A Plea to the Governor
By Senator Mike Dmitrich
Senate Minority Leader
Showing posts with label HB148. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HB148. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. [Power vested in Senate, House, People.]
(1) The legislative power of the State shall be vested in:
(a) A Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).
To read more click here!
To be continued...
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Wayne Holland Jr. says: Does KSL believe in the referendum process or not?
"KSL wrongly takes the position referenda are a waste of time rather than a valuable check on legislative power or an important means of fostering debate within our representative democracy. Referenda are a necessary check on legislative power, especially in a state that has seen considerable gerrymandering making it difficult for the people to truly hold their representatives accountable on Election Day."Read Utah Democratic Chair, Wayne Holland Jr.'s, "Does KSL believe in the referendum process or not?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Deseret News: Voucher issue up to voters? Most Utahns say they'd sign referendum petition
By Tiffany Erickson
Deseret Morning News
Over two-thirds of Utahns say they would sign a petition that would allow voters to overturn the state's new school voucher system.
Deseret Morning News graphic In a new Dan Jones & Associates poll conducted for the
Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV, 70 percent of those surveyed said they would most likely sign the petition. And 55 percent said they would vote against vouchers.
"We have always believed the majority of people don't want vouchers, and the more they understand them the more that will be true," said Pat Rusk, spokeswoman for Utahns for Public Schools and former Utah Education Association president.
The voucher law, referred to as the Parents for Choice in Education Act, provides Utah families with a private school tuition voucher ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student attending a private school, based on parents' income. But opponents, including Utahns for Public Schools, don't want state funding going to private schools.
The poll of 418 Utahns, conducted March 7 and 8, has a 5 percent margin of error.
Last week leaders from the newly formed Utahns for Public Schools applied for a referendum petition that could put the final decision on vouchers into the hands of voters during the general election in 2008, in the hopes of voting the law down.
Even so, Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, who was the sponsor of the voucher bill, said that once the public has a better understanding of what the bill actually does, many of those who are currently opposed to it will most likely warm up to the idea.
"A lot of people don't understand exactly what the bill does," Urquhart said. "As we get closer to a referendum vote, the details will be flushed out — when people learn the specifics of legislation that was passed, they get more comfortable with it."
But Utahns for Public Sch
ools are banking on just the opposite and said that as the public starts to further understand the specifics in the bill the numbers of Utahns in opposition will grow.
Deseret Morning News graphic About 17,000 petitions went out this week, and Utahns for Public Schools has 40 days to gather more than 92,000 signatures. Rusk said there has been an overwhelming response and petitions have already started coming back in.
But this week some lawmakers said the school voucher law would remain in effect even if a referendum against the measure succeeds and voters reject the law, since an amendment bill that wasn't targeted would remain on the books.
Lawmakers said the amendment bill, HB174, could stand alone, since the "heart and soul" of the voucher bill is also written in the amendment.
Voucher opponents disagree, saying it would be impossible to implement a voucher program with the fragments of another bill that boosts funding for the program.
"I think it's an attempt not to allow the people to have a voice on this because (voucher supporters) know it will be voted down," Rusk said.
Leaders said that matter would most likely be decided by the courts.
"This is going to be the most interesting public policy debate in the in state of Utah in the past 10 years," said Ric Cantrell, chief deputy of the Utah Senate.
For more information about the referendum petitions, visit www.utahnsforpublicschools.org.
Deseret Morning News
Over two-thirds of Utahns say they would sign a petition that would allow voters to overturn the state's new school voucher system.
Deseret Morning News graphic In a new Dan Jones & Associates poll conducted for the
Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV, 70 percent of those surveyed said they would most likely sign the petition. And 55 percent said they would vote against vouchers."We have always believed the majority of people don't want vouchers, and the more they understand them the more that will be true," said Pat Rusk, spokeswoman for Utahns for Public Schools and former Utah Education Association president.
