Politicizing the State Board of Education is a Bad Idea

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Rep. Carl Wimmer is floating a bill that would increase the size of the State Board of Education from its current 15 members to 29 members. It would model the 29 board positions on the current 29 state senate districts. Worst of all, it would require candidates for the State Board of Education to declare party affiliations and subject these candidates to the political convention process (and ultimately straight party ticket voting).

Wimmer’s bill is a solution in search of a problem. The reason this bill is being sought is simple: the State School Board has shown itself to be a truly independent, nonpartisan governmental entity. This, of course, raises the ire of the current Republican leadership because the State School Board has refused to say “how high?” when the Republican leadership says “jump!” The nerve! We have discovered a governmental institution (a constitutionally established one at that) that refuses to mindlessly answer the beck and call of the Republican leadership. Isn’t it obvious that if we don’t reign in this uppity institution, other state agencies and institutions might start getting similar ideas. So how do we get this errant institution back under the thumb? One way is to make sure we pack it with individuals more beholden to Republican leadership than the people who Republican leadership has picked for them to represent.

If Wimmer’s bill were to succeed, then the State Board of Education would simply become another partisan arm of the Republican leadership subject to their gerrymandering and the extremism of the party’s delegates. No longer would sound independent legal analysis and public policy rule the day. One need only look to the most recent voucher controversy to understand this. In that case, instead of the legal analysis that HB 174 was meaningless without HB 148 (a position proffered by an independent State Board and endorsed unanimously by the state’s highest court), we would have the flawed legal reasoning of the Attorney General and the Republican leadership being implemented, resulting in an illegal and unwanted taxpayer funded voucher program.

Politicizing the State School Board will not result in better education for our kids. It will only result in Republican leadership getting their way, right or (mostly) wrong, once again.

Youch! That’s Gotta Sting

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Well today the Utah Supreme Court added some clarity to the voucher mess. While it did say that the current ballot title penned by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel will stay just the way it is (i.e., only referencing and analyzing HB 148) the Supreme Court unanimously rejected outright the Attorney General’s and voucher proponents’ legal contention that HB 174 stands alone as a voucher implementation bill. The Supreme Court essentially said that HB 148 and HB 174 are joined at the hip and that without HB 148, HB 174 is meaningless and unenforceable. (”If the voters choose to reject HB 148, HB 174 will not create an additional voucher program.”) So two important implications: 1) a rejection of HB 148 in the referendum will have the effect of also voiding HB 174; and 2) in the meantime until the referendum vote, the Board of Education doesn’t have to implement vouchers based solely on HB 174. Leave it to the Judiciary to maintain a clear head in a crisis.

The biggest loser in this chapter seems to be Attorney General Mark Shurtleff whose legal analysis (and political instincts??) appears to have been dead wrong. I guess Carol Lear and Jean Hill got it right. Instead of trying to fire them, maybe he should listen to them. Note to State Board of Education: Keep taking your counsel from your long-time attorneys and ignore the Big Bully. The Supremes have got their (and your) back. I have a hunch a majority of Utah voters will too.

The Irony of Passing the Voucher Buck (and a response to a little finger pointing)

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Well the voucher mess has now moved to the courts. Both sides have filed law suits to try and untangle the disaster that is HB 148 and HB 174. The Utah Supreme Court will hear arguments in the two cases this Friday. It will be great political and judicial theater for sure. What I truly love the most about the latest chapter in the voucher drama is the rich irony that we will be saved by the courts. How wonderful it is to see conservative legislators, such as Senator Bramble, who extol the supremacy of the Legislative Branch, throwing up their hands (after the requisite amount of public platitudes about the will of the people and sufficient wailing and gnashing of teeth) and pleading with the Judiciary to sort out this mess over which the impotent Legislature now seems to have no control (or responsibility). So the solution is not to have the political will and intestinal fortitude (i.e., leadership) to fix this mess of our own making but rather to put our fate in the hands of those five wise Justices, even if they are ever prone to judicial activism (i.e., decisions the conservatives don’t like). Talk about passing the buck.

Oh and by the way, the Senate Site recently suggested that all this is somehow the fault of the voucher opponents for picking a vehicle (i.e., a referendum rather than an initiative) that won’t take them where they want to go. Let’s not forget that the bad process that got us where we are today was 1) a poorly conceived original voucher bill and 2) a poorly conceived separate “clean up” bill. The voucher proponents got lucky and passed the poorly conceived HB 148 by one vote. When critics pointed out some real problems with the bill, the voucher proponents realized that the original bill did result in some bad public policy. It was their reaction in running the second poorly conceived bill that set this current unpleasantness in motion.

What the Heck Does That Mean?

