humble opinion, Utah has wasted yet another year and legislative session on hype, feel-good spin, and less-than-real progress toward measureable, impactful ethics reform. The two fundamental changes I just identified are yet at least another legislative session away from being taken seriously. Upon further reflection, I want to add another fundamental change we need: some new, honest, ethical public servants...so that change can come from the inside out. Maybe I'll run for office.

Should Senator Bramble apologize?

2009-03-26T23:10:00.002-06:00

I recently got the full scoop on Senator Bramble's bill (SB199) that originally included language that would make it impossible for school staff and administration to work in a cooperative manner with any PTA group ever again. It would have been the first bill of its kind in the entire nation, but the bill ultimately failed. However, before it bit the dust the bill's sponsors, Senator Bramble and Representative Lockhart, were afforded many opportunities to prove why the public have been screaming "ethics reform" at the top of their lungs.

The premise of the bill was based on lies, falsehoods and a misrepresentation of the facts. It amounted to a smear campaign.

The title of the bill, "Equal Recognition of School Parent Groups", contradicted entirely the original language that "A school may not...work in conjunction with a parent group that requires the payment of dues as a condition for participation in its group, including participation in volunteer opportunities, leadership positions, or the ability to vote." This verbiage was artfully crafted to specifically target the PTA, although it would have some unintended consequences for a few other organizations, as well. The original bill would have restricted all access to the largest parent group in Utah, thus effectively taking the "equal recognition" right out of the title.
The citizen sponsor of the bill, Dawn Frandsen, testified in the Senate Education Committee that there were major problems in her school district with fairness by administrators to include Parent Teacher Organizations (PTO) along with Parent Teacher Associations (PTA). She testified that preferential treatment was given to the PTA groups. This testimony was finally refuted by the District Superintendent via an email to legislators. The email claims that Ms. Frandsen never tried to work out this issue of fairness on a district level. Senator Bramble worked off the same assumption and made it public when he uncircled the bill on the Senate floor to ask for a vote to pass it out to the House (5:00). In my mind Senator Bramble owes Superintendent Merrill an apology.

Email from Supt. Merrill to Sen. Bramble

Bramble introduced the bill by saying (5:16), "Dawn Frandsen is really the genesis and it was her experience that has brought this issue to the forefront. This was done at her request." Ms. Frandsen started her testimony by catching everyone up on the basis for the bill (read "upset with the PTA"). She said that when the PTA at her school tried to become a PTO the Utah PTA made it very difficult for her and other parents to become a PTO they were (7:20) "threatened and told that they would be excluded from district privileges". Keep in mind that these are alleged threats by the PTA folks, not the district. Since when does the PTA decide what level of involvement parents have with a school district? If Ms. Frandsen really believed the threats, why didn't she take it up with the district? She later explains in her testimony that in a September 2008 district school board meeting there were discussions that there might be budget cuts that need to be made. Some board members suggested that they get input from the PTA. Frandsen explains, "The woman sitting next to me leaned over to me and asked "why they don't ask the PTOs", and I said, "Oh, they won't. They never have." Frandsen said that a "high ranking cabinet member" happened to be walking by and standing next to us and the woman sitting next to her said to him, "Why don't you ask the PTOs" and his response to her was, "We do not work with the PTOs". (8:30) I immediately began to question why she took one "high ranking cabinet member" at his word and didn't choose to pursue it further if she thought it was such a problem. Why didn't she talk to the Superintendent about the problem? If that's not enough, Frandsen goes on to talk about her problems with the PTA, not her problems with the districts not giving equal access to all parents. She elaborates on problems other parents in other districts (that she "personally talked to") had WITH THE PTA. The bill doesn't address equal access to the PTA. The bill doesn't address making it easier for a PTA to split off and become a PTO. But these are the types of examples that she included in her testimony, which clearly demonstrate that her beef is not with the districts at all, rather the PTA. This will go down in history as the biggest "I'll show you" move from a single parent. The fact that a lawmaker didn't see through this further demonstrates that they had some motive of their own to shut down the PTA.

Just as Senator Bramble didn't bother to check up on Frandsen's motive for bringing the bill forward, he also didn't bother to follow up on the validity of an email he received from a grandparent alleging that her granddaughter was not allowed to run for Student Body Office because her mother was not a member of the PTA and hadn't paid PTA dues. He cites the email as a basis for the law to pass out of the Senate when he uses it as yet another example of why a bill like this is needed (4:00). The principal of the school wrote a letter to Senator Bramble explaining that the basis of the email was completely false. However, no attempt was made to set the record straight, no apology...instead, an angry phone call by the Senator and a subsequent hang-up of the phone when the conversation didn't go his way. Sounds all too familiar. Before the angry phone call he had warmed up by ripping into a representative of the PTA outside the doors of the House of Representatives after he became frustrated with the PTA for exercising their right to do what's best for the children. The Daily Herald called it an "animated conversation" but they only saw the conversation. Had they actually heard it they would have used the words "butt-chewing". When Bramble and Lockhart were through with the butt-chewing Bramble must have realized that he did another stupid thing and said as much by huffing, "I'm sure I'll see this in Paul Rolly tomorrow, too!" I'm no Paul Rolly, but I'm sure plenty of people will read this. What he did was despicable. He threatened, he belittled, he tried to silence the PTA once and for all. He said that a PTA lobbyist would need a signed affidavit from the PTA Board when testifying before a committee or else they wouldn't be allowed to testify ever again. He tried to influence their decision by use of guilt, telling them that they could never be trusted again. Trust issues, indeed! But they lie with our legislators who continue to bully, but this time they don't even bother to keep it in house. Unethical behavior at it's best!

FW Student Officers at Spring Creek Middle School

Perhaps it's occurred to you as you've read about the disheartening actions of abusive legislators that there is an obvious connection between the PTA's involvement in the education coalition effort to squash vouchers and the actions of policymakers whose unethical behavior is standing in the way of progress for Utah's public schools. It couldn't really be a coincidence, could it? Bramble has already refuted the connection, but isn't it interesting that the same legislators and organizations that stood on opposite sides of the voucher issue also stood on opposite sides of the anti-PTA bill?

I would encourage more people to get involved as it would seem that our politics are being taken over by overly zealous individuals on the far left and the far right. With that kind of framing of our laws and policies, it's really quite amazing that we're not worse off than we are. We need reasonable people out there making their voices heard and working to control the insanity, so I invite you to get involved!

Are pigs really flying, or are legislators just lying?

2009-03-19T17:26:00.005-06:00

I had high hopes coming into the 2009 Legislative Session. I had hoped that something would be done about ethics reform this year. Finally, not only was the public ready (this year more than ever), but it seemed legislators were ready, too. Several complaints were brought forward just months earlier. These ethics complaints clearly demonstrated that legislators were unable to govern themselves when it came to following through on any action that might be brought against one of their own. Most agreed that they needed to fix it and many vowed to do just that.

In January of 2007, a Deseret News writer suggested that Utah would ban lobbyists' gifts "when pigs fly". When a few bills made it to the House Ethics Committee for consideration the committee members took the opportunity to blame the media for the public's "misperception" of ethics on the hill, claiming that they only know what the media tells them and often the media isn't giving them the entire picture. During discussion of HB 213 Ban on Gifts to Legislators they felt comfortable enough to joke that they had seen pigs flying above the capitol that morning and the Deseret News reporter was even in the room. At the end of the session, Speaker Clark was presented with a pig made out of wood - wings and all! The funny thing is, HB 213 was stalled in rules committee just as we suspected and it FAILED! How could they possibly have taken credit for flying pigs when there is no ban on gifts to Legislators?

Of the 21 ethics reform bills that were filed, only 5 of them were sent to the Governor for his signature. The Utah State Legislature website breaks it all down for us, but let me fill you in on some details.

HB 346 Campaign and Financial Reporting Requirements Amendments

You might find it interesting to know that HB 346, Campaign and Financial Reporting Requirements Amendments, originally required contributions and public service assistance to be reported within 5 days of the day on which they were received. The main purpose of this bill was to increase the speed of reporting requirements, thus making it more difficult for legislators to report donations after they had already been elected. It passed out of the House Ethics Committee with a favorable recommendation and then out of the House with a unanimous vote with original language. On the Senate floor the bill was substituted, meaning that changes were made to it, specifically that the 5 day reporting requirement was changed to 30 days. The bill was substituted yet again (on the very same day, two days before the end of the session) and under suspension of the rules it was considered read for the second and third time and a vote was taken and passed out of the Senate.

Senator Valentine made the first substitute that did the real damage. A second substitute was written up but not made public or voted on, and finally, Senator Bramble added definition language to the bill in the third and final substitute, essentially watering the bill down even more by adding more things that "Contribution" does NOT include.

When a bill undergoes that many changes after it has already passed out of the House it is necessary for the House to either "concur" or agree to the Senate amendments or take another vote. It is common practice for the House to concur on Senate Amendments and for the Senate to likewise concur with House amendments to Senate bills, especially as the session winds down to a close. What is that good for? Laws that haven't been closely scrutinized. Laws that lose their original intent. Only four representatives voted not to concur to the Senate amendments.

HJR 14 Joint Rules Resolution - Ethics Training Course Provisions

HJR 14 is the only piece of legislation that adds rules to ethics procedures and this is what concerned me the most. After all the problems the ethics committee complained about, not having the proper guidelines and guidance when it came to knowing if Greg Hughes was guilty of the complaints brought against him, I would have thought that they would try to fix their process and rules! The best they came up with is to have legislators undergo online training, but what happens the next time fellow legislators file another ethics complaint? Do the new rules requiring legislators to know what is ethical and what isn't ethical help the ethics committee with the problems they had last year?

To add to the debacle, the Senate mucked with this bill just like they did with HB 346. With only one day left in the session they amended the bill to include lobbyists! I might have thought that a great thing if it weren't for the last line of the amended bill. It states:

45a S. (6) A lobbyist who does not complete the training required by this rule is subject to an
45b ethics complaint under Senate or House rule. .S

Notice that it doesn't say "A legislator or lobbyist". I find that somewhat curious. Are legislators not subject to an ethics complaint if they fail to complete the training? Legislators are off the hook according to this new law and apparently nobody noticed.

Instead of rushing amendments through that result in sub-par law they should have been fixing their own ethics process and rules. If you've forgotten how bad it is read Bob Bernick's take after he listened to the taped testimony of Rep. Greg Hughes during the last Ethics Committee investigation. They desperately needed to make themselves some new rules but they ignored that completely. They'll certainly keep ignoring the need for an independent Ethics Commission, too. But don't worry, pigs were flying this year, right? Congratulations to everyone! Congratulations to the rules committees who did their job with flying colors just as in previous years. They held over 75% of the ethics bills that came before them. They seem to think that's their job. Take a look at some of the good bills that they failed to take action on:

HB 213 Ban on Gifts to Legislators (When Pigs Fly!)
This is the big "when pigs fly" bill that they were prematurely celebrating. Someone might want to tell them that they have to pass this bill out and enact it into law in order for the pigs to fly! This did not pass, it got stuck in the House Rules Committee like so many other ethics bills this year and in previous years.

SR 4 Senate Rules Resolution - Ethics Revisions
Stuck in Senate Rules Committee. This bill would have fixed some of the same problems the House Ethics Committee ran into for the next time there was a complaint against a Senator.

SJR 19 Joint Resolution Regarding Legislative Ethics
Stuck in Senate Rules Committee. Minor adjustment that allows for Senate Rule to be followed when considering the make-up of a Senate Ethics Committee.

SB 101 State Ethics Commission
This is what we needed! It was stuck in the Senate Rules Committee and would have created Utah's first and much needed independent State Ethics Commission.

HJR 26 Joint Rules Resolution on the Selection of Ethics Committee Members
Stuck in House Rules Committee. This bill would have fixed some of the problems that last year's House Ethics Committee ran into, beginning with the composition of the committee.
HB 312 Amended Campaign Finance Filings
This bill passed out of the House Government Operations Committee favorably and then passed out of the House but died in the Senate Education Committee. The sponsor of this bill was Sheryl Allen and it failed most likely due to retribution/payback. She was involved in the Hughes ethics complaint. Senator Bramble, an influential member of the Senate Education Committee, virtually admitted to conduct that is criminal during his testimony while defending Hughes.

HB 282 Task Force on Legislative Reform
Another bill that might have actually had some real impact on ethics reform which the House Rules Committee held.

HB 268 Legislator Reporting of Gifts and Other Items
This bill overlapped what SB 156 was doing and was held in the House Rules Committee.
HB 159 Ethics Provisions
This bill addressed all the problems that were present during the Hughes investigation. It never made it past the House Rules Committee.
HB 139 Legislator Gift Reporting Act
An overlap bill with SB 156 which was held in the House Rules Committee.
HB 109 Modifications to Campaign Finance
This bill would have put a limit of $15,000 on campaign contributions and removed inconsistent definitions of "political purposes". It died in the House Rules Committee.
HB 103 Revolving Door Limitation for Public Officials to Become Lobbyists
This was an overlap with HB 345 and kept in the House Rules Committee.
HB 93 Establishment of State Ethics Commission
Another bill that would have established the State Ethics Commission. It's what the people want, but they didn't listen. It was left on the desk in, you guessed it, the House Rules Committee.
HB 84 Campaign Financing and Gift Regulation
Another gift bill that was taken care of in SB 156. They had a few choices this year in regulating gifts and they kept this one in the House Rules Committee.

And still more that didn't even get as far as the House or Senate Rules Committee:

SJR 15 Joint Rules Resolution - Legislative Ethics
Empty Bill that Sen. Valentine thought about doing something with but never did for whatever reason.

HB 348 Creation of the Office of Inspector General
This bill didn't have language and didn't deserve language. It would have favored having one person judge the ethics of legislators instead of forming a commission. One person is subject to being influenced and being biased. Not a good idea.

You can read more about the lucky five here.

So there you have it. The newspapers have apparently succumbed to the pressure to quit "misrepresenting" ethics on the hill. I've only seen a couple of stories that question whether or not ethics reform happened this year. It's quite clear to me that it did not and my next post will illustrate how out-of-control things got up there this year, specifically concerning Bramble's SB 199 which I like to call the anti-PTA bill. Talk about ethics!

Bad Bill Alert! Byrne's 65% "Solution" is Back (SB241)

2009-02-25T17:50:00.004-07:00

You can read about what I've previously written about the 65% "Solution" here (Aug. 2008) and here (Sep. 2008), but here are some items you should be aware of:

It's nothing new. It was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now.
This bad idea originated with Tim Mooney of Arizona. He used Patrick Byrne's (CEO of Overstock.com) money and they organized their efforts and formed an organization known as "First Class Education"
First Class Education have apparently abandoned their original efforts. Their website is an empty WordPress blog, but don't be fooled. Thanks to technology (WayBack Machine) you can still view their old site.
Did I mention that it's nothing new? Four years ago, they attempted to get legislation passed in every state. They ultimately failed (they wanted to have legislation in all 50 states by 2008) despite the nasty memo that they circulated among legislators outlining their POLITICAL MOTIVES!
This is not a new bill. In 2006, Utah was included in their efforts when Greg Hughes sponsored HB143 titled "Instructional Expenses Requirements"
The 2006 bill made it out of the House Education Committee. It was amended before it passed out favorably with a vote of 7 "Yeas", 6 "Nays" and 2 "Absent".
The new bill is being sponsored by Senator Mark B. Madsen in the form of SB241 titled "Instructional Expenses". It is word for word exactly the same bill (unamended version) of HB143 in 2006.
Tim Mooney claims that the 65% Solution is currently on hold. When I asked him why it was on hold he told me it was due to timing. When I told him about SB241 in Utah he was surprised and told me that he wasn't aware of it. I asked him if he was still working with Patrick Byrne on this issue and he confirmed that he was.
Patrick Byrne is the newly appointed Co-Chair of the Friedman Foundation. Their agenda and goal is to have vouchers and legislation that supports vouchers in all 50 states. They already claim Utah as a success story for their involvement in the passage of the Carson Smith Scholarship program.
There is no basis or research for why they chose 65% that should be spent in the classroom. Why not 68% or 72%? Utah already spends at least 65% in the classroom. The purposes of this bill are outlined in their own memo and their agenda hasn't changed. Don't be fooled!

Developers, Lobbyists, and Legislative Ethics

2009-02-21T14:49:00.001-07:00

Interesting stuff, ethics. Sometimes it's hard to tell what's in a name, and it appears that "ethics" can mean different things to different people. Sometimes the apparent lack of ethics in a given situation comes down to a differing world view. Take Sen. Buttars and his view on same-sex couples and their civil liberties. No matter where you fall on the topic, the side you view as "ethical" comes down to fundamental differences in what you define as right and wrong. Buttar's embarrassing antics aside, and acknowledging heated debate and belief on both sides, I believe fundamentally differing world views will always cause each of us to question our definition of ethics and who is right or wrong in any given situation.

Defining Ethics

HOWEVER, broader world view perspectives are not the focus of ethics reform at Capitol Hill. The ethics reform we are all calling for can and should be clearly defined and measured. But will it even come close? A couple of GOP ethics bills have made their way into the Senate, and here are the ethics bills currently being considered in the House Ethics Committee. What exactly is the definition of "ethics" up on the hill? For example, as a public servant, is it ethical to have to list all of the gifts you receive from lobbyists, or is it ethical to simply refuse gifts...as an honest attempt to remain unbeholden to anyone except your constituents? I have my own opinion, and it has nothing to do with limiting or listing gifts.

Developers and Lobbyists Need To Go

I also wonder if its ethical for a legislature full of developers and former/future lobbyists to to police themselves. The Governor's "ethics commission" does not look like it's shaping up to actually become an independent body providing oversight on ethics at all. The developers and lobbyists will continue to run the state, remain loyal to their overall agendas, and get away with looking like they are truly interested in ethics by participating in this year's high-profile ethics reform. In addition to truly effective ethics legislation and a bona fide independent Ethics Commission, the current gaggle of developers and lobbyists parading as public servants need to be ousted in the next round of elections. They need to be replaced by individuals who are actually interested in, and capable of, actually serving the public in honest, ethical, and transparent ways.

Do your research, my friends. Understand not only the world view of your public servants, but also their definition of ethics and what loyalties they bring with them to the hill...

Did the media dupe us on Huntsman's "Ethics Commission"?

2009-02-11T23:13:00.003-07:00

On January 22, 2009, Governor Huntsman announced a newly-formed Commission. That evening and during the next 24 hours the headlines read "Huntsman appoints ethics reform panel", "Huntsman launches commission to clean up Utah politics", and "Governor organizes government ethics commission". I remember the evening well. I was jogging on the treadmill and nearly fell off it when it was announced on the ten o'clock news. I was pleased, but skeptical.

Imagine my surprise when I hear Doug Wright (a member of the commission) on the morning news clarifying that when the commission was formed Governor Huntsman had a lot more things in mind...ethics being only one item on the long list. Surprise turns to disappointment when I read the formal name of the commission, "Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy". That doesn't sound anything like an ethics commission!

Based on news reports, almost all of them spinning the ethics reform angle, I was able to determine that Huntsman isn't really sure exactly what will come of the commission and that he won't tell the commission specifically what the recommendations should look like. Quotes like, "They will do their thing and we will do ours, and I suspect that over time, some of these things will be taken up" didn't inspire confidence for the direction of the commission. I was beginning to understand that my idea of an ethics commission was a lot different than the media's spin on what Huntsman never meant to be an ethics commission in the first place!

Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said the commission's purpose is to look "at reasons why Utahns aren't participating and don't have the necessary confidence in their government system. This group is not intended to look solely at ethics or even legislative ethics."

Disappointment turns to bananas (as in "mad as heck") when I realize that the local mainstream media fed us what we wanted to hear! A lot of people probably didn't catch on to what they were sold a couple of weeks ago. Happy to see that something was finally being done about last year's unethical behavior, they went along with the daydream. I hate to be the one to wake you up, but wipe the drool off your face and snap out of it! Huntsman has something else going on, but it likely won't bring about the major ethics reform that we have been asking for. Who knows, maybe his commission will be able to have some influence or come up with some good ideas or recommendations. He's not even sure, so how can we be?

I'm sure I'll be looking more into the Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy, but for now there are real bills, a lot of them making their way to the House Ethics Committee as recently as Monday. These bills would have the potential for real change to how business is done up on the hill. Keep an eye on them. They've already made it further than some ethics bills made it last year. Congrats to the 2009 House Rules Commmittee.

Unfortunately, House Speaker Dave Clark has already given up. He recently said, "It's not going to happen in this session. This is going to take, I think, through this next summer." I sincerely hope he was just trying to incite a riot. In any case, it's going to take continued public outcry if anything is to be done. Polls alone aren't enough. We had polls last year and nothing was done. We need polls, scandals (plenty to choose from) and public outcry. The legislators themselves understand the need for public outcry and have stated that it will take " a burst of public support" before they can proceed with any kind of ethics reform legislation, and they were saying that in January, 2008. They told us what it's going to take, you take it from here.

What is the status of the omnibus bill complaint?

2009-01-21T07:53:00.001-07:00

We're less than a week away from the beginning of the 2009 Legislative Session here in Utah and there is quite a buzz surrounding this session. Budget cuts have a lot to do with that and there is also much talk about ethics reform. We've been pretty loud about ethics reform here at the Accountability blog. In fact, before we kick off the next session on January 26, 2009, and all that will come with it, we ought to revisit a few topics that are still ongoing and some that have, perhaps, even been forgotten.

There is new information about the illegal "Omnibus Bill" officially known as SB 2 (second substitute). The plaintiffs have filed for a partial judgement concerning non-triable, unconstitutional issues of fact, specifically concerning counts three and four of the complaint on file. Count three and count four were not the main focus of the complaint last year, at least not for bloggers and news reporters. A lot of work has been done by the plaintiffs and their lawyers to show how unconstitutional the omnibus bill is, based on counts three and four. They are:

Count Three: Portions of SB 2 violate the non-delegation doctrine and Article X, Section 3, of the Utah Constitution. (Specific to "Teacher Salary Supplement Program" SB 35 or lines 774 to 864 of SB2)
Count Four: Portions of SB 2 violate the non-delegation doctrine and Article X, Section 3, of the Utah Constitution. (Specific to Section 11 of SB 2 - Requiring an "independent party" to evaluate public school instructional materials )

I'm happy to see that this is being pursued and after reading through the "Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Article 10 Related Claims," that was served on January 5th. I was impressed with the amount of case law that was cited and how it applies in this situation. Last year I, and others, focused almost entirely on counts one and two. They state that SB 2 consisted of 14 other bills that, according to the Utah Constitution, a bill is required to have 1) a single subject and 2) a clear title. These were the most obvious parts of the complaint, but now that counts three and four have been elaborated on, they are equally valid and convincing, if not more so.

You'll need to read the document in it's entirety to fully understand where the plaintiffs are coming from, but I'll pull out some main points (the section headers, to be exact) to illustrate the newly elaborated concerns so that you can see what I'm talking about.

SB 2 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES THE USBE'S POWERS AND DUTIES OF GENERAL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO THE UDHRM AND PRIVATE PARTIES

The Legislature May Not Transfer the Power Which Has Been Constitutionally Vested in a Constitutional Office to Other Agencies or to Private Parties.

The USBE Is a Constitutional Office With Constitutionally-Vested Power to Control and Supervise Public Education in the State of Utah.

The Teacher Salary Supplement Program and the Textbook Approval Program of SB 2 Are Impermissible Legislative Encroachments upon the Administrative Power of the USBE.

SB 2 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES GOVERNMENT POWER TO PRIVATE PARTIES

CONCLUSION

Sections 19,20, and 11 of SB 2, the so-called Teacher Salary Supplement Program and Textbook Approval Program, should be declared unconstitutional. Both programs violate the non-delegation doctrine as that principle of constitutional law has been applied on numerous occasions by the Utah Supreme Court. They provide that another agency, the UDHRM, and private parties shall administer programs, the general control and supervision of which are constitutionally committed to the USBE under Article 10, Section 3. The Textbook Approval Program suffers from the additional constitutional defect of delegating government power to a private party.

Whatever happens with the complaint, I believe legislators in the upcoming session will avoid the mistakes they made last year. They will be much more careful about encroaching upon powers and logrolling. We're all watching!

New Ethics Bills Already Raising Questions....And Eyebrows

2009-01-14T10:15:00.003-07:00

Over the past couple of days, the Salt Lake Tribune has followed up on the question of ethics in Utah's legislature. An article in today's paper, for example, highlights the misuse of lobbyist gifts, and provides some insight into the nearly $170,000 in lobbyist gifts legislators racked up last year. Insight, becomes a contradiction in terms with regard to gifts, however, since the vast majority of them have been obscured from public view and almost entirely undisclosed. That is all supposed to change and is something, among other ethics reforms, that many of us have been calling for.

On Monday, a hint of things to come (at least in terms of dialogue and the appearance of change) came in the form of an ethics package consisting of four bills. I've said before, I want to be encouraged...no, blown away, by real change in the legislature. I want these bills to be a real step towards transparency in government and a commitment to putting the public trust and service before monetary gain and political agendas.

Keep your eye on the process of finding consensus and, ultimately, acceptance of these bills, folks. It's bound to reveal a lot about some of our "public servants" and their motives for serving. I hope it raises a few questions for you like it does for me. For example, is Senate President, Michael Waddoups, serious when he says, of banning lobbyist gifts, that "we're inclined to think that disclosure is a better thing than prohibition, because prohibition tends to turn well-meaning acts into criminal acts." WHAT? Is this the same guy who wants liquor to be "prohibited" from even being viewed in Utah restaurants? Does anyone else see the incongruity, no, the borderline schizophrenia here? In addition, a few legislators are squirming in the face of bill "four" in the package which prohibits legislators from becoming lobbyists for a year after they leave office....with no mention of what that means for current legislators who are already paid lobbyists for various industries.

Let the shakedown begin.

Ethics Reform Revisited

2008-12-30T09:51:00.003-07:00

I hope everyone had a little time off to spend with family and friends and that your holidays were well spent. With the New Year right around the corner and, perhaps more importantly, the 2009 Legislative session only 3 weeks away, it's just about time to wipe the sleep out of our eyes and pay attention to what lawmakers have in store for us next year. The presents and candy-induced comas will have their turn again sooner than we realize.

In preparation for the upcoming legislative session, I'd like to revisit a few points concerning ethics reform. In October I wrote about the efforts of Utahns for Public Schools to bring about positive change in regards to campaign finance. They published a Pledge for Legislative Ethics Reform and invited candidates and legislators to sign it as a vow of their active support and work for the passage of legislation that would allow for a more open, honest, ethical and transparent government. As of today, 24 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Independent have signed the pledge. However, now that the election results have been tallied and the winners declared, there are only 31 out of 72 who are in a position to make good on their promise. They are:

Sheryl Allen, House District 19 (R)
Trisha Beck (NEW), House District 48 (D)
Laura Black (NEW), House District 45 (D)
Rebecca Chavez-Houck, House District 24 (D)
Tim Cosgrove, House District 44 (D)
Jim Dunnigan, House District 39 (R)
Becky Edwards (NEW), House District 20 (R)
Richard K. Ellis, (NEW), State Treasurer (R)
Julie Fisher, House District 17 (R)
Gage Froerer, House District 8 (R)
Kevin S. Garn, House District 16 (R)
Francis D. Gibson (NEW), House District 65 (R)
Richard Greenwood, House District 12 (R)
Greg Hughes, House District 51 (R)
Christine Johnson, House District 25 (D)
Pat Jones, Senate District 4 (D)*
Dan Liljenquist (NEW), Senate District 23 (R)
David Litvak, House District 26 (D)
Steve Mascaro, House District 47 (R)
Scott McCoy, Senate District 2 (D)
Ronda Rudd Menlove, House District 1 (R)
Karen Morgan (NEW), Senate District 8 (D)**
Marie H. Poulson (NEW), House District 46 (D)
Kraig Powell (NEW), House District 54 (R)
Luz Robles, (NEW), Senate District 1 (D)
Paul Ray, House District 13 (R)
Phil Riesen, House District 36 (D)
Jay Seegmiller (NEW), House District 49 (D)
Jennifer Seelig, House District 23 (D)
Carol Spackman Moss, House District 37 (D)
Christine F. Watkins (NEW), House District 69 (D)

Hopefully there are more legislators who support the pledge but for one reason or another have not signed it. I find it interesting that of all the signers only one current legislator (Pat Jones) who wasn't running for re-election bothered to sign the pledge. I don't believe Utahns for Public Schools meant for this to be a campaign tool, although that's what it ended up being. I would challenge any legislator not listed above to get a signed copy of the pledge in the mail ASAP. There was a time when your word was as good as gold, and perhaps it is for some of you, but how are we to know you care? I suppose we could email or call and ask each one of you individually, but why not let us all know by signing the pledge? If you're not in favor of ethics reform or if you disagree with certain points of the pledge, feel free to post a comment here and let us know what you would do differently. The people, your constituents, are interested in a change. The only people who can make that happen is you, the lawmakers. Now, more then ever, you can see that a change is needed. I personally hope that ethics reform goes beyond the points listed in the Utahns for Public Schools pledge (such as the formation of an independent ethics commission), but let's start somewhere! Please let us know that you hear us!