The voucher law, referred to as the Parents for Choice in Education Act, provides Utah families with a private school tuition voucher ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student attending a private school, based on parents' income. But opponents, including Utahns for Public Schools, don't want state funding going to private schools.
The poll of 418 Utahns, conducted March 7 and 8, has a 5 percent margin of error.
Last week leaders from the newly formed Utahns for Public Schools applied for a referendum petition that could put the final decision on vouchers into the hands of voters during the general election in 2008, in the hopes of voting the law down.
Even so, Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, who was the sponsor of the voucher bill, said that once the public has a better understanding of what the bill actually does, many of those who are currently opposed to it will most likely warm up to the idea.
"A lot of people don't understand exactly what the bill does," Urquhart said. "As we get closer to a referendum vote, the details will be flushed out — when people learn the specifics of legislation that was passed, they get more comfortable with it."
But Utahns for Public Sch
ools are banking on just the opposite and said that as the public starts to further understand the specifics in the bill the numbers of Utahns in opposition will grow.Deseret Morning News graphic About 17,000 petitions went out this week, and Utahns for Public Schools has 40 days to gather more than 92,000 signatures. Rusk said there has been an overwhelming response and petitions have already started coming back in.
But this week some lawmakers said the school voucher law would remain in effect even if a referendum against the measure succeeds and voters reject the law, since an amendment bill that wasn't targeted would remain on the books.
Lawmakers said the amendment bill, HB174, could stand alone, since the "heart and soul" of the voucher bill is also written in the amendment.
Voucher opponents disagree, saying it would be impossible to implement a voucher program with the fragments of another bill that boosts funding for the program.
"I think it's an attempt not to allow the people to have a voice on this because (voucher supporters) know it will be voted down," Rusk said.
Leaders said that matter would most likely be decided by the courts.
"This is going to be the most interesting public policy debate in the in state of Utah in the past 10 years," said Ric Cantrell, chief deputy of the Utah Senate.
For more information about the referendum petitions, visit www.utahnsforpublicschools.org.
Salt Lake Tribune: Ultimate choice: Utahns should get chance to vote on voucher law
Tribune Editorial
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:03/08/2007 08:22:44 PM MST
It isn't unusual for the Utah Legislature to pass laws contrary to what Utahns say they want. Polls show people want tougher penalties for animal torture; legislators killed the bill. In special session last year, legislators failed to restore dental benefits for Medicaid patients, despite widespread protests.
The list could go on.
Like "mother deafness" in a teenager, constituent-deafness among legislators can be frustrating. This year's voucher law is a notorious example. Polls have consistently shown that Utahns oppose taxes going to private schools. Only one poll in several years showed support approaching 50 percent.
That is one reason to support a referendum to bring the new law before voters. The other is the scope of the law and its potential to divert resources and focus away from public education.
The law just passed, and heedlessly signed by Gov. Jon Huntsman, initiates the nation's first universal voucher system, allowing vouchers for all children not currently enrolled in private school. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst estimates it will cost taxpayers $429 million over its first 13 years.
Its impact is largely unpredictable, yet it will be evaluated only after five years. It represents a major shift in Utah's educational philosophy, which firmly supported public education since before statehood.
Any such sea change, especially one not supported by most of the people it will affect, should be put to a vote.
But the diverse coalition behind a referendum petition to force that vote faces a monumental task. The group has 40 days to collect nearly 92,000 signatures, representing 10 percent of all the votes cast for governor in the most recent general election in 15 of the state's 29 counties. Organizers believe getting enough signatures may be the easy part. If the referendum makes it onto November's ballot, they expect deep-pocketed, out-of-state groups to spend wads of cash to defeat it.
They have reason to worry. Parents for Choice in Education pumped roughly a half-million dollars into last year's election. That outside cash played a major role in the law being passed, by one vote, in the Utah House after being defeated in six previous tries.
Voucher supporters chant the mantra of "choice" in education. Well, voters should have the choice to undo a reckless law foisted on them by legislators and a governor who chose to be deaf to the majority's wishes.