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Today Governor Huntsman, President Valentine and Speaker Curtis issued the following statement:

Statement by Utah’s Governor, President of the Senate,
and Speaker of the House of Representatives

Salt Lake City - The following is a joint statement by Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, President John Valentine and Speaker Greg Curtis:

Citizens bear the ultimate responsibility for how their government operates and how their children are educated. As elected officials, we support the constitutional right of the people of our state to ratify or reject legislation through the referendum process.

We encourage a healthy process and a clear public decision on Utah’s Voucher Policy in November. In order for the referendum process to be effective, the electorate takes on the obligation to make an informed decision when casting their vote. We hope people become educated on this issue and engage in a manner befitting the citizens of a free republic.

A Special Session will not be called since an easy and practical remedy does not exist. We, however, are making our intentions clear: we honor the rule of law and will respect the outcome of the election.

So what does that mean? Let’s take it in reverse order.

“We, however, are making our intentions clear: we honor the rule of law and will respect the outcome of the election.”

“…will respect the outcome of the election.”  Huh? So if the referendum on HB 148 succeeds, that is the voters say NO to vouchers, does that mean these three will lead the way in repealing HB 174, too, or does it mean that they will respect the decision to repeal HB 148 and they will push ahead with the implementation of HB 174 which they maintain is not legally the subject of the referendum? How about a clear statement like: “If the referendum succeeds, then we will repeal HB 174.” Now that would be making their intentions clear.

“We encourage a healthy process and a clear public decision on Utah’s Voucher Policy in November.”

Nice sentiment, but the process was not healthy in the first place because the two bills produced this confusing result. The confusion that exists and the messy process that is now resulting cannot be fixed with mere “encouragement.” It takes leadership. Calling a special session and doing the right thing by making HB 174 also contingent on the outcome of the referendum would not only “encourage a healthy process and clear public decision,” it would guarantee it.

“In order for the referendum process to be effective, the electorate takes on the obligation to make an informed decision when casting their vote. We hope people become educated on this issue and engage in a manner befitting the citizens of a free republic.”

Undoubtedly, the people of Utah will educate themselves and make an informed decision on this issue, but the question remains: If and when the referendum on HB 148 succeeds, will the Governor and the Republican leadership interpret the vote as a repudiation of vouchers altogether, that is both HB 148 and HB174?

“Citizens bear the ultimate responsibility for how their government operates and how their children are educated.”

Citizens bear the responsibility for how their government operates, and as importantly, who operates their government. Watch closely, citizens of Utah. Watch your current leadership take a pass on clearing up this voucher mess and watch to see if they abide by your wishes after the referendum. If they don’t get the picture, maybe then it will be time to change how your government operates by changing who is in charge of operating it.

The Utah Legislature Takes a Stand Against Animal Suffering

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

The other day I was combing through the Utah Code (yes, I am a crazy lawyer legislator who actually reads the Code) and found a provision that struck me as a bit ironic, especially in light of the vigorous debate over Henry’s Law, the bill to make animal cruelty a third degree felony. Here is what I found:

76-6-413. Release of fur-bearing animals — Penalty — Finding.

(1) In any case not amounting to a felony of the second degree, any person who intentionally and without permission of the owner releases any fur-bearing animal raised for commercial purposes is guilty of a felony of the third degree.
(2) The Legislature finds that the release of fur-bearing animals raised for commercial purposes subjects the animals to unnecessary suffering through deprivation of food and shelter and compromises their genetic integrity, thereby permanently depriving the owner of substantial value.

What struck me as particularly interesting was the second sentence wherein the Utah Legislature expresses its worry about subjecting animals, i.e., the kind that produce nice fur coats to keep them warm during the cold days of the legislative session, from “unnecessary suffering through deprivation of food and shelter”by being released from captivity.

Interesting that the Legislature will jump to the defense of commercially valuable fur-bearing animals and make it a third degree felony if some callous person releases them from posh captivity (where I am sure they experience no suffering at all) into the cold, cruel world where they may experience “unnecessary suffering through deprivation of food and shelter,” but won’t make it a third degree felony when some idiot puts Henry in the oven, causing him “unnecessary suffering” through other means.

Well at least this provision is an admission that animals, in fact, can suffer and that we should punish people who cause such suffering at the level of a felony.

Governor, a Special Session, please.

The STD/Fertility Crisis: Time to Wake Up Utah!

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District 2

Utah has a dirty little secret. There is a little-known crisis brewing in Utah that nobody seems to want to talk about or acknowledge: Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs).

Here are the ugly facts. According to a Deseret Morning News story last month, Gonorrhea rates in Utah increased a staggering 195% between 2000 and 2005, from 231 to 896 cases. The jump was nearly five times the increase found in other Western states and comes at a time when the national rate is on the decline. At the same time, Chlamydia cases in Utah increased 110% during the same period.

