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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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!