Polls have consistently shown that Utahns oppose taxes going to private schools.
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:03/08/2007 08:22:44 PM MST
It isn't unusual for the Utah Legislature to pass laws contrary to what Utahns say they want. Polls show people want tougher penalties for animal torture; legislators killed the bill. In special session last year, legislators failed to restore dental benefits for Medicaid patients, despite widespread protests.
The list could go on.
Like "mother deafness" in a teenager, constituent-deafness among legislators can be frustrating. This year's voucher law is a notorious example. Polls have consistently shown that Utahns oppose taxes going to private schools. Only one poll in several years showed support approaching 50 percent.
That is one reason to support a referendum to bring the new law before voters. The other is the scope of the law and its potential to divert resources and focus away from public education.
The law just passed, and heedlessly signed by Gov. Jon Huntsman, initiates the nation's first universal voucher system, allowing vouchers for all children not currently enrolled in private school. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst estimates it will cost taxpayers $429 million over its first 13 years.
Its impact is largely unpredictable, yet it will be evaluated only after five years. It represents a major shift in Utah's educational philosophy, which firmly supported public education since before statehood.
Any such sea change, especially one not supported by most of the people it will affect, should be put to a vote.
But the diverse coalition behind a referendum petition to force that vote faces a monumental task. The group has 40 days to collect nearly 92,000 signatures, representing 10 percent of all the votes cast for governor in the most recent general election in 15 of the state's 29 counties. Organizers believe getting enough signatures may be the easy part. If the referendum makes it onto November's ballot, they expect deep-pocketed, out-of-state groups to spend wads of cash to defeat it.
They have reason to worry. Parents for Choice in Education pumped roughly a half-million dollars into last year's election. That outside cash played a major role in the law being passed, by one vote, in the Utah House after being defeated in six previous tries.
Voucher supporters chant the mantra of "choice" in education. Well, voters should have the choice to undo a reckless law foisted on them by legislators and a governor who chose to be deaf to the majority's wishes.
Polls have consistently shown that Utahns oppose taxes going to private schools.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Voucher Proponents "Running Scared"
Ethan Millard from SLCSpin has a post titled, Referendum Problems.
He states that referendum filed by Utahns for Public Schools may be DOA.
I disagree.
The enabling legislation is HB148.
HB174 was only meant to tie up some loose ends; loose ends that should have been taken care of on HB148.
Utah's Democratic Senators tried to bring amendments on the floor that would have tied up these loose ends, but they were completely ignored by the Republican majority who would not chance sending HB148 back to the House (remember, it only passed by one vote).
If the required signatures are collected to put vouchers on the ballot, and if the public votes vouchers down, then the Utah Legislature should respect the voice of the people regardless of this technicality.
No true representative of the people will let a technicality hold back the will of the people.
My suggestion: Utahns for Public Schools should move straight forward with their referendum petition.
Don't allow these scare tactics and the fear that public schools will not be left monetarily harmless stop your great movement.
Let the people of Utah decide this issue, once and for all.
He states that referendum filed by Utahns for Public Schools may be DOA.
I disagree.
The enabling legislation is HB148.
HB174 was only meant to tie up some loose ends; loose ends that should have been taken care of on HB148.
Utah's Democratic Senators tried to bring amendments on the floor that would have tied up these loose ends, but they were completely ignored by the Republican majority who would not chance sending HB148 back to the House (remember, it only passed by one vote).
If the required signatures are collected to put vouchers on the ballot, and if the public votes vouchers down, then the Utah Legislature should respect the voice of the people regardless of this technicality.
No true representative of the people will let a technicality hold back the will of the people.
My suggestion: Utahns for Public Schools should move straight forward with their referendum petition.
Don't allow these scare tactics and the fear that public schools will not be left monetarily harmless stop your great movement.