*Incumbent that did not run for re-election in 2008
**Retired seat in House (District 46), new to Senate

House Ethics Committee: Newly-expanded role, but any real change?

2008-12-10T22:07:00.003-07:00

Last week, incoming House Speaker David Clark R-Santa Clara reported on a newly-expanded role for the House Ethics Committee. Good news, right? I would hope so, but I also have a nose for lip service, band-aids, and all things superficial. Maybe it's a good step towards more accountability and ethics reform, but it sounds more like an emphasis on training legislators on what is and is not ethically appropriate so that, in Representative Clark's words, "it reduces the [disciplinary] meetings we have to hold." To be fair, it sounds like legislators have also tasked staff attorneys with drafting 17 new ethics bills, along with a few bills addressing campaign finance and lobbyist regulation. This piques my interest because there is at least some change and attention addressing the essential topic of ethics. However, I still believe the real issues and the most direct and effective solutions are being side-stepped.

On this site, Sara and I have called for at least two fundamental changes in ethics reform, and they bear repeating:

1. Strong, clearly-written, and enforceable ethics legislation
2. An independent Ethics Commission

Ethics Legislation
As you may remember, Representative Greg Hughes was recently reviewed for ethics violations. While the bi-partisan House Ethics Committee cleared Hughes, all eight members signed a letter faulting his conduct as "unbecoming a member of the Utah House." "We request that Representative Hughes take steps to change his behavior," the panel wrote, "and to make appropriate apologies to those who may have been affected."

Part of the reason Hughes was cleared came down to dubiously less-than-clear legislation....language so vague as to blur culpability for any number of otherwise obvious misdeeds.

Independent Ethics Commission

Back in August, Sara wrote an excellent post on the topic of legislative ethics, outlining the process for filing and reviewing an ethics complaint and underscoring some of the current problems with the process....along with the obvious need for an independent state ethics commission. Utah is one of ten states who have not formed an independent Ethics Commission. In our case, we have Senate and House Ethics Committees, intended to be bi-partisan in nature with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. Utah also relies on the Attorney General's office to provide ethics oversight.

However, given the recent ethics debacles and their subsequent investigations (or relative lack thereof), it doesn't take much to realize that legislators policing legislators is not an ideal model.

Impress Us, Please!

Believe me, I want to be impressed. No, I want to be blown away by how seriously our legislators take ethics, but let's not be fooled by feel-good reports of changes to the House Ethics Committee if they don't translate into real change. Keep an eye on this committee, the bills being drafted....and whether or not the bills even make it out of the House Rules Committee.

Is Utah Senator Howard Stephenson looking for a new job?

2008-12-08T07:00:00.004-07:00

A week ago the Salt Lake Tribune wrote an article entitled "Did Utah senator's advocacy go too far?" and quoted from emails that he had written to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE). The tone of the emails spoke for themselves; Senator Stephenson was obviously upset. "I've had it" and "This is past a joke" were only two of many phrases that ripped into Superintendent Harrington and employees of USOE. The article was likely prompted by the Utah State Board of Education's recent change in Board Rule that now prohibits unauthorized personnel (including legislators) to view Requests for Proposal (RFP). The new rule was adopted in response to Stephenson's continued pressure and "help" that he was offering USOE. Superintendent Patti Harrington felt the need to protect her staff from political pressure and the Board agreed.

The article, and two subsequent follow-up articles, didn't make Howard Stephenson very happy. He decided to use his weekly Red Meat Radio program to let people know that he feels justified in his actions. He has "worked behind the scenes to try to get improvement there" and he wanted to "expose the underbelly of the most dysfunctional office in the state." He obviously has some very strong feelings. Despite the cooperation of Superintendent Harrington as she has worked so hard to be as cooperative as she could (read the emails, they speak for themselves) and they've worked things out before with success. Instead of acting like a statesman, an elected official, a man becoming a legislator, he makes a coherent, planned, thought-out decision to do USOE further harm and inflict further pressure. Is this how business is done on the Hill? Didn't somebody just get reprimanded for this kind of behavior?

Howard Stephenson is a senior member of the Senate, as he pointed out on his radio program, and Chair of the Public Education Joint Appropriations Committee. He has a lot of ideas about technology and education. His opinions are so strong and he believes he is so powerful that he has no problem getting involved. But is his involvement going too far? Is he trying to do a job that isn't his to do?

Everyone knows an "expert" who thinks they know everything, shouting the answers across the room to questions that weren't asked of them. They overheard the question and they know the answer! Sometimes there isn't even a question being asked, but they're still there, more than willing to let you know their opinion. Bosses out there may relate even better to someone in their office who is always trying to take over, who speak on your behalf when it hasn't been authorized for them to do so. Learning to deal with eager-beavers is a part of life and eventually most of them learn how to control their outbursts. We tend to have little patience for their actions and our annoyance is usually read as a sign that their behavior is unwelcome and inappropriate. Sometimes you must put your foot down and declare, "If you want my job why don't you just apply for it?!"

This seems to be the case with Howard Stephenson. He is so eager to do the job that may or may not be getting done at the Utah State Office of Education that he's literally trying to do it for them. This may reflect on USOE, but it also reflects on Stephenson. Why is he so insistent that one particular business get a contract over another company? Some suggest that he has something to gain, but what if he doesn't. What if he just really believes in the company and believes that they'll do the best job? He gave them an hour infomercial on Saturday during his radio program, ending with their phone number and website address; he must really like them. That's fine, but it's not his job to select the company! That's the job of USOE. If he wants to make decisions in that arena then I suggest he apply within. He certainly has the passion, perhaps he'd do ok in such a position, but he's not in that position!

Stephenson also has some strong opinions on what style of math should be taught in public schools. Again, one might ask, "What's in it for him?" I haven't been able to come up with anything substantial as of yet, although I've looked. I can only surmise that there must be some ulterior motive, that's the conspiracy theorist in me, especially when it comes to Legislators. But even if there isn't, even if he just honestly believes that Singapore Math is the absolute best thing for our children, it's not his job to decide that!! There are people hired to make those decisions and their name is not Howard Stephenson.

There are other examples, that this blog may decide to investigate further, where Stephenson has overplayed his hand and exerted his power and influence. Stephenson referred to it as so-called meddling on his radio program. That may well have been a good action word to use, but his decision to go on the air and publicly criticize the office has elevated the verb to bullying. Sad that we all know what happens to bullies on the Hill. Virtually nothing!

Is his influence still too strong to resist? When we act annoyed at the know-it-alls around us, they usually aren't in a position to give us a cut in pay or even demand that we be fired. But Stephenson believes he is so powerful that he can do just that. It would appear as though he may actually have that kind of influence. Try calling either employee mentioned in the emails that Stephenson recommended be terminated. You won't find them in the jobs they were doing. One of them left USOE earlier than anyone expected and the other is now a secretary. I can't say for certain that both circumstances are not coincidental or unrelated, but somehow I think otherwise.

I hope that his colleagues will help him recognize the error of his ways and seek to advise him on how a Senator acts in what must be a difficult situation for him. No matter how justified he thinks he is, his actions and words are inappropriate, to say the least.

It's the Voters' Turn to Adjudge What's Ethical

2008-11-03T09:54:00.003-07:00

I received the following letter written by attorneys David Irvine and Alan Smith this morning. I hope you'll read it, think about what this kind of behavior means for the state of our law-making process, and then vote accordingly. I'll let the letter speak for itself.

We are the attorneys (registered Republicans) who recently were not allowed to put on our clients’ case for ethics violations against Rep. Greg Hughes before the House Ethics Committee. The public may not be aware that, under the House rules of procedure governing ethics hearings, neither the legislators who petition nor their attorneys who have prepared the case for them are given any rights of participation in the ethics process once a complaint is filed. Hence, the committee members, who have no background, information, or knowledge respecting the charges presented, and with no training as investigators or prosecutors, must figure out what evidence might bear upon those charges, determine how to gather and hear that evidence, and adjudge a respondent’s guilt or innocence. In Hughes’s case, moreover, the committee was forced to do all of this on impossibly short notice, secretly, and within an extremely compressed time-line.

Notwithstanding these procedural biases which favor the accused legislator, all 8 members of the ethics committee, Republicans and Democrats, found that Hughes was guilty of “conduct unbecoming a legislator.” This rebuke was seconded with an admonition to apologize for his wrongdoing.

As to the ethics charges themselves, the committee gave Hughes a pass, not because it found him innocent, but because, in the Committee’s view, the legislature’s current ethics standards were too vague to be applied.

Putting the question of ethics aside, and looking at the evidence of crimes, former Republican legislator, Susan Lawrence, testified credibly and forcibly that Hughes had offered her a bribe. This testimony was corroborated by two other Republican legislators, Sheryl Allen and Paul Ray. Many if not all of the key witnesses who testified respecting the misconduct of Hughes, namely, Lawrence, Allen, Ray, Kim Burningham, and Margaret Bird, are Republicans. What is more, our Republican Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, has announced that a criminal docket might be opened to investigate the Lawrence bribery charge, and many believe that Hughes may be a co-conspirator in the Mark Walker bribery scandal and a subject of the grand jury proceeding recently instigated by two county attorneys, one a Republican, the other a Democrat. In the face of so much inculpation by fellow party members, it is no wonder that the Republican chair of the ethics Committee, Todd Kiser, closed the hearing by stating that he had seen exhibited, through days of evidence, a very “unstatesmanlike” exercise of enormous power by Hughes.

In addition to these adverse judgments by his Republican peers, the Democratic half of the committee membership found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Hughes was guilty of one count of bribery and two counts of extortion. On another charge, that Hughes had misused taxpayer monies, exercised undue influence with a government agency, and subverted the legislatively prescribed neutrality of that agency in a state-wide election, the Committee voted to absolve Hughes only because his Republican colleague, Senator Curtis Bramble, took the fall for him. Bramble testified that, although Hughes was in charge of the political organization which had perpetrated these wrongs, it was not Hughes, but Bramble, who had acted directly in relation to the agency involved. In other words, even though Hughes knew of the wrongdoing and was in a position to stop if not prevent it, he escaped conviction since he merely stood by, did nothing, and watched while Senator Bramble engaged in malfeasance on Hughes’s behalf. So much for “moral leadership.” (Indeed, the Republican leadership at the state legislature, notwithstanding some recent “noise” that they have “got religion” on ethics, isn’t rushing to bring charges against Bramble -- even though, while “falling on his sword” for Hughes at the ethics hearing, Bramble virtually admitted to conduct that is criminal, and, since then, has bragged on a talk radio program that he would repeat that conduct if occasion arises).

Hughes now claims that he was vindicated by the committee’s judgment that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a legislator. This claim could be Hughes showing off his mastery of overstatement. But it more likely reveals, once again, that his moral compass has a hard time finding true north. He stubbornly refuses to take responsibility for his own misconduct, blaming those who merely report his wrongdoing. He is willfully blind to the constitutional requirement that those who run for office must remain accountable to the body politic. Hughes is so far from these qualities of responsibility and accountability that, upon hearing that the ethics complaint had been filed, he went to the state capitol to “get a piece of” and “punch out” one of the legislators who had filed it. The Highway Patrol was called to prevent Hughes from physically harming a fellow legislator.

Under the present ethics procedures at the state capitol, a legislator may not be found guilty of misconduct unless there is “clear and convincing” evidence that he has been unethical. For the Republicans on the committee, that would seem to require a videotape of Hughes handing over a bag of cash to someone. But this is not the traditional standard by which those who are given power to be exercised in trust for the benefit of others have been or ought to be judged. Under this time-tested, yes, conservative standard, all fiduciaries, including legislators, once accused, have the burden of persuasion to show that their conduct has been proper, that their actions are above reproach and beyond suspicion. The public, in other words, should not have to worry, wonder, or debate whether their representative has been above-board in his dealings – since this would never occur, after all, if that representative had avoided even the appearance of impropriety. We respectfully submit that Rep. Hughes, in his dealings, has not come within a country mile of meeting this standard. Indeed, the only thing “clear and convincing” about the Hughes case is that he was convicted, by a unanimous, bi-partisan vote, of conduct unbecoming a member of the people’s House. That finding is a vote of “no confidence,” and certainly is no “exoneration.” The public should echo this vote on Nov. 4th by replacing him.

Posted with permission by the authors.

A Call to Action for the House Rules Committee

2008-11-01T23:16:00.003-06:00

Many of you have probably already taken advantage of early voting like I have, but with the official election day drawing near I can't help but want to stand here at the podium a few more times. While some of the immediate voting decisions we all need to make revolve around candidates and propositions, the immediacy of some of these decisions also begs some visionary and long-term questions. What do we value, what do we want, what can and should we expect from government leaders?

During the 2008 Legislative session, HB 130 (http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0130.htm) outlined a proposal for creating a State Ethics Commission. As an important and necessary call to action for the entire state, hope was high for some real change in legislative oversight. In reality, the bill was summarily dismissed by the House Rules Committee. No policy committee debate, no policy committee work, no progress. The bill was killed.

I can't overstate how much power the House Rules Committee has in the legislative process. In a nutshell, this committee serves as gatekeeper. Proposed bills are submitted to this committee where they are discussed and potentially assigned to an approriate policy committee for further debate, refinement, and progress. Of course, any bill can be defeated even if it is assigned to a policy committee, but at least it has a chance to be debated and reviewed in committee work. And, bills that make it to committee are also more easily brought to the public's attention. However, the House Rules Committee can also cause a bill to be "held" which is, in effect, an immediate death sentence for the held bill. The bill goes nowhere and potentially important change is at least another year in coming.

I realize this is a simplistic and brief review, but the point is that this committee has a responsibility and power that sometimes goes unnoticed and unchallenged by the public at large. With so much current dialogue regarding ethics and another legislative session on the horizon, I thought it would be important for me to take a look at who currently serves on this committee.

The 2008 House Rules Committee (http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2008&Com=HSTRUL) who reviewed and killed HB 130 calling for an independent State Ethics Commission is currently comprised of the following members:

Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart, Chair
Rep. Gregory H. Hughes, Vice Chair
Rep. Jackie Biskupski
Rep. James A. Dunnigan
Rep. Kevin S. Garn
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson
Rep. Michael T. Morley
John L. Fellows, General Counsel
John Q. Cannon, Managing Policy Analyst
Stewart E. Smith, Pol Analyst/Spec Projects Mngr

Election results could, of course, change the makeup of this committee. Tuesday will tell.

For now, in my opinion, HB 130 was a call to action for the entire Utah political machine. Since it was "held" and went nowhere, and there will undoubtedly be another ethics reform bill submitted in the future, this post is a very personal call to action specifically for the House Rules Committee during the upcoming 2009 Legislative Session: assign the bill, let there be debate, scrutiny, questions, refinement, public input, and real progress towards objective ethics oversight!

Know Your State School Board Candidates

2008-10-29T07:43:00.002-06:00

The Utah State School Board election is being overshadowed by other elections, but that's not breaking news to you. It's not for lack of decent information about the School Board candidates that this race is being overlooked. There is plenty of information available if you know where to look. A quick google search gives you many options, but by the second page it's hit or miss. In hopes of saving you some time and making sure you're getting good information I've listed some of the resources I've used to get to know our Utah State School Board candidates.

District 1

Susie Campbell Ashliman - Trib Profile

Shelly Locke - UTPS Questionnaire, Trib Profile

District 4

Chris L. Dallin - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

David Thomas - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Utah Moms Care

District 7

Leslie Brooks Castle - Trib Profile

Randall A. Mackey (Incumbent) - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Utah Moms Care

District 8

Janet A. Cannon (Incumbent) - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Trent E. Kaufman - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Utah Education Issues
Utah Moms Care

District 11

Dave Crandall - Trib Profile

Ted H. Heap - Trib Profile

District 12

Mark Cluff (Incumbent) - LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Carol A. Murphy - UTPS Questionnaire, LWV Questions, Trib Profile

Utah Moms Care

District 13

Kyle Bateman - UTPS Questionnaire, Trib Profile

C. Mark Openshaw - Trib Profile

Utah Education Issues

State School Board Election Review

2008-10-28T08:22:00.000-06:00

Readers of this blog will remember that it was with great fervor that I attempted to create some level of awareness of the importance of the School Board elections. With just one week to go until election day, I'd like to bring it to your attention one more time. I'll begin by reminding you about what's already been said.

On May 18th I talked about the process for selecting State School Board members. The process began early in May at the Governor's office with what was nearly a closed-door meeting, but thanks to concerned citizens who showed up to attend, the meeting was opened as it should have been to begin with. I talked about the process and how it's changed over time. I'm now convinced it needs to be changed again.

With all of the to do about the meetings of the State School Board Nominating Committee being kept open to the public, I got to wondering why anyone would event want to serve on the State Board. On May 26th I outlined the important responsibilities that Board Members have and I thought about the ramifications of someone opposed to any public school system or disenfranchised with ours being able to undermine it from within by getting elected. If you're wondering why your vote matters as election day approaches, read this post.

After suggesting that a State School Board candidate might have ill-intent, a reader directed me toward some interesting information on the state elections office website showing that infiltration had already occurred! The old adage "follow the money" was hitting me square in the jaw and I couldn't ignore it. On May 28th I outlined the large donations made by voucher pushers Parents for Choice in Education. It was quite apparent that one board member had already been bought in the 2006 race. If it could happen once could it happen again?

I thought I'd do well to further explore the question, "Do school board candidates have hidden agendas?" There seemed to be quite a few candidates that had filed and were being interviewed that had ties to vouchers. If you're curious about which ones, read or re-read this post. On May 31st I talked about all of the candidates who have obvious ties to Parents for Choice in Education or had voiced a public position in favor of vouchers.

It didn't take long to discover that the School Board election process failed us, but it was no surprise to many of us. On June 2nd, the nominating committee votes were in and the results showed that they had eliminated two incumbents and ranked another in third place. How is it that we have a process where ELECTED officials don't even have the opportunity to be re-elected? If the people voted them into office shouldn't it be the people who essentially vote them out? The results also showed how the business members of the committee voted together to get their way. The vote was stacked and in one instance (District 7) two business members didn't even bother to cast their last vote, despite agreed upon rules.

On June 6th, just four short days later, the Governor finished the job by summarily picking the top two candidates as put forth by the Nominating Committee. Why our Governor was even involved in the process at that point was a mystery to me. It was supposed to be his job to make sure that the two most qualified and capable candidates were put on the ballot. That didn't happen as yet another incumbent (Theresa Theuer) was axed and a capable and well qualified candidate (A. LeGrand Richards) was cut.

Since then I've turned my focus elsewhere, but with the election right upon us it's important to bring this up again. We'll have to live with the decisions we make and in some cases it will be a matter of choosing the lesser of the two, if you know what I mean. We need to make sure that this process is changed in the future. The decision should be put back in your hands! The elections need to remain non-partisan. We can't leave these important decisions up to committees and governors.

Stay tuned for part two tomorrow. I'll make sure you get the information you need on the remaining two State School Board candidates in each district so that you can make informed decisions.

Attorney General's Race Fires Up Over Vouchers and Ethics Reform

2008-10-19T21:24:00.005-06:00

Change is afoot. Possibly. Two-term Republican incumbent, Mark Shurtleff, is getting a run for his money (so to speak) from Democratic challenger, Jean Welch Hill. The two recently debated some of the hottest topics in Utah politics, including the ubiquitous push for ethics reform and the equally charged voucher dialogue.

Click here to read the article: http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10708500

First, Vouchers or No Vouchers

While vouchers haven't been headlining local news lately, heated dialog and feelings on both sides of the issue continue. While Republican leaders claim the bill died on the day it was soundly defeated by public vote, speculation exists that there will indeed be another run.

Ms. Welch insists that Utahns need an AG that protects public education rather than one who supports dismantling it. Moreover, she says that as the current AG, Mr. Shurtleff, provided "legal and moral support" to vouchers from his office and blocked her efforts to put the kibosh on it. Mr. Shurtleff denies that he has ever publicly supported vouchers or misused his influential position. Questions remain and the debate, statewide, and between these two candidates, continues.

As the dialog goes on, I come full circle to the cadre of questions I had during the referendum contest. One in particular speaks both to the soundness of vouchers and to transparency about the end goal. Had the referendum passed, the first round of proposed voucher funding wouldn't really make it possible for most families to attend a private school, based purely on the gap between the scaled voucher amounts and the actual cost of tuition.

If families aren't immediately benefiting from a voucher program, then what is the practical purpose and who is benefiting? Would the voucher bill have been a "baby step" toward more voucher funding and more "choice"? Everyone wins, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Another possibility is that it is indeed intended as a baby step, but one towards an undisclosed endgame: a largely, if not completely, privatized education system. Sit with that one for awhile....I'll probably come back to it soon.

And Then There's the Question of Ethics

Ah, yes, ethics reform. Legislators and other individuals vying for public office (and your trust) have had their halos knocked askew by recent ethics complaints and probes. Read a recent article here: http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10711007 , and also look for more news regarding the Mark Walker plea deal. You could also look over this formal request from Phil Riesen's attorney's supporting his right to release the Greg Hughes complaint draft, and other relevant documentation, to the media: http://media.bonnint.net/slc/722/72209/7220928.pdf.

Both Attorney General candidates seem to agree that ethics in government is important, although it has not been a focal point for reform during Mr. Shurtleff's tenure. Ms. Welch believes that the AG should lead the charge in changing "business as usual" ethics on Capitol Hill. She just doesn't see the wisdom in having legislators police themselves and would call for an independent ethics commission to provide objectivity and obviously much-needed oversight. Oh yeah, and a ban on gifts to elected officials could also be coming to a legislature near you.

Yes, change is afoot. Possibly.

Pledge for Ethics Reform

2008-10-09T08:43:00.000-06:00

Just two weeks ago, the coalition of Utahns for Public Schools released their best effort to bring ethics reform to the front and center for the next legislative session in the form of a pledge that legislators were invited to sign if they agreed with the actions that are being called for. A mix of incumbent legislators (17) and candidates (48) have already signed the pledge. The effort is bipartisan in nature with 22 Republicans and 42 Democrats on board with the five points of ethics reform that pertain to campaign financing. They are:

Require full disclosure of any and all gifts and meals, (not including those provided to the entire legislative body), by both the recipient legislator and the provider of the gift/meal when that provider is a registered lobbyist, PAC, or acting on behalf of a company or corporation.
Prohibit legislators or campaign committees from using campaign contributions for anything other than “legitimate” (i.e.: directly related to their campaign for election to public office) campaign expenditures, or for the execution of duties directly related to their public office.

Require that unexpended campaign funds, upon defeat or retirement from the office in which the legislator served while generating the funds, be donated to a registered public charity or political party, or transferred to the School Trust Land Permanent Fund.

Establish appropriate sanctions for legislators and others who fail to comply with the requirements listed above.

Encourage transparency by providing sanctions for candidates, legislators, lobbyists, PACs, PICs and corporations who fail to file timely and accurate reports.

I'm sure it's no mistake that the campaign was launched less than two months before election day. Incumbents and candidates who sign now will benefit since it certainly makes for a strategic campaign move. However, the true test will come when a bill comes before them in the 2009 legislative session concerning campaign finance reform. If they support it then they will be true to their pledge. If not, hopefully we'll take note and hold them to their word. You can see the full list of those who have signed at the Utahns for Public Schools Policy Center.

Unfortunately the UTPS pledge has been stripped down to only include ethics reform related to campaign finances and contributions, a noteworthy and necessary undertaking. But, in August I suggested that what we really need is an ethics commission. This ethics problem is big enough that legislators are already drafting up an ethics reform bill for consideration in the 2009 session, however, they aren't even hoping for the formation of a commission. It may take some time, but we need to keep talking about it. The efforts by UTPS are a great start and hopefully it will make a difference, but it's still not enough!

Yes, Utahns for Public Schools has certainly given us the start we need. We're also getting a big shove by the likes of several unprecedented ethics complaints this year. A big "thank you" goes out to people like Susan Lawrence who are willing to speak up (despite the untimely politicization of it). I'm proud of her for writing a letter "To Whom it May Concern". It had a different effect than she intended, but I hope in the end it will bring to pass much needed change in a system that more closely resembles the mob than a body of elected officials whose actions should be beyond reproach!

"Pay to play" or just "business as usual"?

2008-10-06T00:20:00.005-06:00

Former Representative Susan Lawrence recently illustrated a good example of why lawmakers should take reform seriously in the next session. She wrote a letter detailing alleged unethical behavior by Greg Hughes that occurred nearly two years prior. The complaint was leaked by Representative Riesen who claims that the public had a right to know about it. I agree, despite the spotlight this is going to put on Lawrence who says that she is saddened by the premature release of the information.

After reading the complaint I began to wonder, if Susan Lawrence was confronted with a deal to trade votes for cash, how many others were approached with the same deal? How many of them might have taken them up on it and how many turned them down like Lawrence did? According to a footnote in the complaint:

Corroborating these allegations respecting the attempted bribe of former Representative Lawrence, complainants are aware that another legislator, within the same time frame, also was offered equivalent campaign contribution assistance in exchange for a "yes" vote on the anticipated voucher bill. This legislator, like Lawrence, declined the bribe. We have not included this allegation in the complaint because, according to present information, the person making the bribe was not a legislator.

I recently received information that Representative Paul Ray will possibly be testifying this week in the ethics hearings. He has spoken to others about a bribe that he received and those who have heard him talk about it say that he was offered $100,000 if he would change his vote on the voucher bill from nay to yea. He also reported the attempted bribe to the FBI. Why then, I wonder, if he was comfortable in making an official report to the FBI did he not report it as an ethics violation to his colleagues? Is it because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere by ruffling feathers and complaining about something that happens all the time? Is it because he would lose "all influence" in the House, a promise reportedly made by Hughes to other people who have tried to report abuses by those in power?

I was curious to see if I could find a contribution by a voucher-tied donor so I started looking at 2006 campaign contributions. I wasn't able to find anything that came close to $50,000 or $100,000, but I did find the same trend that I found when I looked at the contributions to school board members in 2006. I thought that it was worth showing how not only voucher PACs like Parents for Choice in Education donated large sums of money, but other sources that could be tied to possible bribes. There is no proof as to whether or not the money came with strings attached, but at the very least I believe it demonstrates how it's common place for money to be influential in a campaign.

