Pledge for Ethics Reform

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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.


3. 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.


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


5. 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"?

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

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

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

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!

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.