Let the people of Utah decide this issue, once and for all.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
How Voucher Proponents Think
If we are going to kill vouchers, I want the following done away with:
The right to an education for children of illegal immigrant
The right for teachers to unionize
The abolition of tenure
The abolition of affirmative action in college admissions
The abolition of welfare, food stamps and WIC
The abolition of Medicaid
The privatization of all non-essential governmental services
The right for women to vote
The abolition of birth control
Censorship of the internet
The right to an education for children of illegal immigrant
The right for teachers to unionize
The abolition of tenure
The abolition of affirmative action in college admissions
The abolition of welfare, food stamps and WIC
The abolition of Medicaid
The privatization of all non-essential governmental services
The right for women to vote
The abolition of birth control
Censorship of the internet
Posted by Anonymous to The Utah Amicus at 4:32 PM
Friday, March 02, 2007
Deseret News: Will voters decide on vouchers?
Foes seek signatures for referendum petition
By Wendy Leonard
Deseret Morning News
Less than 24 hours after the Legislature adjourned, opponents of the school voucher program applied for a referendum petition that could land a final decision in the hands of voters in the next general election.
Utahns for Public Schools, a group formed to head up the task of gathering nearly 100,000 signatures — 91,998 to be exact — in the next 40 days, filed the application asking Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert to consider their cause.
"This is so important that the people in this state should get to vote on it," said Pat Rusk, former president of the Utah Education Association. "We are going to make sure that the citizens of Utah get to decide if they want their tax dollars going to private schools."
Rusk, one of six whose signatures appear on the application, said the group is made up of thousands of concerned residents and has a "high hurdle" to get that many signatures in so few days. "But we are going to make it our lives until it is accomplished."
The voucher program, formally called the Parents for Choice in Education Act, would give Utah families private school tuition vouchers ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student depending on income. Lawmakers passed the measure, dishing out $12 million to get it started, and the governor signed off on the deal.
Supporters of the referendum believe the money could be better spent making necessary reforms in public schools, including decreasing class sizes and bolstering the quality of Utah teachers.
Nancy Pomeroy, spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education, said the referendum was not unexpected and that "greed" is the underlying motive.
"It's the parents and children versus unions and educrats," she said.
However, opponents of vouchers say it isn't about the money, as public education was awarded more than ever before, receiving nearly $500 million in extra funds this year.
"I don't expect a tax break to recoup some money for a private choice," said Granite School District Board President Sarah R. Meier, another who signed the application. She compared the idea of public monies going to private schools to buying books that are already available at public libraries, which are funded by tax dollars.
"I believe it's a bad philosophy for a private choice," she said.
A third signer was Jeanetta Williams, president of the Salt Lake Branch of the NAACP. She said the organization made the decision to oppose vouchers to avoid potential segregation in schools in the future.
"It would take us back to before Brown v. Board of Education, and we'd see more segregation in schools than not," Williams said, adding that those families who could afford to send their children to private schools would most likely be white and minorities would once again be left where they can afford to be educated — in public schools.
Others who added their signatures to the application for a referendum include Utah State Board of Education President Kim Burningham, former state representative Lamont Tyler and Utah PTA President Carmen Snow.
Utah State Code states that anyone can file an application to counter laws made during the general session of the Legislature, but the declaration must be made in writing within five days of the end of the session. Following the 40 days allotted for gathering signatures — which must come from at least 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous election and be representative at least 15 counties — Herbert's office has 15 days to verify the signatures and then five days to declare whether they are sufficient to warrant a referendum on the ballot.
Joe Demma, Herbert's spokesman, said the governor can do one of two things: place the referendum on the ballot for the next general election, which is in November 2008, or call a special election. Most likely, he said, it would be voted on next year because a special election would cost the state $3.5 million.
"It's a rich voucher program, one of the richest in the country, and it's in a state that has the lowest per-pupil spending," Rusk said. "And across the board, the program doesn't do what it promises to do. It's an issue that we should be able to vote on."
Utahns for Public Schools, a group formed to head up the task of gathering nearly 100,000 signatures — 91,998 to be exact — in the next 40 days, filed the application asking Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert to consider their cause.