When I was searching for the smoking gun I looked at the contributions to every candidate that voted in favor of HB148. I looked at the donors that might be tied to Greg Hughes or another known voucher-pushing-lawmaker. I included contributions made by Parents for Choice in Education since the voucher vote was at the crux of the matter, as well as contributions from Stephen Urquhart who was the sponsor of HB147. Due to the ability of funds to be filtered through the party I also included the contributions made by two Republican Party PACs. When I didn't find a whole lot in terms of people who had the opportunity to vote on the voucher bill, I turned my efforts to candidates who ran in 2006 but lost to their opponents. That's when the money painted a much different picture. The only other candidate that appeared to have the same pattern was that of Gage Froerer who won his bid for candidacy. All the other candidates listed below him in the table lost their bids. And what about contributions from the same voucher-tied donors for Lawrence and Ray? Well, they didn't get any. That raises some questions as to why not. Is it because they refused to change their vote?

Lastly, when we talk about campaign ethics we have to think about the contributions that might have been made, but not reported. Surely, if someone is willing to unethically take cash for a vote they might also be willing to "forget" to report said cash. Could it be that the trading of cash for votes is so common place in our current system that people think nothing of it? It happens all the time, right? We'll need someone with subpoena power to ask the hard questions if we really want to get to the bottom of this.

2006 Contributions to House Candidates in Tight Races

Candidate	Parents for Choice in Education PAC	Utah Republican Party & Utah House Republican Election Committee	Committee to Elect Stephen H Urquhart¹	Other Large Contributions with possible links to voucher votes	Total Funds Raised	Total Funds Raised by Opponent(s)
Gage Froerer	$0	$14,629^+ & $2,000^+*	$1,000	$0	$61,552	$1,925 (Frandsen) $0 (Herbst)
Jess Clifford	$9,910.34⁺	$11,050.75^ & $2,500^*	$2,000	$3,150²	$64,032	$24,346 (Gowans) $1,882 (Garrard)
Denna Detton Ely	$7,848.25⁺	$8,255⁺^& $4,500^+*	$1,500	$0	$52,377	$24,957 (Duckworth) $400 (Froehle) $190 (Roose)
Thomas Wright	$0	$2,471^+ & $3,500^+*	$3,000⁺	$3,000³	$77,057	$42,494 (McGee)
Phillip M. Conder	$2,000	$2,281^+ & 2,500^*	$1,500	$0	$33,556	$16,833 (Fisher)
Sandy Thackeray	$9,284⁺	$7,968.89^ & $2,000^*	$0	$0	$66,773	$47,625 (Moss)
Duane Millard	$0	$3,384.92^+ & $2,000^*	$1,000	$0	$40,762	$27,205 (Hemingway)
Robyn Bagley	$8,464⁺	$6,022^ & $2,000^*	$1,500	$0	$54,575	$38,313 (Morgan)

+ Multiple Contributions by the same PAC were added together.
** Contributions made by the Utah Republican Party
*** Contributions made by the Utah House Republican Election Committee
1 Contributions were listed from either "Stephen Urquhart" or "Committee to Elect Stephen H. Urquhart" or "Commitee [sic] to Elect Stephen H. Urquhart"

2 Committee to Elect Howard Stephenson
3 Salt Lake County Republican Party

Transparency in Campaign Financing: The Windows Need a Lot of Cleaning

2008-09-18T14:08:00.004-06:00

CampaignDisclosure.Org just released their 2008 rankings for nationwide state campaign financing disclosure. If you are not familiar with this group, take some time to visit their website at http://www.campaigndisclosure.org/.

Their purpose is to "bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics" and they give each state a grade for overall performance in four categories: campaign disclosure laws, electronic filing programs, public access to campaign finance data, and disclosure web site usability.

If you look at the rankings, 10 states failed the test (literally received an "F"), and 40 states are considered to have passed. Utah comes in at the bottom of the passing states with a solid D-. The good news is, that's an improvement over the F's we've received in the past.

Improvements, But Come On...

The Deseret News covered the release of this report (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,70025960.00.html) and gives a view of both the problems we still have with campaign finance transparency as well as the progress being made toward electronic filing requirements for candidates and a user-friendly database for the public.

Believe me, I'm all for appreciating improvement and success along the way, but please, a D-??? The grade Utah recieved is not just an indictment of the process and tools involved; I believe it is a clear indictment of our campaign financing laws, or relative lack thereof. In a state that talks a lot about values, morals, and ethics, our campaign financing laws (and the resulting questionable campaign financing ethics?) are some of the worst in the nation...almost to the point of being egregiously non-existent.

We Notice, We Care, We Want Reform!

In a January, 2007 report, KSL revealed that "an exclusive poll by Survey USA for Eyewitness News asked Utahns to ascribe a level of importance, on a scale of one to ten, of certain issues. Nearly a third gave campaign finance reform an 8, 9, or 10, ranking it as very important. Those in favor of campaign finance reform say special interests have too much influence, while those opposed say access to public officials should not be unfairly restricted." (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=847824&nid=148).

Just yesterday, a coalition of concerned groups launched an official campaign regarding government ethics reform. They are calling on the legislature to do its own house cleaning by addressing this very issue. Too many legislators, and the special interest groups who court them, are benefitting far too much from the current state of affairs. See the story at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4288838, and take a look at the pledge to address reform that UTPS is asking legislators and legislative candidates to sign at http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php.

It's an age-old political dilemma: how does the common man compete with money and power? How do we hold our elected officials accountable for things we cannot see, track, and evaluate? I'm on the side of the little people who simply ask for honest disclosure and representation. We need to do some house cleaning, window cleaning, a good old scrub down from top to bottom. Transparency and ethics in government is achievable and we cannot let Utah fail this test year after year!

Special-needs students, teachers and taxpayers get the shaft

2008-09-15T08:22:00.001-06:00

Many people were recently affected by the closure of Woodland Hills (Utah Southvalley Community School at Woodland Hills or USC as they've been known for just over a year), but few were surprised. That's because payroll checks began to bounce earlier in the summer and teachers contacted by The Salt Lake Tribune reported that USC "churned through at least 50 employees." That's a big number and I thought that it must be an exaggeration until I read the fifty plus angry comments appended to The Tribune article. Now I'm beginning to understand the truth of the matter.

There are a lot of losers in this closure (the biggest loser being Bob Jones), but more importantly the special-needs students that counted on a place to learn and the teachers who really cared about the students and stuck around despite all the telltale signs that the school was going under. That being said, the emphasis that I'm obviously taking on the Bob Jones scam is concerning the taxpayers. It's a position we can all relate to because all of us are taxpayers.

USC would have received public funding in the form of tuition tax credits this year but besides having closed, they also failed to file their application by the May 1 deadline. The program that gives public money to private schools is called the Special Need Carson Smith Scholarship and the school had participated in years past. In fact, the school received $160,477 last year, the third-largest amount of the 40 plus participating schools.

Funding for the program began in 2005 when it was signed into law by Governor Huntsman and further expanded in 2006. There is very little accountability for receiving such a large amount of our money. There are only 15 provisions for a school to adhere to during the application process and 11 of them are preceded by the following statement.

"No documentation is required in the application relative to this provision."

The 15th provision simply recaps the documentation that is needed which is simply 1) a Tuition and Fee Schedule, 2) a copy of the most recent Public Health Inspection Report, 3) a copy of the most recent State Fire Marshall Inspection Report and if the school stores, prepares or serves meals to students, 4) a copy of a current and satisfactory Safety and Sanitation Report from the Department of Health. So little accountability! No need to report where the money is spent and on whom? Do we have any idea of the money that USC received was spent on the students, or did they just plan to use it to fund a trip to Japan for the football team? I wonder how many special-needs students were planning on going?

I must make mention again of the huge loss for these students and their families. It is very difficult to find good places for these students where their needs will be met, however, many of them have now come back to public schools where their Special Education needs, by law, must be provided. Public schools try very hard to meet those needs despite funding shortfalls and burdensome federal regulations. In a private school parents are not provided any guarantees that the school will meet the Special Education needs of their child. The federal laws do not apply and parents take a chance when they put their special-needs children in private schools.

Ironically, the only thing left of the USC school website is a notice demanding that lunch balances are paid and equipment returned and a picture of the guy responsible for the demise of the school. Can we demand that our public funds be returned or will the program be expanded yet again in 2008?

School Funding, Class Size, and the Earth's Rotational Velocity

2008-09-08T09:37:00.004-06:00

Ah, money. It makes the world go ‘round. Or, at least it keeps it from winding down and coming to a screeching halt, especially if you view it through the organizational behavior lens of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. But, what does this have to do with school funding and class size, you ask? Well, potentially a lot if you take a look at how this theory addresses job satisfaction and motivation, and apply it to the ongoing challenges our Utah teachers face each year.

What Does Hygiene Have to do with Motivation?

If you are new to Herzberg, let me give you a quick primer on his work. Frederick Herzberg, a well-respected psychologist who eventually graced the halls of our own U of U as a professor of management, is known for his widely-applied Motivation-Hygiene Theory. In business and academic circles, his theory has the reputation for being able to nicely account for two aspects of motivation: satisfaction and dissatisfaction. For the purpose of looking at school funding and class size, I'll focus in this post on dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction is primarily the result of hygiene factors, which are sometimes also referred to as "maintenance" factors. Either way, these elements are simply the basic building blocks of an acceptable working condition. These particular factors have little effect on long-term satisfaction—they merely prevent dissatisfaction. The point is, Herzberg found that these factors must be met and sustained in a work environment before an employee can move on to real levels of work satisfaction, enjoyment, and performance.

Keeping Dissatisfaction at Bay or Sway

According to Herzberg and the results of his well-documented research, here are the factors that, if missing or inadequate, can lead to job dissatisfaction:

Pay and Benefits
Company Policy and Administration
Relationships with Co-workers
Physical Environment
Supervision
Status
Job Security

With regard to education, this list begs the very questions we ask ourselves during each legislative session. Even if we focus on just education funding and class size, this theory suggests imperative questions for which I want better legislative answers.

Last.....and First: Funding and Class Size

Over the past several years, I've been watching for legislative changes that will have real impact on local school funding and class size challenges. I'm still watching....and waiting. While appropriations for education have increased somewhat, Utah is still dead last in the nation for per pupil funding. Let me repeat that. We spend less on each of our students than every other state in the nation. In the 2006 fiscal year, Utah spent $5,437 per student. The highest-ranked state, New York, spent $14,884 per student, and the national average was $9,138. Even if we overlook the highest-ranking state, we are still only spending 60% of the national average on our students. To put it another way, we are not even close to the second-to-last state, Idaho, which spends $6,440 per student...a $1000 gap. In short, we are way behind.

To be fair, after nearly ten years of education funding decline, "the Legislature has increased state funding effort for public education in the most recent two state budgets", according to the Utah Foundation. It's the relative size of those increases that I wonder about...and the lingering, and sometimes widening, gap between Utah's education funding compared with the rest of the nation.

Now let's juxtaposition our per pupil spending numbers against Utah's class size. We have, as you might have guessed, the largest class sizes in the nation. Our student-to-teacher ratio is 22.6 which adds up to about seven more students per teacher than the national average. Not only at an intuitive level would this appear to be a problem, but most education experts agree that larger class size does directly translate into many challenges—both for the students and the teachers. Challenges ranging from lack of focus and on-task work, discipline problems, and only reaching superficial levels of instruction are routinely observed in larger class sizes.

Now, Back to Hygiene

Bringing us back full circle to the rotational velocity of the earth and Herzberg's hygiene factors, let's take a look at the theory again armed with the numbers above. Does money really make the world go 'round? It sure does help.

When we consider what it takes to attract and retain the best teachers, Herzberg's model is eye-opening. While it seems to state the obvious, it emphasizes that offering the basic building blocks of an acceptable work environment is only a starting point. With regard to education, I can see at least three factors on the list that are impacted by low funding and large class sizes: Pay/Benefits, Work Environment, and Status (and perhaps Company Policy and Administration). That's nearly half of the list and the odds of dissatisfaction, I think, speak for itself. In fact, years of real-world observation and motivation research indicates that all of the hygiene factors must continually be met in order to prevent dissatisfaction.

In my experience, Utahns collectively speak about education with fervent support and generally agree that education is one of the state's highest-held values. However, my experience also says "follow the money" to find the real, rather than stated, values. We see values translated into public policy every year and for a state that claims to value education, the policy...and the money...is lagging behind. Let's do what it takes to retain the best teachers by meeting their basic needs, supporting them with policy, and then allowing them to teach with passion.

Kudos to legislators who have supported increased appropriations for public education....let's just see more of it.

Florida School Voucher Update - Amendment 9 thrown out!

2008-09-04T11:13:00.002-06:00

Good news for residents of Florida today! The Florida Supreme Court threw out amendment 9, which combined a private school voucher program with Patrick Byrn's so-called "65% Solution" proposal. The intent of the amendment was to reverse the Florida Supreme Court decision that threw out a private school voucher proposal as unconstitutional.

Even though this amendment has been defeated for now, have no doubt that Patrick Byrne will be pushing his agenda somewhere soon again. Maybe even in Florida since this isn't the first time he has peddled his ideas there. I found a 2006 article from TampaBay.com that documents his previous try and gives precious insight into his tactics and flawed point-of-view. The article starts out, "The 43-year-old man behind the education spending plan storming the nation is crashed out on a couch in the Florida Capitol," and continues with the following highlights.

"I don't think [the 65 percent plan] really had any legs to start out with," said Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, who thinks the plan is dead in the upper chamber.
But with the most important 21/2 weeks remaining in the legislative session, it's too early to predict exactly how it will play out.
Byrne admits little knowledge of Florida politics. His entry into the state's education debate started a year and a half ago in his Salt Lake City apartment.
A mutual friend introduced Byrne to Tim Mooney, an Arizona Republican political consultant. For about a year, Mooney had been laying the groundwork for the 65 percent campaign.
Byrne is surprised at how quickly it's taken off. "I never had any idea politics was so easy," he said.

You'd think he'd be back on that couch, crashed out and full of humble pie, but I'm not done keeping an eye on him, just in case he has a hollow leg. Afterall, let's not forget what Byrne said after the sound defeat of vouchers in Utah. He said he was going to push vouchers "on African-American churches in South Carolina". He WILL take these ideas anywhere and everywhere he thinks he can sell them.

Patrick Byrne Sightings: What is he up to now?

2008-08-28T16:24:00.001-06:00

I hesitate to write about Patrick Byrne anymore. For those who know him you understand what I mean. These days I get him confused with Super Dell; he embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth. But, it's for those who don't know the name "Byrne" and what he's been trying to do for the last several years that I write. First a brief reminder.

Avid readers of Accountability will remember Patrick Byrne's involvement in last year's voucher campaign. He donated nearly $4 million to PCE (Parent's for Choice in Education) in hopes that a law allowing public funding of private schools would not be overturned by a Referendum. When the voices of the people were heard and the law was stricken, he insulted Utahns and worsened his already-poisonous reputation by making awful statements about high school dropouts (they should be "burned"), about Utah voters (they "failed the state IQ test"), about Utah parents (they "don't care enough about their children" ) and about the people debating him (they are "bigots"). The contempt he showed for his fellow Utahns on live television on Election Night illustrated why people say what they say about him. And now, allow me to say a bit more about him.

In March, 2005 Byrne co-founded an organization called First Class Education. The new group's goal was to enact laws in all 50 States that would mandate 65% of all funds be spent "in the classroom." The idea received a lot of criticism because of its arbitrariness:

Why choose 65%? Why not 60%? Why not 80%? There's no evidence that spending any particular percentage on instructional expenses actually improves education.

Why do some expenses, like football uniforms, count as classroom or "instructional" expenses, while others, such as school libraries and the cost of bussing students to the school, do not?

For all the silliness of the proposal and its unfounded claims, it actually caught on in some areas. I'm sure this was partly because of the simplicity of the idea and partly because of the money that Byrne was injecting into the campaign in the form of commercials and propaganda starting in 10 States. Texas and Georgia fell for it, unfortunately, and both states report that it is too early to assess their programs. Other states have grasped onto the idea but made it a goal, not a requirement.

A look at the First Class Education website suggests that the 65% "solution" has lost steam. There are only three "active" states with their own webpages (Colorado, Oklahoma and Missouri). Colorado voters defeated a 65 percent proposal in 2006 , the same year sponsors abandoned petition drives in Arizona, Oregon and Washington state. The Oklahoma Supreme Court threw a 65 percent proposal off the ballot in 2007, about the same time that private school vouchers were being defeated in Utah. Maybe it's time for them to shut down the site, you say? I would think so, too, but there's a new development. Byrne's 65% plan has actually found its way onto the ballot in Florida in the form of Amendment 9. This time it's tied to--are you ready for this?--VOUCHERS. That brings me to another reason for this post.

While First Class Education has not been very successful, Byrne has also aligned himself with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, one of the nation's main voucher advocacy groups. He has sat on the board since 2006 and was recently named co-chair. Gordon St. Angelo, President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation, hopes that "with Patrick on board" the number of voucher programs in the country will "skyrocket." I have no doubt Byrne will attempt his style of "helping" by resorting to the kinds of political tactics used by First Class Education. A memo circulated among lawmakers regarding the "political benefits" of the 65 percent solution reveals the real reason for the proposal. Allow me to quote just a few of the "benefits." Keep in mind that Byrne cares about our children more than we do.

"The Political Benefits of 1st Class Education
Splitting of the Education Union. The 1st Class Education proposal naturally puts administrators and teachers at odds with one another with monies flowing from the former to the latter with its passage. Because most state education unions represent both administrators and teachers, the proposal will create tremendous tension within the organization. Every time the education establishment attacks this proposal, it hurts its standing with the public and the majority of its membership. Every day and every dollar the education establishment uses to defeat this proposal is a day and a dollar they cannot spend on other political activities.

Direct Fix for Public Education. ...large segments of the voting public - especially suburban, affluent women voters - view these ideas as an abandonment of public education. Women in particular want public education fixed, not replaced. Once additional fixing and funding of public education can be achieved via the 1st Class Education proposal, targeted segments of voters may be more greatly predisposed to supporting voucher and charter school proposals, as Republicans address the voting public with greater credibility on public education issues"

Establishes the Debate on Taxes and Government Spending. By highlighting the inefficiencies of education spending, far and away the biggest budgetary item in every state, the 1st Class Education initiative highlights the likely inefficiencies in all areas of state government. That's the percentage the Department of Motor Vehicles spends on administration versus direct service to the public?

Allows the Use of Unlimited Non-Personal Money for Political Positioning Advantages. The aforementioned benefits can be achieved with funding in any amount and from any source. In the era of campaign finance limitation on candidates, PACs and parties, galvanizing an electorate via the initiative process is a tremendous opportunity.

It Wins! As with initiatives proposing tax limits, term limits and the definition of marriage, ballot success for the 1st Class Education proposal is exceedingly likely. Moreover, the proposal can galvanize public political discussion, becoming a natural litmus test for candidates with the electorate its intuitive simplicity establishes either a beneficiary relationship with the voters or a noted disconnect based on the candidates support or opposition to the proposal."

Does any of this sound familiar? Did you notice any of these things going on during the Utah voucher campaign?

As you can clearly see, Byrne doesn't really care about your children or their education. (Not a bit surprised, I'm sure.) What he really wants is to 1) cause contention between teachers and administrators, a move, no doubt, that does an awful lot to help my children learn better in the classroom, 2) help us suburban, affluent women voters to see the light in terms of public education, 3) directly attack not just education, but the government as a whole, 4) get around election and campaign rules, and finally 5) insult us yet again. After all, we're stupid, and this will just pass right out, what with all the other things on the ballot that we care more about anyway.

We've proven already that these tactics don't work on us, yet Byrne and his friends are back at it in Florida. This goes to show that we can't let our guard down on these issues. (Hence the update on the whereabouts of Byrne.) Maybe this article will be useful to the people of Florida, who might see a little bit of Byrne this election season. They can be on the lookout for his political tactics and ready to record the outrageous comments he's likely to make. Does Florida have a Super Dell?

Legislative Ethics Process - Time to reform now?

2008-08-07T17:22:00.002-06:00

I became curious about the ethics process recently, in light of an ethics complaint (and talk of another) that was brought before the Legislative Ethics Committee and then subsequently dropped. I had read that complaints are rare and had only happened three time previously in the last 22 years. In fact, the last time it happened was ten years ago in 1998. I was surprised to read this, considering that the public is always demanding ethics reform. More to the point, in January of this year the Salt Lake Tribune released a poll that asked whether an ethics commission should be formed. Seventy-two percent of residents polled said that they were in favor of such a proposal and the support came from both sides, Republican and Democrat.

What is the process now?

Utah has an ethics committee which is made up of state Legislators who review complaints brought before them by fellow Legislators. The public are not allowed to bring forth complaints. Both the senate and the house have their own respective ethics committees which look at ethical violations of members only after receiving a written complaint by a fellow legislator with the name and address of at least three legislators (or three Senators if the complaint is against a Senator), along with the nature of the alleged violation with supporting documentation attached. The detailed version of what I've just described can be found in Joint Rules of Utah Legislature, specifically JR 6 Chapters 1-5, as well as in House Rules of the Utah Legislature, specifically HR-38 Lobbyist Ethics and Enforcement.

The committees are made up of the chair and three additional members appointed by the President of the Senate for Senate Ethics Committee or the Speaker of the House of Representatives for House Ethics Committee as well as the cochair and three additional members appointed by the Senate/House minority leaders. The bipartisan committee serves a two year term.

What are the problems?

Some problems with the committee include vague rules and no independence or objectivity to address the merits of an ethics complaint. The entire process is tainted by a lack of independence. Fear is also a primary demotivator. Fear of retribution (as was the likely motive for the Mascaro complaint -which ended up being dropped- since he was one of five legislators that filed the complaint against Walker) and fear that they might offend an ally, losing a deciding vote next time they try to get a bill passed. Is it any wonder that to date only 4 complaints have come forth in 22 years?

Why hasn't the process been changed?

There was recently a call for change coming from within in the form of HB 130 and it proposed that a State Ethics Commission be formed. Utah is still only one of eleven states who have not formed an ethics commission. Other states have not only formed an ethics commission but continue to have one or more ethics committees. You can look at a brief comparison of commissions and committees on the National Conference of State Legislatures website.

Despite agreement from Republicans and Democrats that HB 130 was needed, the bill failed to make it out of the House Rules Committee. The responsibility of changing the process comes from the very group that benefits from not having it change and keeping it the way it is. If the process changes then Legislators may actually be held accountable whereas the process now holds them blameless, so why should they change it? Legislators that were in favor of HB 130 were frustrated when it wasn't even put out there for public comment and noted that it is increased public support that is needed in order for this change to occur. I don't think a single one of us public people are questioning the need for such a bill. We're all in support of change when it comes to ethics in our government and polls such as the one mentioned at the beginning of this post put emphasis on it. What more shall we do, I wonder? Maybe the representatives serving on the 2008 House Rules Committee have some answers?

Our Education Fund "bucket" has a couple of leaks

2008-07-14T00:34:00.002-06:00

There has been a lot more discussion (still not enough) about class size issues in Utah. The biggest hurdle that class-size reduction faces seems to be the funding that it would take to achieve it. According to a January 2007 USOE (Utah State Office of Education) estimate, a reduction of just one student in the pupil-teacher ratio for K-6 would cost about $37.5 million in additional teachers' salaries, not to mention the $293 million in facilities.

Whoa, right!? If that seems like a lot of money to come up with, you're right, it is! And it's also just about the amount of money leaking out of the Education Fund and in to two other "buckets" of money that up until the mid 1990's were completely separate. Let me explain. Prior to 1996, the three major buckets of funding included:

Education Fund (formerly known as the Uniform School Fund) - This money came primarily from state income taxes, as well as corporate taxes and a small amount of property taxes. Income tax revenue, by constitutional mandate, could ONLY be used for public K-12 education.
General Fund - This money came from state sales tax revenue which covered most state programs, including higher education, human services, health, corrections, and general government.
Transportation Fund - This money came primarily from motor fuel taxes, and provided for UDOT and the Utah Highway Patrol.

As I mentioned, these funds WERE completely separate due to their separate revenue streams so the funds allocated to K-12 education were protected. They had to go to our public schools and could not be diverted to other projects or used to replace other funding. The threat of funds being used for roads and prisons was non-existent during the budget process because state income tax revenue was not available for such projects. It HAD to go to K-12 education.

In 1996 everything changed. New legislation, in the form of a constitutional amendment, allowed income tax revenues to be used for higher education as well as our K-12 schools. Most people don't even know about this subtle move. What does it matter if we fund a program from one budget or another? It likely seemed reasonable at the time since, after all, the money was still going for education. Right? Perhaps the intentions were not ill conceived, but ever since the two streams were comingled, public education has had to compete with other state programs for resources. This competition for funds begins when General Fund appropriations for higher education do not cover the anticipated costs so the Utah Legislature supplements General Fund revenues by diverting Education Fund revenues to higher ed. It's all still considered the Education Budget, but our K-12 schools are the entities giving up a portion of their funding to pay for the change.

The title of this post mentions a "couple of leaks". I've told you about one, but the problem gets worse. During the 2007 General Session, the Utah Legislature passed Second Substitute HB 314 and Substitute HB 383, which diverted a stream of sales tax revenues into the Transportation Fund. Remember the buckets? Which bucket does sales tax usually go in? That's right, it should have gone to the General Fund! Money that would have gone into General Fund programs was transferred into the Centennial Highway Fund, the Critical Highway Needs Fund, and other special Transportation Fund projects. These projects should have been funded by the Transportation Fund. Yet another merging of funding streams has just occurred. Nowadays it seems as if all taxes can be used for any pet project of the legislature.

So what are the effects of these merges or "leaks" as I like to call them? Due to the bills most recently passed, this fiscal year will see $302 million of sales taxes diverted into Transportation Fund projects. This diversion isn't leaking directly from the Education Fund, it's leaking out of the General Fund because that's where legislators choose to go to make up the difference when the revenues from motor fuel taxes aren't able to cover inflationary needs for salaries or for construction cost hikes from the increased cost of asphalt, concrete and steel. But wait! If they leak money to the transportation fund, what about Higher Education? Remember what happens when Higher Education cannot be fully funded? Yep, the Education Fund is raided and leaks into the General Fund to meet those needs. Perhaps if the General Fund bucket hadn't been allowed to spill over into the Transportation Fund, we would have had the money for higher ed. without taking it from K-12 schools. Hence, the couple of leaks!

As much money as is needed to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio by one was diverted to transportation projects in fiscal year 2007-2008. So those who are fighting for class size reduction see a choice being made of more asphalt and sound walls over smaller class sizes. Unfortunately, there are other revenue issues working against K-12 education funding. You can quickly see how this one example takes away a lot of money that could go to class-size reduction. I'll uncover a few more funding issues in upcoming posts.

Give Up Your Rights or Vote on June 24th - You Decide!

2008-06-22T00:03:00.006-06:00

When it comes to our rights in America there is nothing like the power of voting to make your voice heard. Sure, we have free speech, the right to bare arms, etc. but the real power is given when WE say who should have the power. When you choose not to vote, to sit by and see how things work out, to let others decide for you by thinking that your one vote won't make the difference - that's when you've given up one of your greatest American rights. The right to vote! Even today there are people dying for the right to determine their own destiny. Our own military sons and daughters are fighting to bring our brand of democracy to others. How can we sit home and not vote?

It's with this thought in mind that I remind everyone that we have the opportunity to vote on Tuesday, June 24th. Depending on where you live there may be different ballot items. Depending on your party affiliation there may be races that you will or will not be able to weigh in on. But whatever the case may be, I urge you to get out and vote. Your vote could make the difference between somebody in power who believes in doing the best thing for education vs. somebody in power who is easily swayed, makes decisions for personal gain, political acceptance or party popularity.