Not only do STDs have potentially life-threatening effects, if untreated, they impact fertility. According to studies by the World Health Organization, 38% of infertility cases are caused by sexually transmitted diseases. The WHO also notes that STDs are the most avoidable cause of infertility. This fact about the fertility impacts of STDs should get the attention of our family-centric, baby factory of a state. The bottom line is that the STD crisis is not only a health crisis, it is potentially a fertility crisis.

Interestingly, at the same time we are beginning to learn about the STD crisis, we also are finding out that our reliance on abstinence-only sex education is not having any affect on our people’s decisions about whether or not to have sex. A recent study by the Mathematica Policy Institute shows that abstinence-only programs do not increase the number of young adults who wait to have sex.

In Utah, state law mandates abstinence-only education. State law also specifically prohibits the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices, i.e., condoms.

Now let me connect these dots. So, while we teach abstinence-only which does not reduce the number of young people who have sex, we also ensure that they are not educated about how to protect themselves from STDs, i.e., condoms, which they are getting and spreading with increasing and frightening frequency. Sadly, the consequence to this “head-in-the-sand” approach is that we are putting our young people’s health and their fertility at risk by not equipping them with adequate information to make informed choices about protecting themselves.

Time to wake up Utah.

The Voucher Mess: How we got into it and how we can get out

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Assuming the Lt. Governor certifies the requisite number of valid signatures that have been submitted to place the voucher issue on the ballot, the ensuing vote on HB 148, Parents Choice in Education Act, should be properly interpreted as an up or down vote on the issue of whether the citizens of this state want a private school voucher program funded by taxpayer dollars. I believe the vast majority of the nearly 130,000 Utahns who signed their name to the petition, including myself, were seeking a straight-forward, clear vote on whether we should have a taxpayer-funded private school voucher program. Unfortunately, because there were two bills (HB 148 & HB 174) regarding the creation and implementation of such a program that passed the Legislature last session, there is some ambiguity surrounding the voucher referendum and what its outcome might mean.

During this past legislative session, HB 148 was the primary voucher bill. It passed the House by one vote. When that bill came to the Senate, it was debated and amendments were offered. HB 148 did have some problems that even the voucher proponents recognized. All of the amendments offered were voted down by the Republican majority because if any of those amendments had passed, the bill would have had to go back to the House for further action. Going back to the House was a scary proposition for voucher proponents because they were uncertain whether they could hold their votes in the House. In the end, HB 148 passed the Senate with all eight Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The Governor signed the bill immediately.

A few days later, another bill, HB 174, School Voucher Amendments, was presented to the Legislature. This bill was explained as a clean-up bill; a bill to fix the very concerns that many of the voucher opponents had expressed during the debate on HB 148. Some of the amendment that we had offered to HB 148 had been incorporated into HB 174. Knowing that the primary voucher bill had been signed by the Governor and wanting to cure some of the more egregious problems with the original voucher bill (like requiring private school teachers to undergo criminal background checks the same way public school teachers must), I, and many of my colleagues opposed to vouchers, voted for HB 174. Little did we know that doing so would create an issue on the referendum front. HB 174 passed the Legislature by two-thirds majorities in both bodies. The effect of this was that the bill became referendum-proof. According to Utah law, if a bill passes by two-thirds majority, it cannot be subject to a referendum. Unfortunately, there is enough of the original bill repeated in HB 174 to implement the voucher program even if the referendum against HB 148 succeeds. In other words, HB 174 appears to be a stand alone voucher bill in its own right. Unfortunately, none of us were made aware of the plans for a referendum on the voucher law when we cast our votes on HB 174.

And therein lies the rub. We find ourselves in the untenable position where it is perfectly possible that the voters could approve the repeal of HB 148 because they oppose a taxpayer-funded private school voucher program while at the same time a taxpayer-funded private voucher program is being implemented pursuant to the referendum-proof HB 174.

So, what to do? Well, here is what I call on Governor Huntsman and my fellow legislators to do. Governor Huntsman should call a Special Session (he likely has to anyway to put the referendum on the ballot for the February Western States Presidential Primary) and put on the Call a bill to suspend the implementation of any taxpayer-funded private school voucher program, i.e., both HB 148 and HB 174, until after the referendum. The bill would instruct the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to write the ballot language for the referendum to make it clear that the referendum is on the broader question of vouchers. This would make it crystal clear that the referendum is about the issue of vouchers in general; a popular up or down vote on taxpayer-funded private school vouchers. If the referendum passes, the issue would be settled and the bill would bar the implementation of HB 148 and HB 174. If the referendum fails, then game on; Utah has a voucher program. My fellow legislators should support this proposal. This is what was intended in seeking the referendum on HB 148 all along. This is perhaps one of the most important and controversial issues to face the state in many years. It is appropriate that the people should decide the issue in a clear and unequivocal manner.