"This is so important that the people in this state should get to vote on it," said Pat Rusk, former president of the Utah Education Association. "We are going to make sure that the citizens of Utah get to decide if they want their tax dollars going to private schools."
Rusk, one of six whose signatures appear on the application, said the group is made up of thousands of concerned residents and has a "high hurdle" to get that many signatures in so few days. "But we are going to make it our lives until it is accomplished."
The voucher program, formally called the Parents for Choice in Education Act, would give Utah families private school tuition vouchers ranging from $500 to $3,000 per student depending on income. Lawmakers passed the measure, dishing out $12 million to get it started, and the governor signed off on the deal.
Supporters of the referendum believe the money could be better spent making necessary reforms in public schools, including decreasing class sizes and bolstering the quality of Utah teachers.
Nancy Pomeroy, spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education, said the referendum was not unexpected and that "greed" is the underlying motive.
"It's the parents and children versus unions and educrats," she said.
However, opponents of vouchers say it isn't about the money, as public education was awarded more than ever before, receiving nearly $500 million in extra funds this year.
"I don't expect a tax break to recoup some money for a private choice," said Granite School District Board President Sarah R. Meier, another who signed the application. She compared the idea of public monies going to private schools to buying books that are already available at public libraries, which are funded by tax dollars.
"I believe it's a bad philosophy for a private choice," she said.
A third signer was Jeanetta Williams, president of the Salt Lake Branch of the NAACP. She said the organization made the decision to oppose vouchers to avoid potential segregation in schools in the future.
"It would take us back to before Brown v. Board of Education, and we'd see more segregation in schools than not," Williams said, adding that those families who could afford to send their children to private schools would most likely be white and minorities would once again be left where they can afford to be educated — in public schools.
Others who added their signatures to the application for a referendum include Utah State Board of Education President Kim Burningham, former state representative Lamont Tyler and Utah PTA President Carmen Snow.
Utah State Code states that anyone can file an application to counter laws made during the general session of the Legislature, but the declaration must be made in writing within five days of the end of the session. Following the 40 days allotted for gathering signatures — which must come from at least 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous election and be representative at least 15 counties — Herbert's office has 15 days to verify the signatures and then five days to declare whether they are sufficient to warrant a referendum on the ballot.
Joe Demma, Herbert's spokesman, said the governor can do one of two things: place the referendum on the ballot for the next general election, which is in November 2008, or call a special election. Most likely, he said, it would be voted on next year because a special election would cost the state $3.5 million.
"It's a rich voucher program, one of the richest in the country, and it's in a state that has the lowest per-pupil spending," Rusk said. "And across the board, the program doesn't do what it promises to do. It's an issue that we should be able to vote on."
E-mail: wleonard@desnews.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
School Choice Inconsistencies
By Emily HollingsheadI don’t understand some of these senators and representatives up on Capitol Hill. Last week we heard a stirring debate regarding school choice… proponents said that giving parents more choices to educate their children is a good thing. While I may disagree with the idea that “choice” will be available to all Utah families, I agree that giving parents more choices in educating their children can be positive, especially when those choices can be made available to them in a public school.
I was puzzled this morning when the funding for all day kindergarten was debated in the Senate Education committee. Opponents of all day kindergarten had several arguments against it… Senator Dayton said that it would give parents with special needs children “false hope” and that maybe “school” isn’t the best place for tiny children to be.
I’m scratching my head because, I don’t understand this argument, especially since Senator Dayton is an outspoken advocate of parental choice. Isn’t the whole idea to give parents more OPTIONS to educate their child? If a kid would benefit from all day kindergarten, shouldn’t a parent be given a choice to do that for their child? If a parent feels that all day kindergarten would help a little person with learning disabilities, wouldn’t it seem right that a parent have a choice to opt for it?