State Treasurer

There are a couple of races that are of particular importance in my mind. One is a race that I've already talked about, but that I'd like to reiterate - that is the Republican primary race for State Treasurer - Richard Ellis vs Mark Walker. Only registered Republicans can weigh in on this race.
If you're registered as "unaffiliated" this might be a reason (at least temporarily) to register Republican so that you can help decide this race. If you're a registered Democrat, you can't vote, but you can send this post to your Republican friends in hopes that they will make an informed decision. When it comes down to it this isn't really a fair race at all, because Richard Ellis is so much better qualified to fill the position! Let's take another quick look at the qualifications and also a few things that disqualify Mark Walker.

Richard Ellis:

22 years of public treasury experience (8 years as Deputy Treasurer)
Experience as Governor Walker and Governor Huntsman's Budget Director (3 years)
Finance Degree, MBA
Endorsement of current State Treasurer of 28 years, Edward T. Alter

Mark Walker:

ZERO experience (no on-the-job experience or training. Don't let the Zion's Bank "credentials" fool you, he holds a sales position. Ellis clarifies this further on his blog and shows how little Walker knows about the job based on what Walker has put up on his website and what he has been mailing everyone. You'll have to read it to believe it, it's quite embarrassing for Walker.)
ZERO education in the field (no Finance Degree, no MBA - he has a BS in Political Science)
Endorsements of politically motivated bureaucrats

I'll try to hold my tongue when it comes to his record as a legislator. He has the worst legislative committee attendance record and hasn't passed a single bill as a legislator. I didn't include that in the list above because I'm trying my best not to make this an attack. Attacks are hardly necessary when the experience alone is so overwhelming in favor of Richard Ellis. I'm baffled by the likes of Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and others in Republican leadership who say that Mark Walker is the man for the job. He'll make a good party puppet, perhaps?

I'd love to see a debate between Walker and Ellis. Rod Decker of KUTV invited both men to his live "Take Two" program on Sunday at 10 a.m. Ellis accepted and Walker said he will be at church. I'm not one to mock a man's religious conviction, but somehow I doubt that's the real reason he doesn't want to be in a debate with Ellis. Walker is relying on the endorsements to pull him through, and the scary thing is that it might just work...if people don't make an informed vote on Tuesday!!

What's at stake if Walker wins the election? A $1 billion Permanent School Fund, $25 billion of taxpayer money held in the Public Treasurer Investment fund on behalf of the state, counties, cities, school districts, etc., and a AAA bond rating that is very difficult to get in the first place.

Jordan School District Boards of Education

Another decision that will be important, especially when it comes to the future of some of our children, is the Jordan School Districts Board races. The Jordan School District split has been controversial in and of itself, but now you need to decide who is going to be in positions of power and who will look out for the best interests of your children. Again, due to predicted low voter turnout this race could be won by just a handful of people, so it's extremely important that you must do your homework and go vote!

Some last minute insight into the Jordan East school board race to consider is in Precinct 3. Sixteen candidates have thrown their hat into the ring! There are many that would do a great job. However, therein lies the problem. With so many qualified candidates it would be easy for the vote to be split and a less competent candidate could come out the winner. I've already mentioned the possibility of "party puppets". What are the chances that Teresa Curtis (Speaker Greg Curtis' wife) becomes one of those if elected? This isn't a primary race. This is it. It's extremely important that you know everything about the person you vote for, especially their intentions and abilities in determining the future of the district split. There is talk about postponing the split through a special session in the legislature. With ongoing talks about dividing up assets between east and west, this will be no position for puppets. You'll need people in place able to make tough decisions based on the best interests of the children, and of the employees, if both districts are to be successful!

Vote, vote, vote! You can see how important it is that you do so! I've highlighted just a couple of GREAT reasons. Feel free to add your own opinion by making a comment. Be quick about it, you only have a day or two before June 24th has come and gone and we'll have to live with the decisions that have been made. For better or for worse. Let's all hope for better!

Omnibus Bill - Bungled and Illegaly Bundled

2008-06-20T09:30:00.007-06:00

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:

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!

What Just Happened?

2008-06-06T16:35:00.006-06:00

Maybe I'm psychic. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. Maybe I could see the train coming down the railroad track because, like so many other public school advocates, I was standing on the track when it hit us. Without any interviews, without any time for public input to his office, without meeting with public school advocates, Governor Huntsman just gave voucher supporters their revenge on those who resoundingly turned down vouchers in Utah. I told you so.

Only three days ago, the list of state school board candidates was whittled down to three for each district (and perhaps I shouldn't say whittled because it was a block vote clear cut) and then submitted to Governor Huntsman for further action. Members of the education community requested a visit with the governor to talk to him about the Nominating Committee's decisions and urge him to offer voters a true choice of candidates in each district, but there wasn't time for a meeting. There wasn't time for Huntsman to interview the candidates for himself. There wasn't time for public comment or even a letter to the editor. The only time I've seen government move this quickly was when there was something to hide.

The governor took swift action today and with the stroke of a pen, got rid of more very qualified individuals who would have served our children well. One of them was District 1 incumbent Theresa Theuer, Still another was A. LeGrand Richards, current Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at BYU. Both were ranked third by the committee. Could the governor really have simplified it to that extent? In fact, it looks like that's exactly what he did. He just took the top two from each district according to the skewed committee rankings. Well, hell! Why do we need the governor at all? The omnipotent and business heavy committee took care of everything! Way to go committee! Way to go Governor! You just showed how little you really care for the voice of the people and for our public schools.

Download a copy of the press release and the letter to Lt. Governor Herbert and see for yourself. Will people believe me now? I've been blogging about this since early in May. Education members of the committee and newspapers have been warning of this since April. Yet most people would rather just claim that we're conspiracy theorists. Really? How about fortune tellers!?! That would fit the bill, too, wouldn't it?

Voucher pushers were not happy with Governor Huntsman's lukewarm efforts to support them back during Referendum One. But now, in an election year, he will redeem himself by handing over the State School Board, the group that should be the watchdogs for our public schools. Voucher lovers will get their revenge and the Governor will get those lobbyist campaign donations he wants. Everyone wins, right? Yeah, right.

School Board Election Process Fails Us! (Big Surprise)

2008-06-02T21:56:00.007-06:00

The votes are in and the stink is DEFINITELY out! Today was voting day for the State School Board Nominating Committee. The process is a sham, and, as it turns out was passed as part of an omnibus bill in 2002! I'll talk more about omnibus bills in a future post, but first let's talk about how this process set forth in HB 152 failed us again, as we figured it would.

If I could link to the Paul Rolly story that he wrote on April 14th, I would. Since I can't, allow me to quote him. He said:

"Some clever manipulations are going on behind the scenes by legislative leaders not willing to give up the voucher fight. They are aided by a distracted governor too busy earning his stripes in John McCain's presidential campaign to pay much attention to the goings-on in Utah.

The committee four years ago eliminated popular school board incumbent Michael Anderson, so the voters didn't even have a say in re-electing him. There are several incumbents up for re-election this year. If they don't get past the committee, then you'll know. There is something foul brewing in the palace."

Well, something's foul all right. Of five incumbents, two (Bill Colbert and Board Chair Richard Sadler) were eliminated outright, and one more, Teresa Theurer slid through by one vote. Yes, you read that correctly. The committee fired the Chair of the State School Board, before his constituents--or even the governor--had a chance to look at him! This is a person who not only won election from his constituents, but was also chosen by his peers to be the person most capable of chairing the Board. And he was ousted by businessmen who don't even live in his district!

So how did it happen? It was a somewhat complicated process.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Nominating Committee set some ground rules. Each member of the committee would vote for their top three candidates in each district. They would award their top choice with 3 points, their second choice with 2 and their last choice with 1. The three candidates with the most points would be forwarded on to the Governor, who would narrow it down to two for the ballot. Since the committee is required to submit three names in each district, each committee member was required to vote for three candidates. After a closed door discussion of the candidates, the meeting was opened back up, and the voting began. You can review the raw data here. (Thanks to Barry Newbold who made sure the votes were recorded). In the spreadsheet, I've identified the votes of the business representatives and those of the education representatives on the committee.

As you can see, clear lines have been drawn, and our earlier suspicions were correct. I asked if the Nominating Committee had a hidden agenda - they do. I asked if it was possible for the Nominating Committee to only forward the names of their voucher buddies - they did. In nearly every vote you can see how the business members (i.e. anti-public education members) of the committee voted together to get their way. And, as you can see, the vote was stacked.

Here's an interesting note: In District 7, despite the agreed upon rules, two business members didn't even bother to cast their last vote. Who knows how the results might have been affected if the education representatives had done the same thing?

Following the meeting, committee member Jed Steveson coolly remarked, "You win some, you lose some." He's right. When the process is flawed, easily manipulated, with no real community input, you certainly do lose some.

The next question is, where will the governor take it from here?

State Treasurer's Race got Dirty Before it Began

2008-06-01T19:28:00.008-06:00

The race for State Treasurer got dirty before it even began! It happened back on March 10th, when Mark Walker made Richard Ellis (Deputy Treasurer) the following offer: In return for Richard dropping out of the race, Walker assured Ellis that he and his entire staff would be retained after Walker is elected AND he would substantially increase Ellis' salary. However, if Ellis was to stay in the race he would fire Ellis and his staff if he were to win the election. Walker is claiming it never happened, despite the emails that prove it.

So, what does the position of State Treasurer have to do with our public schools? It has much to do about our State Trust Lands that generate revenue for our schools. So there is much ado about who might hold that position, particularly from public school advocates.

Natalie Gordon, Utah PTA Trustlands Commissioner, has written a very nice post on her blog, Education in Utah. (Edit: It was pointed out that Natalie is not representing the PTA on said blog, rather her own opinions.) Please read the full article here, but allow me to quote some specific points that she makes. After she read the Tribune article, Natalie pointed out that while the job offer is disturbing, it isn't even the job offer that concerns her most. She read between the lines and uncovered Walker's credentials, or lack thereof. (Emphasis added.)

"It is reading between the lines and realizing that Walker didn't actually invest money for Zions - he was a "Sales Resource Officer," whatever that is. And, at the [State Republican] convention, I saw Angus Belliston, former Region VP for Zions, with an Ellis button. I thought that was news! I had worked with Mr. Belliston at the Provo Region office of Zions 14 years ago, and he was an incredible, well respected Region Manager - and he wasn't supporting Walker - the Zions' employee. But today's Trib points out that Harris Simmons, current CEO of Zions Bank, is supporting Ellis as well. It seems like people that understand money understand that you need someone qualified to invest it. I know that Mark Walker has a BS in Political Science. I do, too. I know he was employed by Zions Bank for a while. I was employed there for 5 years. I even balance my own checkbook. But, when you're talking about billions of dollars - especially that one billion dollar permanent fund that so many have worked so hard for - we need a treasurer that knows what he's doing. So, I'm voting for Richard Ellis.

And one great reason to support Ellis? Unlike Mark Walker, his boss is endorsing him.

"Richard Ellis is the only candidate who has negotiated bank contracts, invested public money, managed a state department and made credit presentations to the bond rating agencies. That is the kind of experience we need for State Treasurer."

Edward T. Alter,
Utah State Treasurer

Natalie, I get it now, too. Between trying to bribe his way into office and his lack of credentials it seems clear to me that Walker is not the man for this job.

I'll try to keep an eye on this one and let you know how it goes. We need to make sure that there is accountability when it comes to the $1 billion Permanent School Fund. I've heard through the rumor mill that there could even be some back room deals going on right now about changing how "permanent" the school fund really is. Could it be that that's what Walker's bid for State Treasurer is actually about in the first place? I hope not, but it seems there are lots of fronts from which public education can be attacked and someone is out there making sure to cover them all!

Do School Board Candidates have Hidden Agendas?

2008-05-31T00:35:00.001-06:00

I told you I'd look into the candidates for school board this year, and I have. This year there are 37 applicants in 6 districts, most of whom filed on the deadline day. So who are these people? Are they knowledgeable about our public school system and the role they hope to play? Do they have hidden agendas or even publicly stated biases against public schools? Will the best candidates be forwarded on to the Governor by the Nominating Committee? Could there really be a subversive attempt to take over the State School Board or am I just being a paranoid loon? We'll soon find out, but here are a few things to consider.

As mentioned in previous posts, there are a record number of candidate filings and if the past is any indication there are certainly some candidates who are being sponsored by groups that don't have the best interests of public education in mind. It's a little difficult to say for sure who these people might be, but we can make a few connections and go from there. The point of this post is to point out that there exists the possibility for foul play, and it's up to the public to continue to be vigilant, demand a fair process and insist that the committee continue to allow the public to attend the meetings.

Consider that there are candidates who have obvious ties to Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) and a public position in favor of vouchers:

Dave Thomas is a former legislator who received financial contributions from PCE and publicly supports vouchers.
Bill Colbert, incumbent, was supported in his initial effort by PCE and publicly supports vouchers
Lincoln Fillmore is the communications director for Parents for Choice and participated in debates glorifying vouchers.
Mark Cluff, incumbent, was supported in his initial effort by PCE and publicly supports vouchers
Erin Allen Madsen is the wife of Senator Mark Madsen who is another strong PCE and voucher supporter.
Kyle Bateman is a trustee for Children First Utah, an organization giving "scholarships" to attend private schools, and closely tied to PCE
Jill Rea (this one is a stretch, admittedly) is the sister of Stan Lockhart who is the state chair of the Republican party and a vocal supporter of vouchers.

This list also includes two candidates who have already dropped out but that were pro-voucher and/or PCE connected: Roberta Herzberg and Leah Barker.

Another list we could make would be the candidates who are involved with Charter Schools. I don't want to get into the debate that Charter Schools are public schools, I realize they are and there is much good to be said about them. It's no secret, however, that we do have independent Charter Schools that would prefer to be private, and would jump from charter to private status, so they could charge tuition and avoid public school accountability requirements, should vouchers ever become the law. Again, this is by no means meant to be a witch hunt; it's a search for objectivity as the Nominating Committee moves forward on June 2nd to make a final decision about whom they will promote as worthy for a public vote.

Charter school connected individuals and possible voucher proponents include:

Susie Campbell Ashliman, former charter school board member
Chris Dallin, Board Chair, Syracuse Arts Academy
Dave Crandall, chair of the Board of Summit Academy charter school
Ted H. Heap, husband of the founder of American Prep Academy, charter school
David J. Adamic, husband of the Charter School board chair and charter school principal.

Here is the full list of candidates by District with those discussed above listed in italics. Furthermore, those who are incumbents are listed in purple text. I believe that at the very least those who have already been elected once by the people deserve to stand for re-election. I've also indicated candidates that have ties to public schools with orange text.

District 1

Susie Campbell Ashliman
Shelly Locke
Lorie Pearce
Teresa L Theurer

District 4

H. Kay Chandler
Chris L. Dallin
Stephen Hunter
Richard W. Sadler
Dave Thomas

District 7

Leslie Brooks Castle
Janice White Clemmer
Carlton A. Getz
Randall A. Mackey
Mark H. Swonson

District 11

Rose W Westover
Bill Colbert
Dave Crandall
Lincoln Fillmore
Ralph J. Haws
Ted H. Heap

District 12

David J. Adamic
Mark Cluff
Erin Allen Madsen
Carol A. Murphy
John Schmeltzer

District 13

Kyle Bateman
Jeremy Blickenstaff
Ammon Cunningham
C. Mark Openshaw
Jill Rea
Alden LeGrand Richards

State School Board Already Infiltrated! Will it Happen Again?

2008-05-28T00:32:00.004-06:00

On Monday I talked about the responsibilities of state school board members and wondered whether anti-public school activists might want to infiltrate the board. I mentioned at the time that the idea seemed far-fetched but certainly plausible. In response to what I wrote, one reader directed me toward some interesting information on the state elections office website showing that this has already happened! I couldn't believe it, but they are right! Let's take a closer look.

In 2006 current District 3 board member Richard Moss ran for a position on the State School Board. Campaign reports show that he raised and spent $38,850.43. Well, what's the big deal, right? Candidates spend a lot more money than that all the time. Perhaps. But you have to remember that this is a non-partisan race for State School Board in a somewhat rural district, no less. Most candidates spend less than $2,000 (if nothing at all) as was the case with his opponent, incumbent Edward Dalton, who spent a mere $1,468.17!

I checked the amounts reported by current board members (you can trust me or do the research yourself) and the only campaign that surpassed the amounts Moss raised was the 2006 Burningham vs. Barden race in District 5. Kim Burningham ended up winning and spent $16,025.37 to do it, but Christopher Barden outdid him by "raising" $62,438.16! I only mention the Burningham/Barden race because of how closely it resembles the Moss/Dalton race. It is the reason I can be so bold as to say that the State School Board has already been infiltrated once! Almost twice!!

Are you ready for this?

When you look at the breakdown of contributions for both Moss and Barden in 2006 you will notice some very large amounts being donated. In fact, they jump right out of the page at you! Twelve thousand here, ten thousand there. All contributions made by none other than our voucher pushers, Parents for Choice in Education! In the case of Richard Moss, almost all of his $38,000+ came from Parents for Choice in Education; $33,974.02, to be exact! Now that's what I call infiltration!

PCE tried even harder to influence the Barden campaign but luckily we had people who supported Burningham. They knew his record and reputation and believed that he was the right man for the job; they knew he wasn't a puppet for political schemes and attempts to undermine the goals of public education. We weren't as lucky with District 3 and Richard Moss in 2006. PCE got the best board member money could buy.

Will the same thing happen in 2008? You better believe voucher advocates like PCE will be throwing the same kind of money into the upcoming races. I guarantee that we'll be witness to the most expensive School Board race in history in 2008. Or, maybe they won't have to spend a dime this time around. After all, if they can get the State School Board Nominating Committee to forward to the governor only the names of their voucher buddies, they can relax from now until November. Voters will go to the polls not realizing that they are the real pawns in this game. That's why concerned organizations are showing such interest NOW, when money isn't a factor.

Can you see why I'm harping on this? Thanks to our readers we're able to shed some light on the issue. Keep it coming!

State School Board Elections? Who Cares!

2008-05-26T12:11:00.021-06:00

With all of the to do about the meetings of the State School Board Nominating Committee being kept open to the public, I got to wondering why anyone would even WANT to serve on the State Board and what the responsibilities would be anyway. I'm probably not alone in my ignorance of what the Board of Education does and why we should care who is elected. With a bit of research, I found out that the State Board of Education Members do make many important decisions and their duties and responsibilities are contained within the Utah Constitution. Wading through so much code can be a daunting task. If you don't care to duplicate my efforts, simply read on. If you have something to add, please feel free to comment.

The State Board of Education approves charter schools and sets policies and rules on class size and teacher licenses. They decide the CORE, UBSCT and graduation requirements. They award grants and scholarships to teachers and students. They appoint the state superintendent who administers all the programs assigned to the State Board of Education. They also verify audits and provide assistance to districts and schools.

With so many areas of responsibility it's easy to see how anyone opposed to any public school system or just disenfranchised with ours, could undermine it from within by getting himself/herself elected to the State Board of Education. I know it sounds like some conspiracy theory, but let's not forget the length and expense that voucher supporters went to in trying to get their private school tuition paid for by taxpayers. Five and a half million dollars of effort. In light of that expensive and unsuccessful attempt, why not try to take over the same State School Board that refused to implement the flawed law before the referendum? It's not so far fetched when I put it into that frame of reference. If a majority of the State Board members supported vouchers, they could make it look like the idea came from within the very system they were trying to dismantle.

This might be why Utahns for Public Schools (UTPS) and others would have such consternation over possible closed meetings and/or flawed processes for nominating candidates. After all, the public doesn't get to have a vote until Governor Huntsman puts two names on the ballot from each of the State School Board Districts. If the committee sends only the names of voucher supporters to his office, none of us has much choice, do we? In fact, they could retaliate against the current board by not putting the names of incumbents on the list at all!

Are you concerned? I think you should be. If so, attend the meeting of the State Board Nominating Committee on June 2nd, where they will be making their selection of "suitable candidates" for which we can eventually vote. It will be held at the Jordan School District Offices on 300 East and 9400 South from 10:00-2:00. It should be open to the public, but who knows?

I'll get to work now on compiling some information on the people who applied so you can decide for yourself if there are candidates that you think will do a good job of supporting our public schools. As always, if you have any other information that others would benefit from reading, please share.

What is the Process for Selecting State School Board Members?

2008-05-18T00:58:00.006-06:00

A group of citizens recently arrived at the Governor's office expecting to watch the interview process for state school board candidates, only to be told that they would not be allowed to observe. They were surprised, as this meeting fell under the open meetings statute. It was only after reporters presented committee chair, and former Republican legislator, Jeff Alexander, with a copy of the statute that the meeting was indeed opened. Reading this, I realized that I know little about the State Board of Education and/or the way they come to serve. So I did a little research and found out that there is a very interesting story to be told. And this might be a good time to tell it since there are no less than 37 candidates vying for the seats this year - a record number!

Here's what I found:

The State Board of Education consists of 15 elected officials and the process for selecting them has changed over the last decade.

Prior to 1992 the Board consisted of 9 non-partisan members. They were selected by non-partisan election from 9 School Board Districts.
In 1992 the number of Board Members increased to 15 to represent each of the 15 School Board Districts.
In 1994 the committee method was implemented, but there were 15 of them, one in each Board District. The committees were made up of 7 local members with interests representing the local school board, a public school administrator, a school teacher, the PTA, and 3 members representing the public and economic interests at large. The local committees submitted 3-5 names to the Governor who selected 2 names to be on the ballot. This method insured that local committee members selected local candidates whom they knew and, despite a little complaining that the committees were hurriedly organized and somewhat informal, the process worked well.
In 2002 the law was changed to only one state-wide committee, and in 2004 it was changed again to include procedures for winnowing the field when there were more than three candidates filing for office -- the committee was to narrow the number to three. The state-wide committee is chosen from within the Governor's office and the makeup is designated by law.

"One member shall be appointed to represent each of the following business and industry sections: manufacturing and mining; transportation and public utilities; service, trade, and information technology; finance, insurance, and real estate; construction; and agriculture; and one member shall be appointed to represent each of the following education sectors: teachers; school administrators; parents, local school board members; charter schools; and higher education."

This particular composition (half the committee from the education community and half from the business community) was designed to produce a diverse group of nominees. The law indicates that the nominating committee "shall select a broad variety of candidates who possess outstanding professional qualification relating to the powers and duties of the State Board of Education..."

Has the process worked? Well, there has been some controversy.

In 2004 the Governor's education deputy, Darrel White, put the committee together. Some observers felt the 2004 committee had intentionally excluded pro-Education candidates such as Mossi White (former national president of the National School Board Associations) and Michael Anderson (an incumbent). In 2006 the appointment of the state-wide committee was late ( why?) but since no more than three candidates filed in any area, committee action was not required.

That brings us to 2008. Who will be making the decisions this time? It consists of the following 12 members who I'll be taking a closer look at in a future post:

Jeff Alexander, chair
Bill Shaw
James Olsen
Jim Bringhurst
Taz Biesinger
Todd Bingham
Jed Stevenson
Michael Kennedy
Barry Newbold
Sarah Meier
Cheryl Phipps
Kim Campbell

This group of appointees will narrow the field to three per district. The governor will then eliminate one more name, leaving the final fourteen candidates--two from each of the seven districts up for election this year. That's when the people will have a chance to vote.

Is there potential for manipulation of the process this year? That's a good question. The committee has already met at least three times. The first time was behind closed doors. The second meeting was only opened to the public after the committee chair was presented with a copy of the law requiring an open process.

52-4-205 (2) A public body may not interview a person applying to fill an
elected position in a closed meeting.

After requesting an opinion from Legislative Research, Chair Jeff Alexander relented, allowing the public and media to attend that meeting and the following one.

All of that makes me wonder... Why was the meeting going to be closed in the first place? What did they not want us to see? Do members of the committee have a hidden agenda?

What can we do now?

2008-05-07T01:02:00.011-06:00

This blog was originally set up with the following description:

A clear-eyed examination of a ballot referendum asking Utahns whether they will approve or disapprove implementation of the first statewide voucher system in America.

As you can see, my mantra has changed. Now that the voucher push has been defeated (for now) we need to carry the momentum forward. Unfortunately, as Desultory Thoughts has pointed out, the momentum seems to be all but gone. Nearly all of us stopped blogging once the vouchers were dead, but the fight shouldn't be.

I'm committed to continue this discussion. This blog is not a one-trick pony and I'll prove it by making you think and exercise your mind in matters of education and politics. Consider that there are things going on now that you may not have realized and it's hindering the education of our children. I'm here to say that it's not ok with me and it shouldn't be ok with you. Come back soon and I'll give your brain a workout.

Edit: Even though I've shifted gears I'm keeping the voucher posts so other states can learn from our (Utah's) experience. If you came here for that it is still available by searching the archives. Every post dated 2007 deals with Referendum One that was placed on the ballot in 2007 here in Utah.

Where is Patrick Byrne going next?

2007-11-29T22:05:00.000-07:00

During the past three weeks, three things have been true. One is that I have lost the sense of amazement or surprise that I used to feel when I would read Patrick Byrne's comments in the newspaper, or his guest commentaries. Someone else, after taking a few days to think about it, might have apologized for the sort of comments he made about voters on Election Night. Far from apologizing, Mr. Byrne makes matters worse each time he publishes something new, and it's not surprising anymore. It's unfortunate that he is the way he is, but that apparently can't be changed. All we can do is to be aware of him ourselves, and to make others aware of him so they're not caught off-guard when he comes to their city or state.

The second true thing is that I've appreciated very much the many notes that readers have left here and in my email. The complimentary ones have far outnumbered the other sort, though even the other sort have shown that people cared so much about the matter to read even my notes about it. I didn't really intend for my notes to grow like they did, but I confess I got carried away with (or addicted to?) this issue once I started looking at it. As I've written before, I learned a lot from writers who had been studying the issue far longer than I have, so I pass credit on to them.

The third thing is that I've enjoyed spending time away from my computer. It's a good thing the holiday season is here because they give me great opportunities to break this addiction. Before it's completely broken, though, I want to add tonight's note.

Since the election, I have corresponded with Pat Rusk, who was one of the spokespeople for Utahns for Public Schools. I mentioned her here very early in my notes, and I read her comments in newspaper articles throughout this year, but I developed a better appreciation for her when I saw and listened to her in person in one of the debates with Richard Eyre. What struck me was that she said, at the start, that she wasn't a debater -- she was a teacher participating in a debate. For me, she came across that evening as sincere and knowledgeable, not "slick."

So, I was humbled to receive warm regards from Mrs. Rusk after Election Night. And I was gratified when she asked if I would read a guest commentary she has written, and if I would publish it if I agreed with it. I did read it, I do agree with it, and I'm happy to post it here:

By Pat Rusk

On Election Day earlier this month, Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com, and an ardent supporter of private school vouchers, claimed Utah’s vouchers referendum was an IQ test for Utahns – a test they presumably failed when they rejected the plan by a 24-point margin that Tuesday.

What a tremendous insult to Utahns. We don’t need our IQs assessed by a millionaire businessmen with more of an interest in right-wing politics than in the future of our communities and schools.

When pro-voucher forces brought their voucher plan to Utah – which ranks dead last nationally in per-pupil spending and has the largest class sizes in the country – we knew they were looking not for education solutions, but rather just to push a narrow political ideology.

You see, many Utah legislators have long made public schools far too low a priority, as evidenced by such abysmal funding levels. Utah schools have done remarkably well in spite of their funding challenges, but the bottom line is that the flawed voucher plan put before Utahns this year did not address any real challenges in the state. Instead, it just promised to spend much needed resources elsewhere: in unaccountable, inaccessible private voucher schools.

