The China Report

by Senator Mike Dmitrich
Senate Minority Leader
Senate District 27

As you are probably aware, I just returned from a legislative trip to the Liaoning Province, Utah’s sister state, located in northeastern China. Below is a brief synopsis of many hours spent with government officials in China.

I would like to compliment Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble on his exemplary conduct in leading our legislative delegation. Without exception, Senator Bramble made a conscientious effort to include all members of the delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, in all presentations made to the Chinese officials. We owe him a big thank you for his efforts.

China is a rapidly developing nation with great resources and needs. Utah, particularly rural Utah, can benefit from the relationship we are building with China’s Liaoning Province. Utah’s expertise in technologies for safely and cleanly using our natural resources, as well as our educational and cultural resources, can greatly benefit Liaoning Province while helping Utah to succeed in today’s world economy.

Liaoning is rich in natural resources, just like rural Utah. Unlike rural Utah, though, the Chinese have struggled to make advances in mining, exploration, and extraction technologies. Also, they have not made great strides in mine safety as we have. During my visit, I was able to discuss these concerns with leaders in the Liaoning Province, and I am confident Utah can export its expertise and mine safety equipment to China to help decrease the number of mining deaths in their province. The provincial officials also discussed other mutually beneficial partnerships, like coal gasification, utilization of coal-bed methane, and uranium mining.

We also met with educational leaders and discussed possible cooperation with educational exchanges. At Liaoning University, we saw a modern university with a strong desire for educational partnerships in America. The Chinese are building universities at a startling pace, trying to move their economy from low-skilled manufacturing jobs to higher skilled ones. As other countries like Vietnam become more competitive in low-skilled manufacturing, this is increasingly important for China. Many of their students study in the United States, which gives us the opportunity to influence China’s future leaders and encourage political reforms we hope will accompany China’s economic growth.

Other visits were to high-tech parks and manufacturing facilities. These are modern facilities with a young and diligent workforce. These industries are growing quickly and attracting more and more workers. There are many opportunities for foreign investment and for understanding the characteristics that make China such an attractive place to do business.

In our meetings with government leaders at the city, provincial, and even national level, we learned that China needs the resources of states like Utah to continue its economic reforms. These visits help foster the cooperative environment that can lead to genuine reform in China, both economically and politically. Utah has talent and ingenuity ready to be shipped around the world in the form of people and products. These people and products can benefit China and Utah simultaneously. This is what we discovered in our meetings in China as we built relationships to cooperatively move forward in our shrinking world.

How Does This Make Any Sense?

by Senator Scott McCoy
Senate District Two

Recently a constituent called me in distress. He is involved in a case with DCFS. Here are the facts in a nutshell.

Frank is an openly gay man. He is a business owner and has a long-term partner he has been living with for the past 14 years in a home that they own. They are financially stable and do not require aid from the state or federal governments. Frank is an uncle to a four-year-old boy. His brother, the boy’s father, is a drug addict and presently incarcerated. At one point, DCFS took the boy out of the father’s custody and placed him with his grandmother. Frank and his partner helped the grandmother raise the boy for the last two years. They have an established relationship and bond with the young man. Unfortunately, recently the grandmother passed away from cancer and the boy is now in state custody. The boy’s father wants Frank to have custody. DCFS has evaluated Frank and his home and has determined that Frank and the home are fit to raise the boy. Frank is the boy’s blood relative. There are no other living or competent blood relatives to raise the boy.

So this seems like a no-brainer right? Frank should be given custody and should raise him, right? That is not the case. Frank was denied approval by DCFS. How can this be you ask? Well, here is the wrinkle (injustice). Remember that Frank is a gay man, a characteristic that fortunately by itself does not disqualify him from receiving custody of his nephew and raising him. However, also remember that Frank has found his way into a stable, long-term relationship with his partner and they live together, i.e., they cohabitate. This fact, that Frank and his partner are in a stable, long-term relationship and live together, disqualifies them from receiving custody of and raising his nephew under Utah Code Ann. 78-30-1.

Yes, because Frank and his partner are in a stable, long-term relationship, one that happens to be a gay relationship, they are not allowed to adopt and raise Frank’s nephew, even though the biological father wishes Frank and his partner to do so and despite the fact that Frank, as a single gay man, could adopt the boy if only he were not in a stable, long-term relationship with his partner. So, Frank’s crime here is that he was able to form a stable, long-term relationship with his partner. As a result, guess what happens to Frank’s nephew: he goes into the foster care system and goes to live with strangers until one day he might be adopted.

To me, this makes no sense and demonstrates why Utah’s policy prohibiting gay adoption simply does not make sense. This policy, in this case at least, will tear a family apart and contradict the parental wishes of the biological father.

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.