When my youngest son Sam started kindergarten, Iron County School District was offering all day kindergarten as pilot program. A very dedicated kindergarten teacher called and asked me if we would be interested in sending Sam to all day kindergarten, because she felt that he was a bright kid who would benefit from the extra stimulation and learning. Now, Sam is not someone who could be classified as a special needs child, nor does he have any learning disabilities. But Sam’s education experience from that point has been remarkable. He is an excellent student who does well in all subjects, who loves to read, who has a high retention level for the things he is learning, and he is a child who absolutely loves going to school. Would he have been any different without all day kindergarten? I don’t know, I have no way to judge that. If I were to ever have more children, I would hope that all day kindergarten would be an available choice, because I found it to be a very positive and worthwhile experience for Sam.
Senators Dayton, Bell and Stephenson voted NO on all day kindergarten funding. The bill passed out of committee, but it makes me wonder what will happen when this one hits the floor of the Senate chambers? Will the same advocates of parental choice in education jump to the support of this bill which allows for parental choice in kindergarten?
Thank you Senator Hillyard for bringing this bill to the table, and thank you Senator Jones, Senator Romero and Senator Peterson for voting in favor of it.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Selective Indignation
By Emily Hollingshead
So a major sid
e effect of running for the Utah Senate has been that I can’t keep myself away from the senate floor debates, and every single day I find myself listening to them online, hanging on every word. Really, I am glued to the thing… and as a result, I can tell you every Senator by name, I can almost recognize their voices when they get up to speak, and I’m just about to the point where I could tell you who voted for or against a bill and their reasons for doing so.
It should have come as no surprise when Senator Howard Stephenson stood up last Wednesday and explained why he chose to vote against a Concurrent Resolution opposing Divine Strake:, He said that he did not like the way the resolution went straight to a vote without an opportunity for public input:
Fast forward to today, when Utah Senators were debating the House Bill 148, the notorious private education vouchers bill.
Senator Curtis Bramble gave a very brief recap of the bill, then there was some floor debate (where all of the Democrats spoke out in opposition of the bill and tried to offer amendments that the majority would have no part of) and then this fell out of Senator Bramble’s mouth:
Senator Scott McCoy caught on to the hypocrisy at about the same time that I did, because he stood up and said that he was voting against the bill because it had not been allowed to go through the deliberative process. Senator Stephenson quickly rebutted, saying this was a different issue and it was ok this time to suspend the rules.
According to Senator Stephenson, the bill already DID have enough debate and no more public comment was needed. But Senator, if you’re going to claim superior legislative behavior on one issue, why not do it across the board? Where was the indignation today for the disregard for the legislative rules? The Senator didn’t have to be indignant today, he said, because this one was different. Why is it different? If your guiding principle is that the senate should not break its own rules, why is this different? Even our seasoned Senator Dmitrich said he has NEVER seen a bill breeze through second and third passage with a fiscal note attached.
Which is it? Are we supposed to be outraged when we suspend the rules, or not?
I like consistency. I believe it is a good thing when our elected officials stand steady and consistent in their decisions and when they choose to apply the same careful reasoning across the board to any given issue. But this one – this just wasn’t consistent.
I am not sure what Senator Stephenson’s *real* reason was for opposing the Divine Strake Concurrent Resolution – but I will propose that it had nothing to do with Senate rules and everything to do with being contrary just because he could. And while I enjoyed Senator McCoy’s snark regarding suspension of the Senate rules, he will be the first to admit that he voted against vouchers for private education because he and his constituency are opposed to them. I do not believe that Senator Stephenson’s reasoning against voting for the Concurrent Resolution was as honest.