And, contrary to what we’ve been hearing from voucher proponents, they just cannot provide any credible research showing that students in private schools do better than their counterparts in public schools. In fact, a 2006 U.S. Department of Education study of Washington, D.C.’s voucher program and a 2001 U.S. General Accounting Office study of Cleveland and Milwaukee’s voucher schools found no significant differences between academic achievement of private school and public school students. Proponents also suggest vouchers benefit poor and urban students but a report released this October from the Center on Education Policy found these students generally do no better in voucher schools than in public schools.

Instead of an unproven vouchers program that would just divert much needed resources away from public schools to unaccountable private schools, what we really need in Utah and across the country is to work together to provide education solutions for all students. We should be investing our effort and money to reduce class size, provide textbooks and supplies, and attract strong, qualified teachers to the profession.

Utah voters reiterated their support for public schools on November 6th when they so clearly rejected the flawed vouchers plan.

So, this begs the question: if pro-voucher interests can’t force vouchers in Utah, which was widely rumored to be a testing ground for such a plan, where can they force them?

The day after suffering such a dramatic defeat, two weeks ago, Byrne announced plans to take his vouchers campaigns to other states, with the first stop in South Carolina.

South Carolinians beware: Byrne is coming for you and your public schools next. I can only hope South Carolinians too “fail” Byrne’s vouchers test.

Mrs. Rusk, thank you again for your work (and for reading!).

Who won, and who lost?

2007-11-08T11:58:00.000-07:00

Only blind ideologues assert "mandates" and clear "messages from the 'lectorate" when elections yield victories of 50 percent plus a fraction. But in the case of Referendum 1, in which voters acted almost two-to-one to defeat it, it is almost understatement to say, well, that there are winners and there are losers.

And it seems fairly obvious how the major players and themes shake out.

WINNER: First in the column has to be Utah parents and children. Sixty-two percent of voters leave little room to be wishy-washy about this. They supported their public school system. They rejected the very idea of vouchers. This wasn't a vote about nuances, this was flat-out rejection of policies that take public money away from public needs. Bombarded with messages telling them that they needed more choices, parents -- represented and informed throughout the campaign by an active, engaged Utah PTA -- voted their response: They have sufficient choices; what they want is sufficient investment in their public schools. (Thanks for the reminder, Cheryl.)

WINNER: Utahns for Public Schools. I've never heard of a coalition like it before, and I wonder if it surprised itself with its effectiveness. If so, once the surprise wears off, it can claim some healthy momentum moving into next year's legislative session. And its spokespeople and debaters, from Lisa Johnson to Pat Rusk to Vik Arnold to Patrick Shea (who stayed cool as a cucumber, and personable, when dismantling Patrick Byrne's claims last Friday night) and others, always were well-equipped with facts and common sense arguments that stuck with viewers and listeners. When believability is key, it helps not to appear or sound salesman-y, or self-absorbed, or arrogant, or condescending or just plain mean. But I'll get to those guys in a bit.

WINNER: The Utah Education Association. Like it or not -- or, admit it or not -- Utah's teachers were right on this issue from its beginning, and Utah voters agreed with them. If this principle is unclear, I would invite readers to analyze the data here (http://www.electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/30000.html). You'll notice that Referendum 1 was defeated in every single county. (That includes Utah County and Washington County.) Teachers made Utah history with their petition drives, and their partnership with Utah voters made some American history on Tuesday night. In addition, UEA tapped a nationwide network of teachers who gave small donations individually or through their own associations to match the unknown funding coming from Mr. Byrne and ACM's partners.

WINNER: Kim Burningham. He's a state board chairman with class, and his work this year just burnishes that fact. Remember that he stood up to the Attorney General's office last spring and took a beating for it, from a lot of different quarters. He was right to do it; he knew that well before 62 percent of Utahns proved it.

WINNER: Jeanetta Williams, leader of the Salt Lake NAACP, who doggedly demanded accountability from Mr. Byrne for his ill-advised thoughts on "burning" high school dropouts, and who weathered his equally ill-advised attacks on her and the NAACP.

WINNER: Luz Robles from La Raza, who spoke up when PCE and others used Hispanics in Utah as props for their voucher plan.

WINNER: Utahns. If you have astroturf legislation and diseased ideology looking for someplace to inject and infect, Utahns have a clear message for you: Not here.

WINNER: Utah's economy. I would say that an infusion of $8.4 million didn't hurt, except that Parents for Choice in Education spent a good bit of its cash in Arizona and New Mexico. Whatever the total economic impact, it contributed to Utah's treasury, which is good: I understand there are 150,000 more students coming to Utah in the next few years, so the additional revenue will be helpful to Utah's public schools.

WINNER: Lawmakers who stood and spoke out against the voucher plan from the beginning. Kory Holdaway and Sheryl Allen come to mind, but there were many others too. It hurts to be right and lose by a single vote, but it helps to be proven right by 121,393 votes (the present difference between those tallied for and against, with a handful of ballots left to certify). I suspect they all slept soundly on Election Night.

WINNER: Bloggers. Original research that connected the dots between pro-voucher money and motives was published online, and consistently, well before it ever (IF it ever) made it to the general media coverage. Only one journalist regularly scored and reported developments that still haven't seen the light of day in other papers, and that's Paul Rolly. But from Bob Aagard to Mata Hari to Jeremy Manning to Oldenburg, and Brooke Anderson, and Marshall at Wasatch Watcher -- and from the Amicus to the Sidetrack and several places between -- blogs and bloggers dug into this issue and did a real public service. (I'd like to think I contributed, too.)

WINNER: UTPS volunteers. Personal story: Wherever I've been, whoever I've talked with, I've heard the same comments, that UTPS volunteers were organized, organized, organized, with phone calls and neighborhood visits, from start to finish. They were hard to miss, to anyone who was watching. Not to minimize Election Day's importance, but those months of organized house-to-house work made Election Day just a matter of voter turnout.

WINNER: Finally, Utah's rural families. I want to recognize their place separately because voucher supporters never took seriously the questions from rural families about access to private schools, and the so-called benefits of vouchers to them and their children. Our rural families are part of us, too. Now, with vouchers off the agenda, lawmakers will have to address school funding directly. And the more attention given to needs in public schools, the more rural families will benefit in next year's budget.

Now, the other side of Election Night.

LOSER: Patrick Byrne. He lost the $3 million he spent -- likely to grow to $4 million in the final tally -- to prop up diseased legislation that was imported from Michigan's All Children Matter. He worsened his already-poisonous reputation by making awful statements about high school dropouts (they should be "burned"), about Utah voters (they "failed the state IQ test," he said), about Utah parents (they "don't care enough about their children," he said) and about the people debating him (he called them "bigots"). Showing contempt for his fellow Utahns on live television on Election Night illustrated why people say what they say about him. His performance didn't do any favors for the Milton Friedman Foundation, where he still sits on the board.

LOSER: Parents for Choice in Education, and its national mentor and sponsor, All Children Matter of Michigan. ACM was exposed as the godfather of the voucher plan, and its network of ideologues and propagandists were found to be its midwives. As for PCE, the organization existed for only one reason. Now that the reason has been roundly dismissed by Utah voters, what is its purpose? And if it has no purpose, will it continue to exist? And if it continues to exist, doesn't that disprove Milton Friedman's vaunted theories about the free market? And speaking of Friedman and his free market...

LOSER: Paul Mero and his Sutherland Institute. After his missteps this year, it's good that Mr. Mero doesn't trust the free market for his own employment. So long as the Kool-aid drinking folks in those unidentified foundations continue to send his institute its stipends, he's protected, regardless of his performance or his judgment -- or his slick, revisionist history-writing.

LOSER: Religion-baiting. We still don't know who aired those "Book of Mormon" radio ads supporting the referendum, but Mr. Mero's Sutherland Institute pro-voucher rewrite of Utah history was poor taste, plain and simple.

LOSER: Richard Eyre. He leveraged his salesmanship and his folksy parenting "schtick" in those silly Oreo cookie commercials. In 30-second bits, it was cute -- the first hundred times. But it was in the debates where we got to see a real condescending streak and some disturbing snake-oil salesmanship. I don't doubt that he's "for the parents." It's "parents" that have provided him and his family a healthy income for a generation. But I still wonder whether ambition to expand his "Joy Schools" gave him an extra reason to support the voucher plan.

LOSER: Richard Piatt. KSL's "truth" judge made errors in his report on voucher commercials; Kim Burningham and others spelled them out in detail. His errors lent his "truth test" report to exploitation by PCE. But rather than retract his report, correct his errors before Election Day and move on, he tried to save face and instead layered band-aids on the original report. Hindsight is 20/20, but this isn't just Monday-morning quarterbacking; there was enough time and opportunity to correct those errors while it counted. It doesn't anymore.

LOSER: Rick Koerber. Exposed as a moneyed minor-leaguer buying his way into the major leagues of his ideologue idols, Mr. Koerber's pronouncements only resonated with acolytes in his "Free Capitalist Project" and no one else.

LOSER: Jeff Isbell of Illinois. Mr. Isbell foolishly accepted the fool's errand offered by PCE; he foolishly reported it online; then foolishly challenged the Utah blog community. Sadly, he probably didn't learn any of the experience's obvious lessons, and he may well be on his way back to Illinois already. I wonder how he spent Election Day.

LOSER: The Provo Daily Herald. According to election results, a clear majority of the Herald's readers opposed Referendum 1, after so many barrels of ink had been used to convince them to vote otherwise.

LOSER: Unscrupulous lawmakers. Ones who orchestrated a legislative double-play to ward off the referendum challenge last spring. Ones who extorted the business-lobbyist corps to organize support for the voucher plan. Ones who threatened to hold next year's health care legislation hostage if others didn't kowtow to vouchers. And ones who made ominous calls to the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy and Administration, presumably to delay release of its objective analysis of the referendum.

LOSER: Legal intimidation. Remember that PCE's lawyers sent threatening letters to superintendents and principals, presumably to "chill" conversation and communication about the voucher referendum on school campuses? And remember that the Lieutenant Governor summoned PTA leaders to his office to talk about their communications in Utah communities?

LOSER: Mark Towner. Hacking the UTPS email system and sending pro-voucher spam to voucher opponents? Then lying about it? Then defending the tactic when caught and exposed? Towner's Spyglass may be well-read but its lens is fogged.

LOSER: Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman. By playing both sides of the fence, then playing dumb when PCE aired his hand-tailored press conference remarks, the governor has lost credibility with both sides of the voucher debate AND with Utah voters. After all, according to his own declaration, he voted with the losing side of this issue. The real winners in the Huntsman family this week are his children, who attend fine public schools.

And what did the people say?

2007-11-07T06:55:00.001-07:00

The people said, No.

With only a handful of precincts still out, 62.19 percent of Utah voters said they don't want a voucher program. If that margin holds through the counting of those last few precincts, it will eclipse all of the polls that had been released by newspapers, radio, televisions and anyone else since the referendum was certified by the Lieutenant Governor at the end of April.

The Trib's headline this morning calls it a "crushing defeat." I think they're being gracious. Especially to Patrick Byrne, who orchestrated much of the late funding behind Parents for Choice in Education himself, and who appeared throughout the night on television to prove many of the worst things that are said of him, accusing fellow Utahns of failing a "statewide IQ test" and charging that Utah parents "don't care enough about their kids." This, from a person who reminded a debate audience last Friday night that he holds a doctorate in philosophy from Stanford University.

Even in his grudging acknowledgement that Utahns dismissed his pet project, he held out hope that other populations in another small state -- South Carolina, he suggested -- would approve of his plan.

The Trib's coverage is here (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7392263):

Voters decisively rejected the will of the Utah Legislature and governor Tuesday, defeating what would have been the nation's most comprehensive education voucher program in a referendum blowout.

"Tonight, with the eyes of the nation upon us, Utah has rejected this flawed voucher law," said state School Board Chairman Kim Burningham. "We believe this sends a clear message. It sends a message that Utahns believe in, and support, public schools."

More than 60 percent of voters were rejecting vouchers, with about 95 percent of the precincts reporting, according to unofficial results. The referendum failed in every county, including the conservative bastion of Utah County.

Voucher supporter Overstock.com chief executive Patrick Byrne - who bankrolled the voucher effort - called the referendum a "statewide IQ test" that Utahns failed.

"They don't care enough about their kids. They care an awful lot about this system, this bureaucracy, but they don't care enough about their kids to think outside the box," Byrne said.

PCE co-founder Doug Holmes continued looking for others to blame.

Doug Holmes, a key voucher advocate and contributor, said, "We started hugely in the hole and it's always been the case. The unions have done this in four different states, where they take the strategy of confusion to the people."

But Holmes said, "You don't run away from something because the odds are stacked against you."

PCE spokesman Richard Eyre, whose appropriation of Oreo cookies for television ads did little for the Nabisco brand on Election Night, used the same language to KCPW's Julie Rose here (http://www.kcpw.org/article/4780), saying,

But pro-voucher spokesman Richard Eyre thinks voters were more confused than they were opposed to vouchers. And Senate President John Valentine still believes Utahns would support vouchers with the right information.

I have a feeling that 62 percent of Utahns weren't confused. It may well be that 62 percent of Utah voters happened to believe as the Utah Education Association believes, on this issue, without any confusion at all. After all, voters said from the beginning of the process that they weren't interested in the idea. The more they learned, the less they liked it, as the Trib noted.

The tidal wave of cash changed few minds, however. As far back as January - before the Legislature approved the voucher program - a Tribune poll showed voters opposing vouchers 57 percent to 33 percent.

I think a wise man once said, You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Take Mr. Byrne's insistence that his life's work is helping poor and disadvantaged children:

Voucher supporters countered with more than $4 million, nearly three-quarters of that from Byrne and his family. Byrne says vouchers are the only way America's "broken" public education system can stay competitive with other industrialized nations.

"What's got to happen and it might take Utah five to 10 years to understand," Byrne said, "they are at the bottom of the heap [educationally] and the heap is at the bottom of the international heap."

He shrugged off the fortune he poured into the referendum, saying he leads a fairly modest life as far as CEOs go. "The fortune that I'm making is all going toward educating lower income and especially African-American and Hispanic kids," Byrne said. "So this is not a terribly big deal to me."

Given his comments about the intelligence of Utah voters and uncaring Utah parents throughout the evening -- and his earlier remarks that high school dropouts should be "burned" -- I doubt that his altruism to poor and disadvantaged youths guarantees his nomination for sainthood soon. Just as I doubt that Governor Jon Huntsman will do the nominating.

Both sides, at one point, embraced the governor, who Byrne blasted Tuesday for his lukewarm backing.

"When he asked for my support [for governor] he told me he is going to be the voucher governor. Not only was it his No. 1 priority, it was what he was going to be all about," Byrne said. "He did, I think, a very tepid job, and then when the polls came out on the referendum, he was pretty much missing in action."

But Mr. Byrne holds out hope that his voucher dreams, declared dead-on-arrival by Utah voters last night, will find a home among some unsuspecting voters in the Deep South.

Byrne said the referendum defeat may have killed vouchers in Utah, but "There are other freedom oriented groups in other states - African-Americans in South Carolina are interested in it."

God help them.

Who mourns Referendum 1 (early)?

2007-11-05T11:28:00.000-07:00

Halloween was last week, but I was reminded yesterday of the story of Frankenstein's monster. The monster was cobbled together from the parts of criminal corpses. It brought havoc and mayhem wherever it went. And when it was gone, no one in those communities mourned its absence.

This weekend, several newspapers offered their opinions. They sounded a lot like the opinions of those towns and villages who were threatened by Frankenstein's monster. Referendum 1? Not here, they said. Not this one, not now.

So who is (a day early) mourning the banishment of this monster? Only the editors of papers outside Utah, who were never threatened by a monster cobbled together from dead theories and diseased ideas. Only editors who, like Dr. Frankenstein himself, think it's a good idea to experiment with someone else's life and community and state.

Just across the southern border in Arizona, the editors of the Republic sound almost sad that they may not get to see the experiment play out in a neighbor's backyard. They write here (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1105mon1-05.html),

For years, the booming guns of the education wars over vouchers sounded in the distant East - in Cleveland; in Milwaukee. Last spring, the war came to the West. After 10 years of haggling over school vouchers, the Utah Legislature finally (by a razor-thin 38-37 vote in its House of Representatives) passed a measure that seemed to answer the greatest concern of those who opposed school choice: That it would drain traditional public schools of funding.

It appears unlikely that anyone will discover whether Utah's Parent Choice in Education Program - the nation's first universally available voucher program - would accomplish that feat, however. A successful petition drive placed the measure on the Utah ballot. According to polls, 61 percent of Utahns oppose the voucher plan, which will go before voters as Referendum 1 on Tuesday.
...
So if the vote goes as expected, the first real Western battle of the voucher wars will be won by advocates of the status quo.

Might the next skirmish be in Arizona? Advocates like attorney Clint Bolick, who believes Arizona's constitution does not prohibit parents from using their tax dollars to make choices about where to send their children to school, suspects this state might be next.

If the wars do come here, the Utah experience may prove illustrative. But it does not bode well for the advocates of change.

But articles in two New York City newspapers express the same conclusions today. Can you imagine this? That two newspapers in New York City, as far east as you can get, and as far from Utah as a body can be, are focused on what happens in Utah tomorrow?

I think this illustrates a point I made a long time ago, that the voucher proposal was never a Utah idea. It was an idea laid, incubated and hatched somewhere else, then imported and painted to look like it was a Utah idea.

Reporter Elizabeth Green of the New York Sun (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, isn't it?) apparently got in touch with Patrick Byrne before writing her report here (http://www.nysun.com/article/65835). He explained who she should blame if Referendum 1 is defeated, and he told her he hopes that "the gods" will direct the will of Utah voters:

Tomorrow's vote on a Utah ballot referendum is shaping up as the next test in the campaign for school vouchers.

Voters will determine whether Utah becomes the first state in the nation to enact a universal school voucher program, letting any parent in the state use a voucher to pay for private school. Limited voucher programs are already in place in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and the District of Columbia, and voucher advocates hope that a victory in Utah could give the policy initiative new momentum.

Fueled by more than $8 million in campaign spending, one and a half times what was spent in the last governor's race in Utah, public discussion on what is known as Referendum One is vigorous. Several people said it is impossible to set foot in the state without noticing the bright signs in yards and windows begging citizens to vote yes or no, or being bombarded by television and radio ads filling the airwaves.

Even the Utah Jazz basketball game Saturday night was the scene for a showdown, as voucher supporters sandwiched between yellow "Vote For 1" signs received reactions that a leading advocate of vouchers, Patrick Byrne, said ranged from cheers to spitting on his shoes.

Mr. Byrne, the CEO of the Salt Lake City-based company Overstock.com, has poured more than $4 million of his personal fortune into supporting the voucher push, matching more than $3 million in anti-voucher spending by the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association.

Mr. Byrne said the fight is attracting so much attention because it could be a prelude to a cascade of similar programs across the country. "Why is the NEA here? Because they understand the national implications," he said. "They understand that this is the ice-breaking, and if it gets in and it succeeds, it would have a demonstration effect."
...
The latest polls suggest a yes vote is unlikely, with a 20-point spread between opposition to the measure, 56%, and support, 36%. Only 8% of voters told the Salt Lake Tribune they were undecided. Arguing his cause is still alive, Mr. Byrne, who holds a philosophy Ph.D. from Stanford, where he met his mentor, the late voucher supporter Milton Friedman, quoted Beowulf: "Fate often saves the undoomed warrior if his courage concurs."

"In other words," he said, "it may all look hopeless, but if you don't throw in the towel and you keep fighting, once in while the gods come in and do you a favor. I am hoping for a favor from the gods."

If only Mr. Byrne had been sending up prayers for the Jazz defense.

Following Mr. Byrne's lead, the Wall Street Journal itself weighs in today. It gives Richard Piatt at KSL a pat on the back for helping the voucher campaign with his faulty "truth test," but it goes ahead and assigns blame for Referendum 1's loss to "teachers [who] are very good at instructing [children] in how to run a political campaign."

I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal but I have a friend who does, and he sent me the story, which is here online (for subscribers) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119422589982182044.html):

Utah's children may not excel in math or English, but their teachers are very good at instructing them in how to run a political campaign. As 2007 achievement test data show another disappointing year for the state's children, the teachers union is running a multi-million-dollar campaign to insulate itself from competition.
...
Still, the unions are banking that fear of the unknown will trump demonstrated incompetence. The opponents have raised a bundle to disseminate their predictions of doom, including more than $3 million from status quo headquarters, the National Education Association. They're stoking that fear with antivoucher TV ads that aren't winning high marks for honesty. Salt Lake's KSL-TV, an NBC affiliate that has editorialized against vouchers, nonetheless felt compelled to label as "false" the central claims in two recent attack ads against vouchers.

One ad featured the "Utah teacher of the year" claiming that vouchers "take resources away from public schools." In fact, the law provides only up to $3,000 per child toward private school tuition, depending on family income, and the voucher money comes from the state's general fund, not the education budget. The average voucher will cost $2,000, but the state now spends $7,500 per student. The public schools get to pocket the difference, $5,500, without an obligation to provide any services. So the more parents choose vouchers, the higher per-student spending will rise in the public schools.

Another attack ad claimed that private schools would have "no accountability," when in fact they are required under the law to report to parents how their children in voucher-supported schools do each year on nationwide achievement tests. Market-based competition will force exactly the kind of accountability that the unions fear in public schools.

Judging from recent polls, the scare campaign is winning. Still, supporters of school choice say that the voucher law could still survive, thanks to expected low turnout among the general population and higher-than-normal turnout among Utah Latinos, who make up roughly 12% of the population. Nonprofit Hispanics for School Choice reports an aggressive get-out-the-vote effort of personal visits and phone calls, and increased attention on Spanish-language radio, and at community events and church services.

Allowing the landmark voucher law to go forward would be a victory for students of all races, with more choices for parents and more opportunities for students. Halloween is over; Utahns should ignore the horror stories from unions trying to protect themselves, no matter the consequences for kids.

Why not build a Frankenstein's monster and turn it loose in the Big Apple? Then the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal wouldn't have as far to travel in order to report on it.

Back at home, the Ogden Standard reminded Utahns this morning of its own opinion, and I'll give its editors the last word today, found here (http://www.standard.net/live/opinion/editorials/118023/):

Citizens' State Referendum Number 1
a Vote: "Against"
Our opinion is simply that the law passed earlier this year by a one-vote margin in the Legislature is, among other things, too sweeping, too costly when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayer money and violates the Utah Constitution. This attempt to create a voucher program requires not only a tune-up, but a complete overhaul to make it worthy of voter support.

If you didn't vote already, don't forget to vote tomorrow.

What do other papers recommend?

2007-11-04T11:20:00.000-07:00

While it isn't unanimous -- the Provo Daily Record takes a different point of view -- a number of newspapers appear to be speaking with one voice on Referendum 1. Consider these:

Before issuing its final word yesterday, the Trib offered this preview on September 8 (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6838481):

...[F]or us, the defining question in the voucher debate is simply this: Should taxpayer dollars go to private schools, many of which are religion-based?

Our answer is an emphatic no.

Nonetheless, we believe there is great value in a serious, focused, forthright public discussion of this seminal question.

There is hardly a more pressing issue in Utah than education, and rightly so. Vibrant public schools are where our young people learn many of the skills that will help them become informed, productive citizens able to support themselves and their families, pay taxes and otherwise contribute to the well-being of our communities, our state and the nation.

It is a shame that the Utah Legislature, especially its majority leadership, has lavished so much time and attention promoting what is by far the most comprehensive private school voucher law in the nation, based on the ultraconservative ideal of privatizing most government functions, including education.

This ideological crusade has gone on for years in Utah, without majority public support, while public schools have suffered from a chronic lack of funding that is unrivaled in this country. Our public schools should offer full-day kindergarten for all children, remedial help for students who are struggling, early-grade reading programs and smaller class sizes for the youngest children. Most parents would agree. Minority children and those from low-income households are especially at risk in Utah, but vouchers offer little for them. Most of their parents can't afford and don't want to transfer, and transport, their children to the relatively few private schools, located almost exclusively along the Wasatch Front.

A vast majority of parents want public schools to meet their children's needs. And that takes a united effort of legislators, educators and the community. The voucher issue has been a distraction from that effort, a distraction that Utah's children can ill afford.

Few will escape the voucher debate - the messages coming from both sides will be loud and insistent. All the more reason to pay attention, so that our votes are cast with a clear understanding of the issue. This is a watershed moment for Utah education, for the voting public finally has an opportunity to pass judgment on the wisdom of spending precious tax dollars on private schools for the few.

Maybe afterward, the legislators who represent us on Capitol Hill will finally give their undivided attention to the collaborative task of improving the public school system that is the key to Utah's future.

The Logan Herald Journal gave its final verdict early on September 30 here (http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2007/09/30/letter/letter01.txt):

If parents want to send their kids to private school, they should carry the entire cost of the bill. To us, that’s what the arguments for and against the Parent Choice in Education Act — better known as vouchers — comes down to. In November, Utah voters will decide whether parents who choose to send their kids somewhere other than public schools should be allowed to receive tax money for scholarships for private school.

Public schools are vital to our society, and their impact isn’t found just in the kids who attend them. Parents sending their children to a private schools may think the public school system doesn’t offer them any benefits, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Every day, everyone in society interacts with people educated in the public schools. We all benefit from the system, even if we think it’s not the best option for our children.

While personal choice — the argument most often heard from voucher supporters — is important, people won’t lose that choice if vouchers aren’t available. Anyone can send their children to a private school of their choosing — they just have to foot the cost.

Utah has one of the highest, if not the highest, percentage of public school enrollment numbers in the country. It also is regularly near the bottom of per-pupil funding. Shouldn’t the focus be on providing the best possible education to the vast majority of students who will be attending public schools?

Private schools are a luxury. Much like many other things in our society such as Lexus cars, marble floors and lavish vacations, they aren’t an entitlement. People aren’t getting tax stipends because their choice is to drive a Cadillac instead of using public transit, so why should they get benefits to go to a school which they likely would deem superior to public schools?

The arguments for and against vouchers are confusing, and there appears to be a lot of misinformation going around the state from both sides. For us, however, it comes down to supporting what we already know to be a good system: public schools.

On October 16, the Trib weighed in again, building its case here (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7185841):

The failure of Liberty Academy, a state-chartered and publicly funded school, has been blamed on the inexperience of its founders and directors, mismanagement and a lack of oversight and accountability. The experience of the Salem charter school should serve as a cautionary tale for those who see publicly funded vouchers going to private schools as an answer to Utah's education problems.

House Bill 148, which creates the voucher system that will go before voters Nov. 6, gives the state very little control over how private schools receiving tax money would be operated. That lack of oversight could lead to the same sorts of problems that have plagued Liberty Academy, to the detriment of parents and students - and to the taxpayers who are paying some part of their tuition to attend a private school.

In the heated debate over state Referendum 1, relatively little has been said about schools that may spring up to take advantage of tax-funded vouchers. That is because such talk is mostly speculation. Nevertheless, let's speculate for just a moment. It's almost certain that if the voucher law is approved, some people will want to create new private schools - some to make money and some to control the learning environment for their own children and the children of people who share their educational views.

We've already seen that happen with public charter schools, such as Liberty Academy, founded by people with little or no experience in education who are eager to create alternatives to traditional public schools. Even under the watchful eye of the state, since charter schools come under the Utah education umbrella, there have been financial and academic problems that the state is now trying to correct.

Aside from requiring criminal background checks on teachers and a yearly academic test of their students, the private schools that would get public money through vouchers would be free to do as they please, as long as they don't break laws. And they would be free to use taxpayers' money to do it.

That lack of accountability in private schools could put students and parents at risk as it has with some charter schools. It's a gamble that some parents might be willing to take, but they shouldn't be able to do it with public money.

The Daily Utah Chronicle wrote on October 24 here (http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2007/10/24/Opinion/The-Chronicles.View.Referendum.1.Would.Hurt.Utahs.Public.Schools-3052922.shtml),

The Parent Choice in Education Act, also known as H.B. 148, has the potential to further disrupt our state's already deteriorating public education system while widening the gap between high- and low-income families.
...
To begin, vouchers will not increase the money public schools have. Vouchers will take away a portion, whether it be small or large, of an already insufficient amount allotted to public schools per student enrolled. As one of the worst states in the nation at funding public schools, our public education system needs to do better. There is no way around that fact. It is disturbing that, in a state with a budgetary surplus, legislators would rather implement a system that takes money from public schools than deal with our flailing system by funding it adequately.

Next, there is the issue that the maximum amount allotted in a voucher doesn't come close to the tuition amount for most private schools. The system is by no means going to help members of low-income families because having to pay the thousands of dollars a voucher wouldn't cover is, for many families, impossible. Students in high-income families will likely benefit from the vouchers -- most are already in private schools and can consider a voucher as a $500-off coupon.

This discrepancy in who the vouchers will and will not work for seems as though it will leave schools populated with low-income families bursting at the seams, and schools with high-income families possibly in a better state then they were before. It has the potential to divide our classes further than they already are.

Last, admittance to a private school is by no means an assurance of a higher quality of education. Even the bill itself states that parents will have to accept that "a private school may not provide the same level of services that are provided in a public school."

It is a shame that the education of those who are supposed to lead our country in the future is of such little value that Utah legislators are willing to evade actually fixing the problem with increased funding and put in its place a voucher system that will prove to be more destructive than the system currently in place.

And this weekend, alongside the Trib, the Davis Daily Clipper gave its answer, which is reprinted here (http://utahamicus.blogspot.com/2007/11/davis-county-clipper-rejects-utahs.html):

What voters should really consider are the following:

The tactics used by the pro-voucher forces have been suspect, if not down-right ugly, from the start.

Out-of-state money was used to fund the campaigns of candidates for the legislature without candidates making their stance clear to the voters. Even when we asked some directly, they would not admit it. We take campaigns with hidden agendas very seriously.

Some of the pro-voucher candidates seemed to lack any real substance other than favoring vouchers.

Even with all the high pressure tactics to get pro-voucher people into office, it took severe arm twisting to get vouchers to squeak by in the legislature.

Then pro-voucher forces sought to block Novembers vote by insisting that an "amendment" to the voucher bill could stand on it's own even if people voted down the original voucher law.

When it became evident that a vote couldn't be stopped, pro-voucher forces then tried to count the results on a district-by-district basis. This "electoral college" approach meant vouchers could conceivably pass even if voted down by the majority.

Sanity was saved by the Utah Supreme Court when it ended the mess by ordering a binding, up-and-down vote for Nov. 6, with no funny vote counting.

Aside from the highhanded efforts to subvert the public, a real problem with vouchers is that they are simply the old story of the camel getting its nose in the tent. While vouchers proposals are modest, there is a real risk that demands will soon grow to eat up all the Oreos.

A push to raise the voucher amounts is likely because the present voucher plan doesn't offer enough for poor families to benefit, and it provides only incidental relief for the rest. We suspect the low amounts were planned to ease opposition, but with intent to raise them later.

The whole Oreos thing also seems like an obvious bribe: "Let our children go, and we'll leave money behind." They've always been free to go and leave all the money behind.

Vouchers also seem to be aimed at fixing what isn't broken. With Utah schools doing generally well, vouchers seem a better idea for inner city schools elsewhere.

Somethings not right with this issue, And with the type of questionable behavior some pro-vouchers folks have already shown, it's highly unlikely they'll change their stripes if vouchers pass.

While we don't want to shut the door forever, all this baggage surrounding this issue leads us to conclude it's time to hold off: Someday maybe -- not here, not now.

And let's not forget KSL-TV/Radio, which issued its Piatt-proof word here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#1695467636324956659).

With only a few exceptions, like the Provo Daily Herald and the DesNews (whose editors say couldn't reach consensus), it looks like the media sings from the same hymnal on this issue.

What does the Tribune recommend?

2007-11-03T20:31:00.000-06:00

They tell us here (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7362192), but I'll save you the time:

The Republican legislative leadership would have you believe that the voucher law on Tuesday's ballot is a solution to the problems plaguing education in Utah. It is not. Rather, it is a product of right-wing ideologues far from Utah who would like nothing better than to take education out of the hands of the taxpaying Americans who pay for it and turn it over to private interests.

These adherents to the philosophy of the late economist Milton Friedman have tried for years not just to undermine public schools, but eventually to eliminate them. In Utah, they have found an array of acolytes willing to ignore the will of the people and strong-arm enough of their colleagues to get the nation's first universal voucher program written into law - by a single vote.

But the Legislature's privatizers - led by House Speaker Greg Curtis, House Majority Leader Dave Clark, Senate President John Valentine and Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble - underestimated Utahns' desire to control how their tax money is spent, and their commitment to public schools.

Referendum 1 was forced onto Tuesday's ballot by a groundswell of opposition to vouchers by a populace unwilling to compromise their neighborhood schools by allowing tax revenue to be siphoned off to pay private school tuition.

Beyond the radical political and philosophical goals of the voucherites, there are other sound reasons for pounding a stake through the heart of this perennial push on Capitol Hill: the potential of vouchers to rob public schools of funding, and the questionable constitutionality of sending public funds to religion-based private schools.

The Utah and U.S. constitutions rightly forbid using public money to fund instruction in religious doctrine. That is why implementing the law would surely trigger lawsuits that would put taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in legal bills. Regardless the outcome in court, it can be said with certainty today that the voucher law is an offense to the spirit of separating church from state.

The voucher law would not only create a system of private schools that are not accountable to taxpayers, but deal a devastating blow to public schools. In the 1980s and '90s, when Utah was suffering chronic recession and state revenues were tight, members of the Utah Legislature told underpaid educators in overcrowded, underfunded classrooms, "There's only so much money."

State revenue had to meet all the state's obligations, including public education. The same is true today, and can be applied to the impact of spending finite revenues on vouchers. Whether that money were to come directly from the state's public education fund, or from the general fund, it's all the same pot. Reduce the pot by hundreds of millions of dollars, as vouchers eventually would, and the remainder would not be enough to maintain public schools, let alone improve them. This erosion would not await the end of the voucher law's five-year provision to hold public schools harmless. Nor is there anything to keep the Legislature from further squeezing public schools.

The point is, Utah, with its high birth rate, simply does not have the money to support two separate systems - public and private. As it is, lawmakers have not adequately funded public schools, in bad times or good. Class sizes remain the largest, and per-pupil spending the nation's lowest, while teachers still are woefully underpaid.

Moving down the featured items on the bill of goods being sold to voters by voucher proponents is their comparison of the Utah law to voucher programs in other states, programs they claim have achieved some success. There is no legitimate comparison. No other state funds public education so poorly, and no other state's lawmakers have been foolhardy enough to install a universal voucher program at the expense of their public systems.

Utah's voucher law also fails as an antidote to the expected influx of 145,000 new students, many of them low-income immigrants, in the coming decade. Most poor families cannot afford private school for their children, even with a $3,000 voucher.

The bottom line on vouchers is simply this: Sending tax money to private schools is a bad idea. Vote "AGAINST" Referendum 1.

When does "more" replace "wrong" in reporting?

2007-11-02T12:49:00.000-06:00

I once learned a lesson about fixing mistakes: It's hard to undo a wrong once it's been done, and a weak attempt at correction sometimes makes the problem worse by bringing the wrong kind of attention to it.

Without getting too deep in the details, "we" didn't like the wallpaper in the kitchen, so "we" chose a paint color to go over it. Part of "we" thought that if we didn't like the wallpaper, "we" should take it down first, then paint the bare walls with our chosen color. But another part of "we" thought it was fine to paint over the wallpaper, though some seams might still show. (Seams are unnoticeable details, right?) So "we" decided to leave the wallpaper up and paint over it. Painting was fun, but when it was done, "we" decided that the color had looked much better on the paint chip than it now did on the kitchen walls. Plus, "we" decided that the seams -- the seams "we" thought would be unnoticeable -- were obvious and distracting. "We" spent a lot of time with sandpaper, and a lot of time with new paint chips, and a lot of time re-painting the kitchen.

As a result, "we" have a lot of memories of that process, and "we" decided not ever to undertake a project like that again.

If only we'd taken the time, learned all that we needed to know and gotten it right the first time, "we" wouldn't still be talking about ways to hide the uneven seams under four coats of Killz primer and paint.

What does wallpaper and paint have to do with accountability in Referendum 1?

When you're deciding your kitchen color, maybe you can afford to make several mistakes in a row. It only costs more time and more money to undo what you did wrong in the first place. So what if the wallpaper seams are a little exaggerated now, through several layers of paint?

But when you're Speaker of the House and you pick up the phone to question a University's choice to publish a study in the public interest, you have to know that you may be asked later, Why did you make that call? What was your intent? What did you hope to accomplish by doing it?

Or, when you're a television reporter who takes on the assignment of deciding which television commercials about Referendum 1 are true and which are false, it matters that you take as much time as necessary to collect all the facts before making such judgments. Stamping "TRUE" and "FALSE" in big red letters, with your face on the screen, and your television station's call letters in the corner, leaves a pretty big seam to cover up if you find later that you made a poor judgment.

In the case of the Speaker's call to the University of Utah to question its publication of a factual report on the voucher referendum, the solution to the problem was to stonewall reporters' questions about it.

Curtis' chief of staff, Chris Bleak, told the Deseret Morning News that Curtis did not want to talk about the call. However, Curtis reportedly told KUTV Ch. 2 that the university would "create hard feelings with certain members of the Legislature" because of the report.

But painting over the answers to those questions with a 'no comment' response (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695224018,00.html) only exaggerates the error of that judgment, and only underscores the questions people have about the political games being played with this public policy.

In the case of KSL's Richard Piatt declaration that the commercials run by Parents for Choice in Education were "TRUE" and the ones run by Utahns for Public Schools were "FALSE," it looks like KSL's solution was to do what "we" did about the kitchen: Use a little sandpaper, and add a lot more primer and paint. Except that KSL's solution was on a bigger, bigger scale than our kitchen; our kitchen isn't seen by tens of thousands of television viewers every night.

As for Mr. Piatt himself, he got a big 'thank you' for that judgment from Richard Eyre, a spokesman for the pro-voucher campaign, when he moderated one of last night's voucher debates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYlPKg6s7tw). You can see Mr. Piatt's response there for yourself.

Then you can read Mr. Piatt's second coat of primer and paint here (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2078463). While it may have been easy for Mr. Piatt to tell friends and family that he got his original report wrong (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#1248824928171674883), it apparently is much harder to admit it so plainly when viewers (and advertisers, maybe, and future "true-false" subjects) are watching:

In the interest of clarity, to help you make up your own mind on how to vote, here's more information on some key points of contention on Referendum One.

Notice that this report isn't a "retraction" or even a "correction," but just "more information."

Our 'Truth Test' reported that people taking advantage of vouchers could affect public school class sizes, as one ad claims. But we went on to question the real difference it would actually make. If you listened to the story closely, you heard our "True" stamp was really a "True, but..." As we pointed out, the "savings" would actually be three-tenths of one percent of the huge $3.5 Billion education budget.

I only saw "TRUE" stamped across the ad in big, red letters. And when I look at the mail that PCE sent out, I only see "TRUE" stamped across the ad in big, red KSL-stamped letters, too. I don't remember seeing or hearing any "BUT" in big, red letters. Doesn't "TRUE" mean "TRUE"? When my doctor's office stamps my bill "PAID IN FULL," it means I paid the bill in full. There aren't any "buts," and both the doctor's office and I understand that.

We also looked at Congressman Rob Bishop's ad that claims vouchers would be financially "good for public schools." We reported true, but pointed out the voucher program is a net cost to the state, depending on how many vouchers are issued. The cumulative financial impact over those 13 years is the $429-million commonly cited in anti-voucher ads, a figure Utahns for Public Schools says we should have also used in our first report.

This another big, red "TRUE" with a little "but." I remember the big, red "TRUE," but I don't remember the little "but." Does anyone?

The anti-voucher ads, however, consistently say that money would be "diverted from public schools." Again, as we pointed out, voucher money would come from the state's general fund. It's true that might someday be education money, but that is clearly not a matter of fact. The money could be used for transportation, corrections, law enforcement, and so on. That's up to future legislatures and is not spelled out in the voucher law.

So in this case, instead of a little "but," KSL gave it a big, red "FALSE" and now adds a little "maybe" at the end. See what happens when you add more coats of paint to those seams? They get more noticeable, not less noticeable.

But in the case of standards and accountability, one of the major themes of the anti-voucher community's case against Referendum 1, there's no backtracking from KSL's original report. Mr. Piatt just adds some new trim.

About standards, we pointed out how anti-voucher ads about accreditation and accountability claim there are few or none, but clearly, there are some. However, those standards may not be anywhere near the standards and accountability set up for public education.

Public schools must be accountable to the state about everything from attendance to test scores, teacher licensing, school accreditation, textbooks, financial audits and more. Voucher schools are required to give students one norm-referenced test. Teachers have to have a college degree OR special skills, knowledge or expertise in the subjects taught. Schools may or may not be accredited.

Isn't that what the commercial said?

See, adding the trim distracts the eye from a really ugly seam that just won't look right, no matter how hard you sand.

And in the end, Mr. Piatt puts a flower arrangement on the kitchen table and hopes people will stop looking at the errors on the walls.

It's a highly-charged, emotional subject, and both sides firmly believe their sides' rhetoric. Rest assured, the debate won't end after Tuesday's election, regardless of which way voting goes.

Neither will the memories end, of this mess that could have been avoided. Just as "we" won't ever forget the term "Tuscan bronze" in our kitchen, a lot of viewers will remember Mr. Piatt's big, red TRUEs and FALSEs.

Does Will's column pass the "truth test'?

2007-11-01T14:52:00.000-06:00

Boy, did Halloween bring the spooks out. (Did you get "bood"?) Washington Post columnist George Will and the Libertarian reporter John Stossel each published columns yesterday that have spread like wildfire through the voucher community this morning. Do a google search and your screen will light up.

But I'm embarrassed for both of them, and for us, and for Utah. In digging for facts that support their point-of-view, they get more wrong than right. Data on the cost of vouchers from an impartial analysis, for example, is printed in the Utah Voter’s Guide. If Mr. Will had used that source rather than the propaganda of the pro-voucher groups, he might have been more accurate with his data.

In the end, Mr. Will's confusion makes Utah and Utahns look bad. This is what happens when a local issue -- that wasn't even a local issue until a national organization brought it to Utah and bought their way into the legislature -- gets the kind of attention that this voucher plan has gotten.

Blogger Oldenburg outdoes himself responding to Will's fantasizing, noting it contains "so many lies in such a short space, that merits an award in rightwing shilling" (http://3rdave.blogspot.com/2007/11/voucher-dishonesty-goes-national.html).

In his summation, he writes,

I won't even bother with the diatribe against Teachers' Unions, only to say that he doesn't mention the out of state money coming in defense of vouchers from Amway founders etc. Oh and when you are calling someone else's arguments "threadbare," Mr. Will, you might want to make sure yours aren't full of crap themselves.

He put it more concisely than I would have, but I'll add this: When a coalition of parents, teachers, business leaders, civil rights groups and others opposes the voucher plan, this isn't juts a a fight of the "teachers union."

The sad thing is that Mr. Will's smear of Utah has been published in newspapers across the nation. As they ate breakfast this morning, thousands of people from coast-to-coast got from his column the only information they were likely ever to read about the Beehive State and its voucher plan this year, mistakes and all. That's embarrassing.

His column is syndicated, so it may continue to run in other newspapers tomorrow and through the weekend. But today, according to Google, it ran in the Washington Post, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Austin American-Statesman, the Pasadena Star-News, The Union Leader (of New Hampshire), the Hilton Head Island Packet, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Norman (Oklahoma) Transcript, the Grand Forks Herald, the Canton (Ohio) Repository, the Chicago Daily Herald, the Miami Herald, the Daily Herald, the Indianapolis Star, the Daily Camera, the Herald Net, the Sacramento Bee, the Hartford Courant, the News & Observer, the New York Post, the Daily Press, GoErie.com, the Albany Times Union, the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal World and the Orlando Sentinel.

And, of course, right here at home in the Deseret Morning News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695223603,00.html).

Oldenburg's already done a point-by-point analysis, but I want to ask some fundemental questions. Mr. Will may not have all the answers because he demonstrates that he doesn't have a clear picture of the issue. But I'll just ask them out loud and let anyone answer who will (no pun intended).

Isn't it false to say that the basic cost of a student in public school is $7,500, when that's an average -- when costs are lower in elementary schools and higher in high schools, and even higher for students with disabilities and/or special needs? And if we agree on this point, then why do we continue to use that average figure as the standard for thinking about the $3,000 voucher plan?

The fact is that Utah spends the lowest per pupil in the nation, at $5,257 per student (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/010125.html), so Mr. Will is flat wrong when he says we spend $7,500 per child. And, Utah has the largest class sizes in the nation.

Haven't even the supporters of vouchers misled voters about the "average" cost of private schools by taking out the most expensive schools? Mr. Will repeats the lie when he says that the "average cost of tuition" is only $3,000. I saw Richard Eyre explain that they took out the most expensive ones, the one he called the "Mercedes" schools, in a televised debate. If the average cost of private tuition is $8,000, then say it's $8,000.

People supporting vouchers have tried the argument that 150,000 new students are going to flood the public schools in the next decade. But hasn't Governor Jon Huntsman said that with those new students will come families paying taxes, and that the state can accommodate them because our economic growth is strong?

And this may sound crazy, but it's bugged me for a long time and I want to ask it, knowing now how much money Patrick Byrne (and his parents) have poured into this debate. At the end of the school day, who has invested more time and passion into helping to educate Utah's schoolchildren, the tens of thousands of Utah educators, or Mr. Byrne? Who work with those children day-by-day and week-by-week? Who works with those children's parents, grand-parents, foster parents, legal guardians? Who has impromptu parent-teacher meetings in the grocery store, in the mall, at the ballfield, at the post office, and everywhere else? Is that Mr. Byrne, who gave more than $3 million himself to impose the voucher plan on Utah, or is it Utah's educators, who each gave small amounts to fight back against him?

And here's one more thing, since Mr. Will's column discusses political labels. I'm conservative because I watch what I consume and spend, not because I call myself "a" conservative. People who call themselves conservative used to argue for strong accountability above all, in everything -- including public education, and health care, and a lot of other issues. But now, it's bloggers who are left asking where's the accountability, because those in power in Salt Lake City have told us they want a voucher plan that has none in it. While Mr. Will is looking around for new definitions and new labels, I hope he'll figure out what to call those of us who still practice what we preach.

Mr. Will should know that Utahns didn't pick this fight or start this debate. No one here asked for a private school voucher plan before out-of-state financiers -- namely All Children Matter of Michigan, but others, too -- began buying their way into Utah legislative campaigns. Even now, the most recent polls show that nearly 60 percent of Utah voters oppose it for its flaws and failures.

Mr. Will needs to do some better research before he blithely spreads known falsehoods throughout the country through his column. This column, too, might pass Richard Piatt's "truth test" at KSL, but it doesn't tell the truth.

What happened to the 'truth test'?

2007-10-31T10:42:00.000-06:00

I recently asked here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#3482656904449016704) whether KSL reporter Richard Piatt's blatant errors in his "true-or-false" voucher report were intentional, since Parents for Choice in Education had taken the report to use in its mail to voters. PCE's flyer used Mr. Piatt's comments and his graphics, which are pretty dramatic. Unfortunately, several bloggers have shown that they're pretty wrong, too.

Last night, someone calling himself "Rich's buddy" left a comment on my blog that read,

Piatt isn't a voucher hack. He simply made a mistake.

I bet even he would admit it to friends, in fact, he did.

I wrote a response to that note:

To Rich's buddy,

I appreciate very much that Mr. Piatt told his friend that he made a mistake. I don't doubt what you say, and I appreciate that you said it to me.

But Mr. Piatt, whom I don't know, is a public figure and, moreover, a journalist, which means his job is to inform the public on matters in their interest. At the moment, there are only three items in the public record reflecting Mr. Piatt's journalism on the voucher issue. One is the KSL report, whose errors I described in some detail; the second is his published comment to Bill Keshlear, stating clearly and unequivocally that Mr. Piatt stands by his original report; and the third is the mail from Parents for Choice in Education, repeating in black-and-white what Mr. Piatt said on KSL, and using the graphics that Mr. Piatt used in his report.

We now have fewer than six days before we will go to the polls to make a decision, based on the best information provided to us, on the voucher matter. If Mr. Piatt made a mistake and was willing to express that to his friends, I hope in the interest of public awareness and professionalism that he would make that known, and specifically to correct the public record on this question.

Now, it isn't just bloggers bringing attention to the problem of this report's credibility, and KSL itself is acknowledging its discomfort about the mess -- although I notice that no one yet has taken a step to say that there were fundamental errors in the report. Rather, they're adopting a slippery path, just disavowing any part in the production of PCE's flyer here (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2068612) and here (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2064177), and hoping that the next few days go by quickly.

Of course, it's still true that KSL editorialized against Referendum 1. But Mr. Piatt's contribution to the public record, on behalf of his television station, is what's in the public record, and that's what sits on paper in black-and-white on kitchen tables across the Wasatch Front.

Which is more important, letting errors be sold as truth, or standing up and correcting the public record?

It looks like allowing errors to be sold as truth -- or pretending that correcting the public record isn't really an option -- is more important to KSL News Director Con Psarras, quoted in Paul Rolly's column today here (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7327640):

Now, it is KSL's turn to take umbrage at the voucher advocates' attempts to turn the media giant into a pro-voucher toady.

The television station put a statement on its Web site taking issue with the voucher advocates' flier that implies "Eyewitness News" produced, or helped to produce, the voucher ad.

The flier points to a KSL story that analyzed ads being aired by both sides of the voucher debate. Reporter Richard Piatt questioned some points in the anti-voucher ads, and that's what the pro-voucher folks highlighted in their own fliers and ads "thanking" KSL for its truth in advertising test.

KSL News Director Con Psarras said the three-minute story was a complex analysis and to simply boil it down to a "true" versus "false" scenario is misleading.

"It's ironic that we do a 'truth test,' the intent being to distinguish between spin and actual fact, and the people who like what we did in that story take our material and spin it out of context," Psarras said on KSL's Web site.

KSL's news department takes no stand for or against vouchers, Psarras said.

No, it just aired an erroneous report that's now the public record and that misleads voters, and it apparently doesn't intend to correct that record. You can't really count that as taking a stand, can you?

Or can you? Let me check that PCE flyer again; it's on the kitchen table with KSL's work all over it.

Are vouchers "welfare for the rich"?

2007-10-30T13:49:00.000-06:00

They're words that I've used myself, responding to the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy and Administration review of House Bill 148 here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#7106415494168653762). To me, it's an obvious conclusion, since the maximum voucher award under House Bill 148 is $3,000, meaning that only well-to-do would be able take advantage of the offer and not suffer under additional expense, and since rural parents in particular would have no benefit from it at all, there being no private schools within a reasonable distance of them.

In the last few days, more have come to this conclusion. Educator and blogger Kalyn Denny, responding to a post by Leslie Madsen Brooks here (http://www.blogher.org/school-vouchers-back-ballot), wrote,

I've been arguing against vouchers for so many years that frankly I'm getting a little bored with the topic, but one argument that a lot of people seem to miss is the lack of logic in viewing vouchers as a tax rebate because your kids aren't going to public school. In our society, everyone pays for the public schools (to have an educated society) in the same way that everyone pays for roads even if they don't drive or pays for parks even if they never jog. I pay my share of taxes which support public schools even though I have no children. So how does it make sense that people who do have kids in school get a "rebate" on their taxes (the voucher) because they aren't using that service.

I remember when the big voucher push was on in California and the California Teacher's Union had bumper stickers that called vouchers "Welfare for the Rich." That's about the reality of it. The cheapest private schools here are much more than the $3,000 voucher.

And I do agree completely with these thoughts from Elizabeth:
"That said, I think most voucher supporters are also hypocrites -- while there are some who are truly concerned about poor kids, most of them are primarily interested in promoting the free market as the solution to all of the problems in the world and beating up on the teacher's unions."

I'll end by saying that as a 29 year teaching veteran who has really gone the extra mile to try to make a difference for kids (in the state funded lowest in the nation for public schools) I'm very insulted by some of the tactics the pro-voucher people are using here.

For more about Ms. Denny, you should review her (appetizing) work in the kitchen here (http://kalynskitchen.blogspot.com/).

At the same time, thanks to Ms. Brooks, who commended the research at this blog as well as a few others, including Mata Hari and Gary Weiss, who here (http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/10/patrick-byrne-wows-em-in-utah.html) weighed on Patrick Byrne's inconsiderate suggestion that high school dropouts be burned. Mr. Weiss writes,

Being a childless bachelor. a product of privilege and private schools who has never had to work a day in his life, he has really wowed the good working people of Utah, as you can imagine.

Byrne being Byrne, he immediately has begun his reverse-Dale Carnegie act, making enemies and alienating people. His latest gaffe is smearing opponents of the initiative -- 60% of Utahans, according to recent polls -- as "bigots."

I've still heard no word that Mr. Byrne has expressed regret for the statement. In fact, blogger Falze at Albany Media Bias, apparently defending him, included the full text of a letter from Mr. Byrne to his customers, which read, in part,

Dear Customer,

The NAACP is demanding an apology from me. I refuse.
...
...I purposefully chose such a horrific image in order to cut through the polite euphemisms by which some assuage their guilt over the current situation.

Honestly, that's a strange admission, since Mr. Byrne's first response to media was that he had been taken out of context, and his second response is that it was a lie (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7295679). Even his third try wasn't the charm, as he spent a good deal more time talking about himself than making a substantive case for vouchers:

I also built 19 schools and orphanages in Afghanistan, Nepal, and in Africa and South America, schools that now educate 6,000 kids, mostly female: all these schools are named after my Mom.

In a great new video posted this week at YouTube here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hNS3Tb2CxCQ), a Utah grandpapa called IceThePuc. "A vote for Referendum 1 will simply put $3,000 into some rich guy's pocket," he says. "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer."

What makes his video so compelling is that the granddad sits behind stacks of chocolate cookies. They only "represent a well-known cookies," he explains, "but I can tell you they're cheap, generic knock-offs because, like most of you, I have to save money where I can."

Later in explaining his opposition to vouchers, the granddad says, "Most of us support the public school system because we lead normal lives and live on a budget."

Detailing the eventual loss of public school funding, he asks, "Hey, rich guy, can we have some of our money back?"

He answers himself, "Once we give it away, it's pretty hard to get it back."

"The people out there encouraging you to vote 'Yes' do not represent the typical, Utah, public-education family. My kids went to public school, and now five of my grandkids are attending public school. Help protect our public education funds by voting 'No' on Referendum 1."

His end credits are a special touch. "This non-advertisement has been paid for by one grandparent against Referendum 1," he says, as the words "A 'These Are Good Cookies' Production" scroll up the screen. If any awards are given after this voucher debate is finished, I hope this grandpapa gets one.

In the meantime, I've added his "A 'These Are Good Cookies' Production" to my blogroll on the left, and I hope you'll click there and watch for yourself.

A blogger named Darlene is another writer who has worked out her thought process in writing, at a blog called "A Person Named Eunice," here (http://apersonnamedeunice.blogspot.com/2007/10/school-vouchers-wince.html). She writes,

First, I am basically a democrat at heart, at least economically. Which means that I believe that it is the moral duty of a citizen to contribute to society—yes, in the form of taxes—for the good of others in the society who are not as able to take care of themselves. (I think, for example, that to cheat on your taxes, or to bend the rules on your taxes, or even to cleverly hide assets in “legal” ways in order to avoid paying your share is unethical and, frankly, dishonest.) I feel that it is my job as a Christian to look out for my neighbors—even the ones who seem to be lazy (because, maybe, their parents didn’t teach them to work?).

I feel it is our duty to make sure that not just our own kids but the kids of our neighbors should be taken care of. This includes all those kids on the west side that are such a drain on the property taxes of “us east-siders.” That includes the kids whose parents don’t care enough to research public and private schools and use vouchers to make sure their kids get what’s best for them.

If the voucher proposition passes, every child whose parents care about him will be put into the school, public or private or home-based, that his parents think will be best for him. But what about the kids whose parents don’t care, or who are overworked or undereducated enough not to be able to research what’s best? They will be left in the public schools. These kids are often the ones who use the most resources from the education system, in the form of teacher energy and other, more measurable resources.
...
My other big reason for being against vouchers is that I don’t believe that it is moral to whine that a system isn’t working and then jump ship. I think the right thing to do is to fix public education, not abandon it. People who are unhappy should join school boards, volunteer in their schools, lobby for more and better asset allocation within districts, etc. If all of the caring parents start jumping ship, it will sink. And, once again, what happens to the kids left on the ship?

I don’t know a single public schoolteacher who is in favor of vouchers. And why is that? You’d think that they would recognize that more private school students means more job opportunities for them, right? Well, it probably does. But the reason is that the kind of people who are choosing to become schoolteachers these days are doing it for only one reason: they care about education. There is NO other reason a person would become a teacher in this world. And the people who really care about education in society (not just about their own kids’ educations) know that the voucher system is not good for society.

I didn't include her entire rationale, so I encourage you to click through and read the rest, too.

Finally, I need to thank Tyler Slack at Desultory Thoughts, who posted a catalog of voucher-related posts more than a week ago, and who found a few of mine helpful in his deliberations. You can read his notes here (http://www.utahadventurevideos.com/blog/archives/2007/10/23/pta-parents-know-best/). He writes, in conclusion,

I haven’t written anything tonight that 100 other bloggers haven’t already written. Nothing original about this, more of a summary if anything. But the last reason I choose not to support vouchers is not only because of the plain information and facts that are laid out before me, helping me see that it is indeed flawed, but all the other individuals and organizations that are advocating on behalf of our children and hoping Referendum 1 is voted down on November 6.

Thanks, Tyler.

Is KSL's reporter a voucher accomplice?

2007-10-29T10:34:00.000-06:00

One of the reasons I thought the Utahns for Public Schools representative, Lisa Johnson, did a better job of presenting her case than Richard Eyre in last week's "debate" on KSL was because she was quick and effective at rebutting his arguments with clear, concise facts and data. His "gee-whiz" folksiness and his crumbling cookies didn't overcome ready facts, ably delivered. A good example of this involved KSL itself. When given the chance by the moderator, Mr. Eyre leaped onto the "true-false" report done by KSL's Richard Piatt and reminded viewers that Mr. Piatt judged two UTPS commercials to be false but said two Parents for Choice in Education ads were true.

But Ms. Johnson took issue with that report and, as I recall, knocked down Mr. Piatt's findings one by one. If I had a transcript of that conversation, I'd post it to illustrate my point, but I don't. I only recall that Ms. Johnson took the stuffing, piece by piece, out of that "true-false" story. In the end, she was convincing and Mr. Eyre was not.

Now there's a new chapter to the "true-false" story. Mata Hari reported here (http://againstutahvouchers.blogspot.com/2007/10/ksls-inaccuracies-repeated.html) on Friday that PCE is sending out mail that quotes Mr. Piatt's report and uses his graphics ("FALSE" stamped across the faces of classroom teachers). Mata Hari says she "went in search of setting the record straight and came across a letter from State Board of Education Chair Kim Burningham to the News Editor at KSL."

"I hope that KSL will do something about this, and that after further review, Piatt will issue a retraction. I sure dislike seeing a TV station being purposely used to distort the facts," she writes.

Sure enough, the letter from Mr. Burningham took apart, piece by piece, Mr. Piatt's report just as Ms. Johnson did in the "debate" with Mr. Eyre.

For example, Mr. Piatt reported, “During this five-year trial period, the program is an 'experiment.'”

But even I know, just from reading House Bill 148, that there's no "trial period." If voters approve Referendum 1, it's enacted for good, unless or until the legislature chooses to repeal the law and the governor signs the repeal.

Now, for sure it's an experiment -- "most definitely a risky and costly experiment," as Mr. Burningham puts it -- but Mr. Piatt's report leaves the viewer thinking that there's a trial phase and if the plan doesn't work for Utah families, it will naturally fade away. The fact is, it'll be law -- it won't just "fade away." Mr. Burningham writes,

...there is no sunset date and no termination or reaction to the study is required. No language exists requiring the legislature to reauthorize the program at any time in the future. It just continues.

In the UTPS commercial, the 2006 Teacher of the Year says, "Private school vouchers take resources away from public schools." But Mr. Piatt reported that she wasn't telling the truth. "In a financial sense, that's false," he said.

But in a fact-based reality, it's certainly true. Everyone seems to agree that because House Bill 148 sets aside "mitigation money" so that public schools wouldn't (in theory, although this hasn't been really explained) lose the per-pupil funding it gets as children are taken out of public schools and enrolled in private schools, that mitigation money goes away after five years. Then, schools go right back to being funded -- poorly, let's remember -- on a per-pupil basis. Yet schools' overhead costs are the same: the cost of buildings, maintenance, utilities, staffing, etc. The bottom line is that the voucher plan, then, would result in a loss of funding to public schools.

As Mr. Burningham writes,

The Legislative Fiscal Analyst has estimated that the voucher program will cost the state $429 million over the next 13 years. The fact is that every dollar spent on voucher schools is a dollar that is not going in to the public classroom. [http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/elsec05_sttables.xls, Table 8; Salt Lake Tribune, March 8, 2007.]

The “mitigation monies” outlined in HB 148 are only for the first five years after a student leaves the school. So, while the cost of running a school – paying the teachers, the rent, the support staff, the electricity bill – remains much the same, the budget the school has to do those things will diminish. http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.htm

Furthermore, while there may be some savings to schools during the first few years of the program, as private school students are added on down the line public school districts will experience a significant drop in funding as the cost of the voucher program balloons from $9 million to over $70 million by 2020. This is because all private school students by year 13 of the program will be receiving state money – whether or not it makes a difference to their family in being able to afford private school tuition. The $429 million estimated by the Legislative Fiscal Analyst as the cost to the state over the next thirteen years far outweighs any estimates of savings it could provide.[Salt Lake Tribune, March 8, 2007]

One of Mr. Piatt's most blinding misstatements is this one: “In anti-voucher ads those questions are cast as troubling questions: ‘Setting few if any standards for private voucher schools. Like no accreditation…’ That’s false. In fact, school accreditation…[is]spelled out in both voucher bills.”

Boy, is that patently false. I've read House Bill 148 word-for-word more than a dozen times and I've broken it down segment-by-segment in a four-part series online, and I'd challenge Mr. Piatt to demonstrate how House Bill 148 requires private schools to be accredited. It's not there.

Mr. Burningham puts it much more politely:

HB 148 states that schools taking voucher students must “provide, upon request to any person, a statement indicating which, if any, organizations have accredited the private school.” This does not constitute a mandate for accreditation from any organization – merely that the schools disclose whether or not they have achieved accreditation. HB 174 makes no further mandates for accreditation on private schools.

According to the Utah Administrative Code Rule R277-410, the Utah State Board of Education is “not responsible for the accreditation of nonpublic schools, including private, parochial, or other independent schools.” The same rule mandates the accreditation of all public secondary schools, including charter schools, while public or charter middle, junior high, and elementary schools may seek accreditation if they wish.

Further, according to the Utah State Office of Education School Accreditation website: “In the State of Utah, by law all public schools, granting high school credit, are required to be accredited.” The State Board of Education says that “Private and parochial schools that issue high school credit and/or diplomas should be accredited” – again, not constituting a mandate.

Then Mr. Piatt gets to the question of standards and accountability in private schools, and he gets it blatantly wrong again. When the UTPS commercial says House Bill 148 includes no accountability for tax dollars, Mr. Piatt declares, "That’s false. In fact…accountability… [is]spelled out in both voucher bills. That includes requirements for annual student testing.”

House Bill 148 only requires that private schools give a "norm-referenced test" that compares their students' performance against students nationally. Nothing in the bill requires private schools to administer the same tests given in public schools, or to show how their students perform against students in Utah's public schools. That would be giving accountability to the public for public funding, and the voucher plan doesn't say that.

Or, as Mr. Burningham writes,

The test chosen by a private school may be any norm-referenced test in any curriculum. It may have absolutely no reference to the achievement required from public school students on, for instance, the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (U-PASS). U-PASS, enacted in 2000 by the Utah State Legislature to ensure the effectiveness of the tax dollars being used in public schools, is just one of many testing requirements of the 96 percent of Utah students who attend public schools. The results of U-PASS testing are widely available and reported to allow parents to see how their child’s school is doing with the core curriculum approved by the State Board and required of all public schools. On the other hand, schools accepting vouchers have no such requirement for a comprehensive core curriculum, let alone a test that definitively covers such a curriculum. There can be no basis for comparison between public and private schools to determine success if students are not held to the same standards.

Additionally, accountability goes beyond testing - while public school budgets are reported annually and in great detail, private schools accepting vouchers must only account for the voucher payments separately and contract with a certified public accountant to make a report to the State Board every four years.

Finally, Mr. Piatt flatly misleads his viewers about teacher credentials in private schools. The UTPS ad says there's no requirement for private school teachers to have a credential to teach, and Mr. Piatt says, "That’s false. In fact…teacher credentials are spelled out in both voucher bills.”

How could someone entrusted to report facts to viewers get this so wrong? Last week, the University of Utah's Center for Public Policy and Administration got it completely right, as I wrote on Saturday. They wrote,

Teachers must either hold a baccalaureate or higher degree OR have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subject(s) taught.

And I wrote,

That means there's no requirement in this law that teachers in private schools have a college degree. If I'm a private school administrator and I want to hire my cousin to teach math, even though he's a high-school dropout, I can say he has "special skills, knowledge or expertise" because he managed the inventory at a local construction company for a year. That took math skills, didn't it?

Again, Mr. Burningham said it less abrasively than me:

What subject matters those degrees are held in or what “special skills” constitute making a teacher qualified is left up to each individual school. No license or teaching credential is required – merely that the school makes the qualifications of the teachers it has chosen available for review by parents.

All of this begs some simple questions for me. Did Mr. Piatt know what he was reporting? I mean, did he read the bill himself, or did he have an intern read it for him? Or did he just accept the PCE told him as fact? Did he do his own fact-checking, calling any state agencies -- maybe even the State Board of Education -- to get their input before airing his story?

And, not knowing Mr. Piatt myself, it makes me wonder whether he has some personal stake in the outcome of the voucher referendum. An educated person really can't make all of these blunders by accident, can he? Is that possible?

Taken by itself, Mr. Piatt's report is one great mess, and it's clear than PCE is taking advantage of it to confuse voters. But then I recall that Governor Jon Huntsman appeared before television cameras last week, said hopeful things about the voucher plan, said he would vote for it, then advised Utah voters to do their own research into the issue, come to their own conclusions and vote their conscience. Within a couple of days, it seemed, PCE had produced a new commercial that included only the governor's remarks that were favorable to the voucher plan.

Taken together then, Mr. Piatt's report and the PCE ad featuring Governor Huntsman, it looks like there's a pattern in PCE's strategy: Get something into the public record, even if it's false, or even if it's only part of what we want, and then use the parts we like to create a better, stronger impression that favors the voucher plan.

Is Mr. Piatt a willing accomplice in this strategy? It's a possibility, since we know that the editorial board of his television station has taken a clear and public stand against vouchers. They published it here (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=238&sid=1997679), saying,

The KSL Editorial Board has thoughtfully considered the views presented by opponents and proponents of school vouchers, and has come to the conclusion that a broad taxpayer supported voucher system should not be implemented in Utah. Our opposition to vouchers boils down to a fundamental question: Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer? We think not!

It is not a question of school choice since parents already have a variety of options in Utah. Any parent who so chooses can send a child to a private school, or a charter school, or a different public school! School choice is not the issue!
...
In KSL's view, that's where the focus of Utahns ought to be. Let's reject vouchers and work toward making changes that will benefit all Utah children for generations to come.

So Mr. Piatt's employers weren't behind his report.

Come to think of it, that leads to one more question: If the editors at KSL are plainly opposed to the plan, yet they have allowed Mr. Piatt's erroneous report to stand (and now to be used by PCE as pro-voucher campaign material), then are they, too, willing accomplices in the pro-voucher campaign? How difficult is it to say, "Our reporter produced a report that drew certain conclusions, and in retrospect, we understand that those conclusions weren't accurate. In the interest of public service, we want to amend that report and offer a better account"?

As it is, the editors at KSL have let their reporter's errors stand. In an email exchange with Bill Keshlear here (http://utdems.blogspot.com/2007/10/did-ksl-tvs-truth-test-tell-truth-about.html), when confronted with the various facts refuting his report, Mr. Piatt wrote simply,

Bill,

I stand by my story.

Rich

And so far, KSL stands by its errors.

What does the CPPA report tell us?

2007-10-27T13:26:00.000-06:00

First, I had nothing to do with the report that's just been released by the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah (http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000937843.cfm?x=b11,0,w), so any similarities you may find between their report and my personal analyses of House Bill 148 here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#1285319116098397573), here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#7656358297803053091), here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#2927554735439584254) and here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#4426877382633871027) are purely coincidental, as they say in the movies. Unless its authors took the time to read my posts on it, for which I'd be happy.

Now that that's out of the way, Hooray! that someone has finally made an objective, piece-by-piece report of what House Bill 148 says. This is what I've been waiting for. Why has no newspaper done this? Or television station? My only complaint about the CPPA report is that it's so brief. It reads and feels as if the authors have really gone out of their way to be noncommittal about the bill. I respect and applaud that goal, but in the pursuit of offending no side, the result is that the report feels thinner and paler than it could have been.

Nonetheless, it's the best we've got, and it's good. Writers Jennifer Robinson, Janice Houston and Sarah Wilhelm promise only "The Basics" in their title, and that's what they deliver. What did the Utah legislature do?

In 2007, the Utah Legislature passed the Parent Choice in Education Program, which, if implemented, will provide scholarships (vouchers) to children to attend private schools.

I'm glad the authors don't adopt the misleading term used in the bill, "scholarship." (Yet. But unfortunately it slips in later.) And who will get these vouchers?

Unlike voucher programs in other states that limit scholarships to only low-income students or students with disabilities, the Parent Choice program will provide scholarships to all Utah students who meet basic criteria.

So what did the CPPA choose to do?

The Center for Public Policy and Administration has completed an analysis of the Parent Choice in Education Program. This analysis provides a thorough examination of the Parent Choice program by addressing who is eligible, the standards for private schools, and the fiscal impact on the state and school districts.

Great start.

Then the authors deliver a brief history of the legislative, judicial and citizen-led actions that found House Bill 148 on the November 6 ballot, including the confusion about the second voucher bill, which is not a part of the voucher referendum but which will be affected by the referendum outcome.

The scholarship program was set to begin in the 2007-2008 school year; however, “The Utah Supreme Court ruled that if a majority of voters vote in favor of implementation of HB 148, then the Parents Choice in Education Program under HB 148 and HB 174 will be established. If a majority of voters vote against implementation of HB 148, then the Program will not be established” (Utah Legislative Research and General Council 2007).

If House Bill 148 were enacted, what would it do?

The Parent Choice in Education Program, if implemented, will provide annual scholarships to qualifying children to attend private schools in Utah. The scholarships range between $500 and $3,000 per student, depending upon family size and income.

And who is considered "qualifying"?

In order to qualify for the program, a student’s custodial parent or legal guardian must reside in Utah. The student must be between 5 and 19 years of age (except that a student who has not graduated from high school may qualify up to age 21).

Students must also meet at least one of the following criteria:
=Be born after September 1, 2001;
=Be enrolled as a full-time student in a Utah public school on January 1, 2007;
=Not be a Utah resident on January 1, 2007; or
=Be in a lower income family (student qualifies for reduced lunch)

These four criteria prohibit students currently enrolled in private schools from receiving the voucher scholarship, unless the student’s family is low income. Therefore, the students who will qualify for the scholarship are those just entering kindergarten, those who were enrolled in a Utah public school on January 1, 2007, students who lived outside of Utah on January 1, 2007, or students from low-income families who are now enrolled in private schools.

But it is also true, and I wish the authors had pointed out plainly, that because the program is being phased in over 13 years, by the end of that period it will cover children who aren't transferring from public schools to private schools, but also children who are enrolling in school for the first time, using public-funded vouchers in private schools.

The authors then include a chart showing the dollar amount of the voucher that would be given to a private school, even for the wealthiest families in Utah. Their chart demonstrates that this isn't a program designed to subsidize private school education for poor families, but rather to subsidize private school education for the wealthy. Its welfare for the wealthy, paid for from the state treasury!

Back to their narrative, they explain what House Bill 148 requires a parent to do if he or she wanted to collect a voucher:

To receive a scholarship a parent must apply for the scholarship from the Utah Board of Education by June 1 preceding the school year. By signing the application, parents acknowledge that:

=A private school may not provide the same level of services that are provided in a public school.

Which is a tacit admission, isn't it, that the program isn't really about "competition," because the standards to be met by public schools are -- as the bill acknowledges -- higher than any standards expected of private schools.

=The private school in which they have chosen to enroll their child has disclosed to them the teaching credentials of the school's teachers and the school's accreditation status.

It doesn't require that a school hire any teachers with professional credentials, or that the school earn any accreditation from any authority. It only requires the school to tell parents what, if any, credentials its teachers have, and what, if any, accreditation it may have collected.

=They will assume full financial responsibility for the education of their scholarship student if they accept this scholarship.

Which again acknowledges that the dollar amount of the voucher is likely not going to cover the cost of private school expenses, leaving the parent to make up any and all of the difference -- plus the cost of transportation.

=Acceptance of this scholarship has the same effect as a parental refusal to consent to services pursuant to Section 614(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

And with this, the state washes its hands of any responsibility it has to guarantee equal protection to students, including students with special needs, or students with handicaps, under federal law. This part makes it clear that once a mother endorses the voucher check to the private school, that mother waives all federal rights guaranteed to her and her children, and the state won't offer any protections of its own.

This is a pretty powerful section, if you ask me. But the next section is just as powerful; it outlines the pale requirements for a private school to be eligible to receive the public-funded vouchers.

So what are these pale requirements?

First, the private schools must have a physical location within Utah where students attend classes and have direct contact with teachers.

So, anyone who opens a storefront "school" can qualify.

Second, private schools must comply with the antidiscrimination provisions laid out in the U.S. Code under which students may not be discriminated against because of race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion, age or status as a parent.

So voucher-receiving schools cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or other factors, but there's never a guarantee that space will be available for a child who... (you fill in the blank on the basis of race, religion or other factors).

Third, private schools must annually assess each student using a norm-referenced test that compares students’ performance to national results.

Why not use a test that compares students' performance to state results -- the performance of all Utah students in every school, public and private? Is there a reason we can't do that? Or is there a fear of what those comparisons might reveal?

Fourth, schools must contract with an independent certified public accountant (CPA) who must submit a financial report at the time the school applies to accept scholarship students and once every four years after.

While public schools are subject to review every year, a private school that accepts public funds will only have to deliver an audit every four years. That means a private school can misuse public funds the first year it accepts them, if it chooses to, but the public won't know about it for another three years.

Fifth, there are also requirements for teachers at private schools. Teachers must pass a criminal background check. Teachers must either hold a baccalaureate or higher degree or have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subject(s) taught.

Did you notice that second "or"? I'll highlight it for readers:

Teachers must either hold a baccalaureate or higher degree OR have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subject(s) taught.

That means there's no requirement in this law that teachers in private schools have a college degree. If I'm a private school administrator and I want to hire my cousin to teach math, even though he's a high-school dropout, I can say he has "special skills, knowledge or expertise" because he managed the inventory at a local construction company for a year. That took math skills, didn't it?

Sixth, schools must have an enrollment of 40 students or more. They cannot operate in a private residence nor can residential treatment facilities participate in the program.

So if I want to open a private school in a storefront and begin collecting public funds through vouchers, I only have to enroll 40 children. If I have a large family -- lots of brothers and sisters and cousins, and they all have children -- then I can open a school serving only the children in my own extended family, and make a profit from public funding. That's precisely what the law will allow.

Lastly, schools that “encourage illegal conduct” are not eligible to participate in the voucher program.

That's a relief. Although nothing in House Bill 148 requires teachers in private schools to undergo criminal background checks, it's nice to know that the school itself can't encourage any illegal conduct.

And yet, as the authors point out:

Given the criteria above, not all private schools will be eligible to participate in the voucher program.

Because the criteria are so stringent? These criteria?

It is equally important to note that not all private schools will choose to participate in the voucher program.

CPPA points out that the state Board of Education will be responsible administering the voucher program, with a little funding to cover administrative costs.

Then CPPA addresses the fiscal impact of the program. Even after you move your stacks of Oreo cookies around, playing with "costs" versus "savings," the CPPA reaches a conclusion that a lot of other folks have reached, too:

By the 13th year of the program, when it is fully implemented, the costs to the state will exceed savings to the school districts by $43-59 million.

That's not $59 million of savings to the state, that's $59 million in COST to the state. And I thought vouchers were supposed to save taxpayers money?

The authors point out that there are voucher programs in other places, but that there's a big difference between them and House Bill 148:

The voucher programs in these states are aimed at specific populations of students, such as low-income students or students with disabilities.

...Utah’s voucher law... is the only state-wide voucher law that will provide scholarships to all students who meet the basic criteria outlined above.

So while other cities or states may have experimented with giving vouchers only to poor parents, the sponsors of House Bill 148 went whole-hog, drafting a plan that includes even the wealthiest of the wealthy, and making it statewide and universal -- an experiment that has never been attempted before on this scale, with these costs.

CPPA outlines the arguments for and against the voucher plan without indicating whether any argument has greater merit in shaping public policy, and I wish they had included that sort of evaluation. It would have been helpful in decision-making. But they do raise a point that I raised in one of the earliest notes I posted on this issue: What does the Constitution say, here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html#594952384401936106). They write,

Finally, there may be constitutional concerns with Utah’s voucher law.

According to the Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, available through the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, under the Parent Choice in Education Program, public funds will be used to provide scholarships for students who attend private schools, including private religious schools.

The use of public money for students attending private religious schools may conflict with federal or state constitutional provisions that prohibit the use of public money for religious purposes. In addition, other aspects of the program may conflict with equal protection provisions of the federal or state constitution or with state constitutional provisions relating to the State Board of Education’s authority or the scope of the public education program.

Because of the program’s unique characteristics and the lack of a directly applicable court ruling, it is unclear how a court would rule on any of these issues.

All in all, this was a good, fact-based, objective look at House Bill 148, and I'm grateful to the University's CPPA for doing what our regular media hasn't had the courage to do.

Do you think the regular media will report much about this study? Or have the Oreos had their desired effect...

What will we see in finance reports?

2007-10-26T07:36:00.001-06:00

If I remember correctly, another wave of campaign finance reports will be due next week, on or near Halloween. Should we expect more tricks or more treats in them?

One thing we can predict with certainty because the regular media has written about it many times: That Utahns for Public Schools will likely have collected some more money from NEA and probably some of its state chapters. I saw an item in the Trib (I think) last week saying that Arizona teachers were contributing to them, too. So that's a given.

What we can't predict with certainty is how much more funding Parents for Choice in Education has collected, and from where.

Will they have collected more cash from a secret source in Missouri, as we learned would happen here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#8774387773635419070)? Will they report any contributions from Rex Sinquefield himself, or from his Show Me Institute, as I suggested here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#7871848005276981626)?

Or will PCE report a substantial contribution from hidden sources, like the $358,000 it showed in its last report from its "PCE Foundation" and its corporation, "PCE Incorporated," as we learned here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#3432994937239750239)? That way, the real donors are kept secret. Isn't it strange that if I donate $100,000 to PCE's political action committee, my name is reported and becomes public information. But if I donate $100,000 -- or even a million dollars -- to PCE's "foundation" or its "corporation" and let those entities funnel my donation to PCE's PAC, then I remain anonymous, as I learned here (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#8277881091086636499)?

Does it matter that someone could pour a million dollars or more into PCE to influence Utah public policy and never be held accountable for that influence?

Someone has to be paying for its tv ads, and it's safe to say that $358,000 didn't cover all of them, PLUS the cost of running their campaign, PLUS the people they brought from other states and paid $6,000 for six weeks' work (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#9178866463962043502), PLUS their attorneys' fees (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html#941576069269867772), PLUS the pay-for-votes plan they started but scrapped (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#6365446034137726617).

If I had to guess, I'd predict that someone, somewhere has tried hard to match what they thought UTPS would likely collect. If that's so, I wouldn't be surprised if PCE has collected and spent a million dollars or more -- all from unidentified donors.

Is it a safe prediction that the regular media will ask these questions, and spend the time to track down the answers? If history is any guide, we may be disappointed again (http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#857283314006361911). Paul Rolly will likely do his part, but there are a lot more reporters than just Mr. Rolly covering this issue.

Based on what we read in their articles, I can't tell whether or not regular media reporters read weblogs. But I do read those weblogs, and I wonder if we as webloggers ought to make sure that the reporters have the benefit of our work. So last night I went back through the 14-day archives of major papers and found the names of reporters who wrote articles about them, and collected their email addresses if those addresses were attached to their articles. Here's the list I made:

From the DesNews:
Jennifer Toomer-Cook, jtcook@desnews.com
Tiffany Erickson, terickson@desnews.com
Lee Davidson, lee@desnews.com
Amy Choate-Nielsen, achoate@desnews.com
Amelia Nielson-Stowell, astowell@desnews.com
Lee Benson, lbenson@desnews.com
Joe Dougherty, jdougherty@desnews.com
Jared Page, jpage@desnews.com

From the Herald-Journal (Logan and Cache County):
Charles Geraci, cgeraci@hjnews.com
Devin Felix, dfelix@hjnews.com

From the St. George Spectrum:
Katie Oliveri, koliveri@thespectrum.com
Ryan Dionne, rdionne@thespectrum.com

From the Trib:
Lisa Schencker, lschencker@sltrib.com
Glen Warchol, gwarchol@sltrib.com

From the Davis County Clipper:
Doug Radunich, dradunich@davisclipper.com
Becky Ginos, bginos@davisclipper.com

From the Park City Record:
Frank Fisher, education@parkrecord.com

From the Ogden Standard-Examiner:
David Troester, dtroester@standard.net
Amy K. Stewart, astewart@standard.net
Sam Cooper, scooper@standard.net

And from the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin:
Sarah Miley, swest@tooeletranscript.com

I hope they will look through the finance reports for themselves and see if my predictions are close. Even so, I hope to send to them whatever interesting facts I find there. At least they'll know that the issue has been researched by the blog community if nowhere else.

Speaking of the blog community, I was pleased to see this week that Tyler Slack at Desultory Thoughts is back with a new post on the voucher referendum, here (http://www.utahadventurevideos.com/blog/). Of course, I appreciate the links, but I think Tyler did a good job cataloging what else has been published on the details of House Bill 148. Check out his work.

What did we learn from the KSL debate?

2007-10-25T07:38:00.000-06:00

Debates over the voucher referendum are coming fast and furious now. I hope to write more about the KSL debate between Richard Eyre and Lisa Johnson, and I will, but I thought I'd put up the links to the KSL video now and add more to this note later.

If you want my opinion, I think Ms. Johnson took this one home with her clarity, consistency and believability. I know that Mr. Eyre is a salesman by trade, but in a matter of important and expensive public policy like this, it might have been better not to appear and sound like a salesman. The most ridiculous moment was when he pulled crumbling Oreo cookies from his pants pocket.

I have to say that the Oreo cookie theme was cute when the Eyres first rolled it out, and it made a good (though misleading) prop for a tv commercial. But after two months of Oreo cookies, I think most people are tired of them (at least I am). Even the moderator seemed to think it was ridiculous to have him drag out crumbling cookies.

Debates are as much about performance as about the information, so I'll make one more point about Mr. Eyre's performance, since he's had a long career in public speaking and should know how to present himself well. For thirty years, Mr. Eyre has presented himself as a "nice guy." But he really didn't come across as "nice" in the debate, he came across as, well, overbearing, leaning over toward Ms. Johnson for part of the time -- when he wasn't trying to make friends with the moderator. (Maybe this is going too far back, but does he remind anyone else of Eddie Haskell, from "Leave It to Beaver"? Really phony and artificially earnest?)

And interrupting a speaker may win you points for being aggressive in big-league debates or especially on the cable news shows, but interrupting Ms. Johnson's responses just reinforced my feeling that Mr. Eyre isn't the "nice guy" that he portrays in his books and appearances on national tv. It makes me wonder, Does he do that at home? Is "bullying" one of the character values taught in his Joy Schools?

For now, the link to the KSL video is here (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2033837).

Who is intimidating & who is informing?

2007-10-24T10:24:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I mentioned the Trib article saying that the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is still struggling to come to a decision whether or not to support the voucher referendum. It reported that pro-voucher special interests have taken matters into their own hands and begun circulating letters to businessmen across the region.

While it's never safe to predict what representatives of special interests will do when ethics clash with a potential profit motive, if I were a gambler I'd bet money that the Salt Lake Chamber will find that common ground pretty soon and come out for the voucher referendum. For one thing, time is running out. And what motivates businessmen is the POTENTIAL for profit. There's plenty of potential for profit when public funds are funneled into the private sector. And compromising one's ethics often stings less than a flu shot, because doing it can garner as many new friends in the business community as it costs you. So I'll stay tuned for that announcement.

By lunchtime yesterday, the Trib had found a copy of this letter and published it here (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7258384). Several things about it caught my attention. One is that these business leaders finally admitted that the goal of the voucher program isn't to improve public education, isn't to reduce class size, isn't to give public schools more funding -- the various lies that have been promoted for the past six months -- but instead, the goal is to give parents an incentive to move their children from public schools to private schools. The businessmen say it in black-and-white:

The new voucher law would create an incentive to move as many of these new students as possible into the private sector...

But that's not all. Mata Hari picked up on this yesterday, too, here (http://againstutahvouchers.blogspot.com/) but I'd like to repeat it: There's a real strong element of Big-Brother intimidation, or old-fashioned bullying, in the letter when it comes to special interests telling businessmen to inform their employees about this referendum, and what to say to their employees, and how to say it. When I scraped out the fluff from the letter, here is that element laid bare:

Dear Fellow Business Leader,

It would take a significant tax increases just to accommodate this [public school enrollment] growth, and that could hurt our citizens and our economy.
...
The new voucher law would create an incentive to move as many of these new students as possible into the private sector and relieve pressure on taxpayers and our public schools.
...
Because of misguided opposition, the new voucher law has been placed on the November 6 ballot and now voters must decide its fate. Unfortunately, no one is talking about the enrollment crisis we face and the important role vouchers will play in avoiding overcrowded classes and massive
tax increases.
...
We are asking you to tell your employees about this aspect of the debate and encourage them to carefully consider the economic
impact of their decision. We have drafted a letter you can use as a template to explain the issue to your employees.
...
Please take the time to go over the information and to add your own thoughts as you discuss this issue with your employees.
...
We also strongly encourage that you remind your employees to vote.

Did you get the message? It says, roughly, We want voters to adopt the voucher referendum. Here's a way to scare them into adopting it: Tell them taxes will increase if they don't. Tell your employees that they can stop their taxes from rising by voting for the referendum. In fact, we're sending you a letter to read to them, or to give to them, and you should add to it if you know of something more than will convince them to vote for the voucher plan. Whatever you do, make sure that you tell them that voting for the voucher plan is a good idea, then tell them to vote.

To me, that's not information, that's intimidation. What comes next, a signed note from the poll supervisor saying you voted, that you can turn in to your manager at work? Punishment for not voting? You lose a shift? Or you get moved to third shift?

Two things make this absurd to me. One is that, as I pointed out yesterday, Parents for Choice in Education did backflips to stop all sorts of public employees -- mainly ones that work for school districts -- from even talking about the referendum on public property; remember the nasty letter to administrators from their attorneys? The other is the panicky argument that if workers don't vote for vouchers, their taxes will go up.

That second argument is what led me to look at what happened in Milwaukee, the grandfather of voucher programs in the country. Voucher supporters used to use Milwaukee as the example all the time. The big newspaper in Milwaukee is the Journal-Sentinel, and it has some online archives you can access for free.

Guess what I found out: Taxes in Milwaukee DID go up. But they went up AFTER Milwaukee enacted a voucher program. And, in fact, they went up partly BECAUSE Milwaukee enacted a voucher program. Might they have gone up anyway? Sure, because as public services expand, and the costs of those services grow, public revenues have to be levied to pay for them.

But the businessmen of Salt Lake City -- at least these ones:

Fred Lampropoulous, CEO, Merit Medical
Keith Rattie, Chairman and CEO Questar Corporation
Patrick Byrne, CEO, Overstock.com Thomas E. Bingham, President, Utah Manufacturers Association
Howard M. Headlee, President, Utah Bankers Association
James V. Olsen, President, Utah Food Industry Association
L. Tasman Biesinger, Executive Vice President, Utah Home Builders Association
M. Royce VanTassell, Vice President, Utah Taxpayers Association
Chris Kyler, Utah Association of Realtors
Candace Daly, National Federation of Independent Business
Lee J. Peacock, Executive Director, Utah Petroleum Association
David A. Litvin, President, Utah Mining Association

are selling a very different equation: Enact a voucher plan, they say, and your taxes will not go up.

Last November, while the Wisconsin legislature was debating its annual budget, reporter Alan Borsuk of the Journal-Sentinel wrote an article here (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=533306) saying that public schools were closing and their enrollments were dropping, while the costs of public-funded private-voucher schools were growing. A total of 18,000 students received vouchers totaling more than $100 million, he wrote.

This is the part that stuck out like a sore thumb, given what the pro-voucher business group in Salt Lake City is telling employees:

Under the state formula for paying for school vouchers, Milwaukee residents pay more in property taxes for each student who uses a voucher than for each student who attends MPS [Milwaukee Public Schools]. Mayor Tom Barrett and others have argued strongly that what they call the "funding flaw" for the voucher program is unfairly burdening taxpayers.
...
In a letter last week to state Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee), Milwaukee School Board President Joe Dannecker said that $7.6 million of the $16.5 million increase in the amount of property tax to be collected for schools for this school year is due to the voucher program and that each voucher student increased property tax collections by $447, while each MPS student increased collections by $91. The total property tax bill being levied by MPS increased this fall by 7.7%.

So 18 years after enacting a city-wide voucher plan in Milwaukee, taxpayers pay almost 500 percent more ($447 per student) from their property tax bill to pay for a private school voucher than they pay to send a student to public schools ($91 per student).

That article was important enough, but Mr. Borsuk published a new one, just today, that is even more important. It says that an organization that pushed to enact the Milwaukee voucher plan 20 years ago, and one of the well-known leaders in that effort, have now changed their minds, saying that "choice may not improve schools."

A study being released today suggests that school choice isn't a powerful tool for driving educational improvement in Milwaukee Public Schools. But more surprising than the conclusion is the organization issuing the study: the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank that has supported school choice for almost two decades, when Milwaukee became the nation's premier center for trying the idea. The institute is funded in large part by the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, an advocate of school choice.

Mr. Borsuk's article is found here (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=678202). The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute sounds like the Sutherland Institute, if it's a conservative "think tank". I wonder if the Sutherland Institute also gets funding from the Bradley Foundation? Mr. Borsuk's article goes on:

Even some of the most ardent supporters of school choice in Milwaukee have seen that the purest version of the idea - in which there is little government oversight of schools, and parental decisions in a free market dictate which schools thrive - does not square with the reality of what happened in Milwaukee when something close to such a system existed. That reality can be summed up in two phrases: "bad schools" and "little change."

Bad schools: A Journal Sentinel investigative report in 2005 of the then-115 schools in the voucher program found that about 10% showed startling signs of weak operations. In short, many parents were choosing bad schools and sticking with them. Escalated government oversight of schools' business practices and a new requirement that all voucher schools be accredited by an outside organization have played roles in putting most of those schools out of business.

Little change: Milwaukee has been a national laboratory for school reform such as the voucher program, yet there is little evidence that it has yielded substantially improved academic results - at least so far. Test scores in MPS, especially for 10th-graders, have been generally flat for years. The record of the voucher schools is unclear, though results from a major study of the program are supposed to begin coming soon.

So here's what I understand: Voucher supporters in Milwaukee wanted a public-funded voucher program with little or no government oversight of voucher schools, leaving only "choice" to decide which schools are good and which aren't, and that's what they got. When that didn't work, the program was changed to allow city or state agencies to oversee the business practices in schools that were failing, and some of them closed because they couldn't meet good business standards. When there were still no improvements, the city required voucher schools to become accredited, and some more of them closed because of they couldn't meet accreditation standards. Still there was no improvement in student test scores.

Haven't we heard from the sponsors of House Bill 148 that vouchers in Utah would improve the quality of public education? That it would cause class sizes to go down? That it would leave more money in public schools? That choice would bring competition, and competition would force public schools to get better? That it wasn't necessary to ask private schools to be accountable or to be accredited, because parents would get to decide what was best for their children?

Doesn't this Milwaukee study, after 18 years of having such a program in place, put the lie to those propositions?

And here's a question: Do you know who Howard Fuller is? Gordon Jones does; Mr. Jones was the first Executive Director of the Utah Education Funding Project, whose name was changed to Parents for Choice in Education, and he continues to serve on PCE's board of directors. In explaining why he supports the voucher referendum, Mr. Jones mentioned Mr. Fuller here (http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/2007/10/supporting_referendum_no_1.shtml), saying,

The appeal of school choice is driving leadership at the national level to the minority community. Leading voucher proponents have included Polly Williams, Floyd Flake and Bernice Gates, leaders in their minority communities, and now the irreplaceable Howard Fuller, with his Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity.

Mr. Fuller is "irreplaceable" as a leader in the voucher movement, Mr. Jones says. That's unfortunate, because the voucher movement will now have to replace him, according to Mr. Borsuk of the Journal-Sentinel:

Howard Fuller, the most prominent supporter of voucher and charter schools in Milwaukee, has changed his position toward agreeing that government oversight of voucher schools is needed. In a recent interview for a workshop of the national Education Writers Association, Fuller said empowering parents to make good choices, improving student performance and creating good schools were proving to be much harder achievements than many once thought.

Asked whether the voucher program was leading to improvements in the achievement of MPS students, as was once expected, Fuller said: "I'm one of those people who believes that we may have oversold that point. . . . I think that any honest assessment would have to say that there hasn't been the deep, wholesale improvement in MPS that we would have thought."

Is this one way of saying that citizens who stood up against vouchers so long ago were right? That citizens who argued for smarter investment in Milwaukee's public schools, rather than funneling money into the private sector, were right? That those citizens who asked impertinent questions when the voucher plan was being debated were right? That citizens who questioned the arguments of the voucher proponents were right? That citizens who were skeptical of the nebulous data used by voucher advocates... were right, all along?

In fact, is this another way of saying that someone should have taken a deep breath and spent more time thinking this through before investing potentially billions of dollars -- and experimenting with an entire generation of schoolchildren's lives -- in a voucher plan?

It sounds, to me, that when special interests order businessmen to tell their employees what to think, and how to vote, that's intimidation. And when a "think tank" went looking for one result but found the opposite result, then published a study saying so, that's information. (It's even a surprising admission!)

In the interest of being informative rather than intimidating, here's a bit of happy information: The early voting period has begun today!

Do businessmen and bloggers agree with KSL?

2007-10-23T11:31:00.000-06:00

It's interesting to see how decisions are being made as we get closer to Election Day. I'm especially interested in the decisions being made by fellow bloggers, mainly because we take the time to write out our thought processes, and I value being able to read those decision-making processes. Those conclusions -- like the conclusions of the KSL editorial board, in an article published yesterday here (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=238&sid=1997679) -- are a lot more valuable to me than to look at the statistics we see in polls, although I'd like to mention them today too.

Getting right to their point, KSL's editors write,

The KSL Editorial Board has thoughtfully considered the views presented by opponents and proponents of school vouchers, and has come to the conclusion that a broad taxpayer supported voucher system should not be implemented in Utah.

Our opposition to vouchers boils down to a fundamental question: Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer?

We think not!

It is not a question of school choice since parents already have a variety of options in Utah. Any parent who so chooses can send a child to a private school, or a charter school, or a different public school! School choice is not the issue!

A vote against vouchers must not be interpreted as a vote for the status quo. Make no mistake about it, there's plenty of room for improvement. Still, contemplate what could be accomplished if the energy that has been directed at vouchers could be redirected toward implementing reasoned, effective and adequately funded reforms in the tried and tested public school system.

In KSL's view, that's where the focus of Utahns ought to be. Let's reject vouchers and work toward making changes that will benefit all Utah children for generations to come.

And there's not an Oreo cookie in sight.

But before I go further, though, I want to thank Marshall at Wasatch Watcher, who was researching the Free Capitalist Project before I ever heard of it. He mentioned it last night here (http://www.wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=313), "During the summer we noticed an organization by the name of Free Capitalist that seemed a little too suspicious." And if you click through his link here (http://www.wasatchwatcher.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=191), you can read his original notes on FCP from June. In fact, I learned from Marshall a new term that I'm going to adopt: "wingnut welfare." (I'll give appropriate credit when I use it.) His research began when he saw billboards advertising the FCP and wondered who was paying for such a grand advertising campaign, and he deduced that it couldn't be a regular small business.

So I think there are some scenarios playing out here:
-the owner of the billboards are paying for the advertising out of their own pocket.
-a wealthy donor shelling out cash to support the advertising campaign.
-this is another right wing astroturf group.

Either way you slice it I don't see how an operation like this is breaking even without some wingnut welfare.

What is wingnut welfare? For those that haven't heard it here is a quick synopsis. Basically wingnut welfare is support for an organization that could not exist in the real world without the infusion of cash from usually a wealthy donor (that incidentally usually benefits from right wing policies) like the Walton family.

Now this would not normally be so hard to swallow if it wasn't the fact that an organization like this goes around telling people how great the free market is but can't even support its own activities.

I think I agree with Marshall. I think the Icebergs are probably great money-makers for Rick Koerber, but I don't think they're big enough to pay for the FCP ad campaign.

Thanks, Marshall, for your notes and for giving me a new term to use.

Now, whether we look at polls or we read the decisions written by thoughtful people in the blogs, it looks like Parents for Choice in Education, the Free Capitalist Project and the sponsors of House Bill 148 aren't fooling many people. Just this morning, KCPW reported that the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce -- which includes Patrick Byrne, PCE's largest individual (public) donor -- can't agree on whether or not to support the voucher plan. Reporter Julie Rose said here (http://www.kcpw.org/article/4652) that the pro-voucher business leaders are so angry at the delay that they're acting on their own:

Members of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce are so divided on vouchers that Vice President Natalie Gochnour says they're struggling to take a position on the issue. Several prominent CEOs are fed up with the delay and now running their own campaign in support of school choice.
...
The group is distributing form letters to business leaders, asking them to promote vouchers to their employees...

Isn't that strange? Business leaders are going to ask their employees to vote for the voucher referendum. Isn't that what PCE's lawyers said was illegal? Remember, PCE's attorneys sent a letter to school district administrators more than a month ago telling them they couldn't allow any literature about the referendum to be displayed at their work sites, and they couldn't allow school employees to talk about the referendum either.

I wonder if PCE's attorneys will send a letter to Mr. Byrne and the pro-voucher members of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, advising them that urging their employees to take any particular action on Election Day is not legal? Or is it? Maybe it was only illegal to talk about the details of the voucher plan or to hand out literature about it, if doing so might lead people to oppose it. Maybe it's entirely legal for business owners in the private sector to tell their employees to vote for it. Is it legal?

Anyway, Ms. Rose's point is that the business community is split on vouchers. If that's true, they might benefit from reading Pramahaphil's post at Green Jello, which outlines the suggested costs of the plan, and the suggested "savings" of the plan, then reaches a conclusion about the plan here (http://pramahaphil.blogspot.com/2007/10/vouchers-humble-pie.html). Frankly, it's one of the best, most-reasoned posts I've read about the issue. Pramahaphil writes,

I have been reviewing the [Legislative Fiscal Analysis] report again and again, and I have hit a paradigm shifting roadblock in my support of vouchers. I do still believe vouchers would produce a fairly decent net savings for the first few years (savings ranging somewhere near 4-6.2 millon or in a worse case scenario a loss) , but there will come an equilibrium within 5 to 6 years where the savings break even, and when vouchers fully implement in the 13th year and onward vouchers will inevitiably begin to net annual losses. One might argue about the ambiguities of savings from private school student who would have gone to private schools with or without vouchers and the students who may attend private schools because vouchers make the difference, however it is impossible to get around the fact as time goes by (especially after year thirteen) all students in private schools will be receiving voucher money (whether or not they wanted or needed vouchers to incentivize them out of the public school system).

Judging from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, from year 13 (and I assume from then on) vouchers will net annual losses between $43,088,978 and $59,492,020. There may have been some options that could have alleviated this undesirable effect of subsidizing students who were "no-matter-what-the-cost" private school bound such as requiring a 1 or 2 year period of public school attendance for voucher eligibility. However, with the exception to the eligibility of current Utah-residing, school-aged students no such requirements were included in HB148 or 174.

Pramahaphil is an accountant, so it gives me even more cause for concern when he spends this much time poring over the Legislative Fiscal Analysis and finds more questions than answers. I tend to rely on my own accountant to know how to find workable solutions when we meet at tax-time. If Pramahaphil has hit a stumbling block, maybe it's time to step back and take a deep breath. He continues,

After the 13th year and beyond it would be a drain on the public coffers, and I'm afraid it would be viewed as nothing more than another entitlement program.

If HB148 or 174 would have had a provision forcing voucher recipients to enter public school for at least a year or more before being voucher eligible, the thirteen year savings to loss issue may have been solved. This is not the case, HB148 would have its beneficial savings for a season but in the long-run would become a drain of Utah's tax dollars. I hope that if and when Ref 1 is voted down the Legislature reconsiders the issue, and looks at how to resolve the 13 year crunch.

Regretfully, I think I will be dropping my support of referendum 1 with the forlorned hope that the idea doesn't die permanently in this state. If this damages my credibility -- so be it. The idea is good, but the plan's execution has that 1 major flaw for me. This paradigm shift has not been an easy one for me to embrace.

In comments at the bottom of Pramahaphil's post, a lot of readers praise his courage for taking this position, and I agree with them.

Mike Jones at Utahania is one of them, writing here (http://utahania.blogspot.com/2007/10/other-people-question-spending-tax.html), "Pramahaphil over at Green Jello is even an accountant. I am not very good at accounting, so reading the numbers in the Voter's Guide was all I could handle. Pramahaphil read the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, probably enjoyed it, and reached a similar conclusion to mine."

Darren Draper is another blogger who spelled out his rationale for his "7 readers in Utah," here (http://drapestakes.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-ill-be-voting-against-referendum-1.html). Darren is an education technology specialist from Sandy who works for the Jordan School District. He writes,

This issue of vouchers, currently being referred to as Referendum 1 (here and also here, see page 4), will be decided in three weeks when Utahns will vote on one of the most debated, polarizing issues in state history. As I've been asked by several people "why referendum 1 is so bad", I'll give you my take now.

While never guaranteed to be great, private school can be great... for those that can afford it.

Most Utahns can't afford private school - even with the funding that vouchers would provide.

Hence, Referendum 1 would be a way to reward the people that already utilize private schools and not really a way to recruit new students.

To continue, I honestly believe the opening paragraphs of our nation's Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore, I believe (like many of the educators that served to shape our nation's educational system):

-Education is one of those unalienable rights to which all men (and women) are entitled.

-Neither liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can truly be obtained without an education.

In closing, I think there are many questions that all people need to answer for themselves:
-How do you feel about public funding for private schools?

-Have you studied the issues yourself?

-Do you think that every child has a right to a quality education?

Another blogger I enjoy reading, Bob Aagard, has spelled out his views on the plan itself but also takes a hard stand against the tactics used to promote it here (http://bobaagard.blogspot.com/2007/10/national-groups-imposing-things-on.html). After leading a small campaign of his own to find young Jeffrey Isbell, the blogger from Illinois hired by PCE to do its work on the internet, Bob writes this note:

My problem with Jeff is not his coming to Utah to work for something he believes in. That would be hypocrisy on my part. Is that any different than my going to Minnesota for two years to share the Gospel with those good people?

My problem lies in the hypocrisy of PCE complaining about NEA money (which Utah educators have paid into for years) coming in, but ignore the large percentage of their funding that comes from out of state. Not to mention their out of state employees.

Vouchers have always been about outside groups spending money to force this on Utah, in the hopes that it will spread across the country. Kinda like forcing democracy on the middle east. Only, instead of doing it with guns, they are doing it with money. Look at all the money the Walton heirs of plugged in to get pro-voucher legislators elected.

Recent polling has showed that 61% of Utahns will vote against vouchers in two weeks. 61%. That's a higher percentage then voted for John Huntsman in 2004.

Utahns don't want this program. Please stop forcing your views on us. You're wasting your money.

Which brings me to that poll, described here in a Trib article (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7236295). This one was done by The Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, and it shows that 61 of voters say they'll vote against the plan.

That followed a poll done by Dan Jones and Associates earlier in October, described in a DesNews article here (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695216987,00.html). In that one, "sixty percent of Utah voters say they would likely vote against a voucher program."

And that result followed an even earlier poll: "In July, the Deseret Morning News reported on a similar poll that found that 57 percent of those surveyed would most likely vote against the voucher program..."

From these results, it would appear that a lot of people have, just as Governor Huntsman suggested last week, taken the time to read the plan, considered carefully its details, weighed its impacts, and come to the same conclusions drawn by the KSL editorial board.

How does Mr. Koerber avoid reporting?

2007-10-22T12:54:00.000-06:00

Last week, after I got a note from a "Free Capitalist insider," I wondered how the Free Capitalist Project was registered with the Lieutenant Governor's office, since it was allowing its resources to be used by Parents for Choice in Education to support the voucher referendum. I would think that a mailing list, even if it's an email list, would be a thing of value. If it wasn't valuable, why would PCE want to use it? And if it is valuable, then contributing the use of it to a referendum campaign would have to be reported somewhere.

So I looked at the Lieutenant Governor's website again to see if the Free Capitalist Project had a political action committee. It doesn't.

I looked to see if FCP has a political issues committee. It doesn't.

I looked to see if it's registered as a corporation. It isn't.

It has no statement of organization as a PAC or as a PIC.

And when I search the "candidate contributor summary" feature, I find that FCP hasn't reported any contributions to any campaigns.

Yet both the Trib and the DesNews last week reported clearly that the Free Capitalist Project had allowed the use of its email list -- which has to be considered something valuable -- for Parents for Choice in Education employees. And the embarrassing retraction offered by FCP said the PCE employees were also FCP volunteers. So FCP has to be registered somehow, somewhere, right?

FCP isn't registered as a business with the Utah Department of Commerce here (https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/index), although it does business in Utah. There's a Free Capitalist Enterprises LLC in Provo. Its agent is Forrest Allen, but its address is 85 Eastbay Boulevard, which is the same address shown at the Lieutenant Governor's website for a string of $5,000 contributions made to Parents for Choice in Education on September 12, 2006. Each of these businesses, all located at 85 East Bay Boulevard in Provo, gave $5,000 to PCE on that date: Founders Capital LLC, Hill Erickson LLC, Franklin Squires Investments LLC, McGuire Group LLC, and New Castle Holdings. Some other individuals and businesses are shown in that report giving $5,000 to PCE on that date, and one of them is Rick Koerber of Springville, who is apparently the owner of all of the businesses I just listed.

Also, I googled the FranklinSquires company name again, and sure enough, Rick Koerber is founder and CEO of FranklinSquires Investments.

So Mr. Koerber = FranklinSquires Investments = 85 East Bay Boulevard in Provo = Free Capitalist Enterprises = Free Capitalist Project.

That's not all you'll find if you google FranklinSquires Investments, I learned. There's a website here (http://www.mycollector.com/news_FranklinSquires2.html) that points to actions taken by the Wyoming Securities Division against FranklinSquires Investments, and news about a lawsuit going all the way back to 1997 has been given its own website here (www.FranklinSquiresLawsuit.com). I learned two more things about Mr. Koerber -- that apparently he owns or operates a "university" (called FranklinSquires University) and that he owns the Iceberg Drive Inns!

With 11 Iceberg Drive Inn locations in three states, the rapidly expanding foodservice franchise is famous for its deliciously think, made-to-order shakes standing two inches above an oversized cup. Founded in the summer of 1960 in Salt Lake City, Utah, the original Iceberg Drive Inn quickly turned into the city’s most popular ice cream destination. Today Iceberg Drive Inn, Inc. provides unique, flavorsome products to thousands of Americans and continues to make each of its shakes the old fashioned way: personally by hand.

NOW I know how he makes his money!

Plus, there's this link (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070510100845AAuJ3wT&show=7) but I honestly don't know how to evaluate the information there, whether it comes from people who have direct experience with Mr. Koerber and his companies or whether it comes from his competitors.

And there are questions about "equity milling," something apparently devised by Mr. Koerber, here (http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/sdcia/vpost?id=1821780).

One of the links took me back to Wikipedia's entry on the Free Capitalist Project, which reiterated what I thought: that FCP does do business in Utah, though it isn't registered anywhere as a business. The entry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Capitalist_Project) says,

Membership in the Free Capitalist Project is free and open to the public, however individuals are required to make a public declaration called the "Producer Pledge" at a formal Free Capitalist events in order to become a formal member of the organization.
...
Members are not required to pay a membership fee, however following the one hour Thursday night Free Enterprise Forum meetings, the FCP holds "Prosperity Quest Study Group" sessions which are open only to FCP members who have become "Free Capitalist Apprentice Members" which includes the requirement to have paid a $250 fee and a $30 month fee.

Those fees represent a business transaction, right? If so, then where is the FCP registered as a business? At the Better Business Bureau?

No, FCP isn't shown at the Better Business Bureau of Salt Lake City, but FranklinSquires Investments is. And while it isn't a member of the BBB, it does get some attention from the BBB, as explained here (http://www.saltlakecity.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=22008292&language=1&bu). Six complaints against FranklinSquires were filed in the past 36 months for contract issues, billing or collection issues, or refund or exchange issues, and at least one is still unresolved.

I started with a simple question and still don't have a simple answer. I learned a lot about Mr. Koerber's business dealings, but I still can't tell how his Free Capitalist Project is able to use its resources to help the voucher referendum without registering as a political issues committee, or as a political action committee, or as a corporation, with the Lieutenant Governor's office. Does anyone else know?