So a major sid
e effect of running for the Utah Senate has been that I can’t keep myself away from the senate floor debates, and every single day I find myself listening to them online, hanging on every word. Really, I am glued to the thing… and as a result, I can tell you every Senator by name, I can almost recognize their voices when they get up to speak, and I’m just about to the point where I could tell you who voted for or against a bill and their reasons for doing so.It should have come as no surprise when Senator Howard Stephenson stood up last Wednesday and explained why he chose to vote against a Concurrent Resolution opposing Divine Strake:, He said that he did not like the way the resolution went straight to a vote without an opportunity for public input:
“We have known apparently, at least 90 days… when this public period ended. If this was urgent, I would have expected this would be scheduled up for committee hearing so that we could hear the public, so that we would know what the dangers are, what the issues are involved in this. This is another case where we suspend the rules and we violate the normal process of the deliberative bodies that we are supposed to be in the legislature not only deliberative on our floor debate, but deliberative in our committees, allowing the public to comment and hearing this out… and now it apparently, we will have no committee hearing neither in the senate or in the house.”As I listened to this little bit of information, I couldn’t believe my ears… has Senator Stephenson been living under a rock? Well, if he has been living under a rock, it wasn’t in Southern Utah, because the Divine Strake test is the *only* thing anybody is talking about down here. All over the state there has been all kinds of public input… one only needs to browse through the KSL message boards to know that there has been a LOT of public comment on Divine Strake. Just two weeks ago Governor Huntsman held a public hearing where over 300 people came and voiced their opinions, mostly against the proposed testing.
Fast forward to today, when Utah Senators were debating the House Bill 148, the notorious private education vouchers bill.
Senator Curtis Bramble gave a very brief recap of the bill, then there was some floor debate (where all of the Democrats spoke out in opposition of the bill and tried to offer amendments that the majority would have no part of) and then this fell out of Senator Bramble’s mouth:
“Mr. President, under suspension of the rules, I would move that this bill be considered… be considered read for the second and third time… and up for final passage. In making this motion, this does have a fiscal note, and that is one of the rules being suspended, meaning should we pass it today, it does become part of the budget without additional consideration in executive appropriations.”Wait a minute – just two days ago Senator Stephenson said “This is another case where we suspend the rules and we violate the normal process of the deliberative bodies that we are supposed to be in the legislature, not only deliberative on our floor debate, but deliberative in our committees, allowing the public to comment and hearing this out…. And now it apparently, we have no committee hearing...”
Senator Scott McCoy caught on to the hypocrisy at about the same time that I did, because he stood up and said that he was voting against the bill because it had not been allowed to go through the deliberative process. Senator Stephenson quickly rebutted, saying this was a different issue and it was ok this time to suspend the rules.
According to Senator Stephenson, the bill already DID have enough debate and no more public comment was needed. But Senator, if you’re going to claim superior legislative behavior on one issue, why not do it across the board? Where was the indignation today for the disregard for the legislative rules? The Senator didn’t have to be indignant today, he said, because this one was different. Why is it different? If your guiding principle is that the senate should not break its own rules, why is this different? Even our seasoned Senator Dmitrich said he has NEVER seen a bill breeze through second and third passage with a fiscal note attached.
Which is it? Are we supposed to be outraged when we suspend the rules, or not?
I like consistency. I believe it is a good thing when our elected officials stand steady and consistent in their decisions and when they choose to apply the same careful reasoning across the board to any given issue. But this one – this just wasn’t consistent.
I am not sure what Senator Stephenson’s *real* reason was for opposing the Divine Strake Concurrent Resolution – but I will propose that it had nothing to do with Senate rules and everything to do with being contrary just because he could. And while I enjoyed Senator McCoy’s snark regarding suspension of the Senate rules, he will be the first to admit that he voted against vouchers for private education because he and his constituency are opposed to them. I do not believe that Senator Stephenson’s reasoning against voting for the Concurrent Resolution was as honest.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
100 problems with HB148 - Education Vouchers
The answer to increased school choice is NOT voucher schools.
The answer is CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Remember - A voucher school which honors its stewardship of the public trust is known as a CHARTER SCHOOL!
100 Unintended Consequences of House Bill 148 – “Education Vouchers”
The answer – operate as a CHARTER SCHOOL.
The answer is CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Remember - A voucher school which honors its stewardship of the public trust is known as a CHARTER SCHOOL!
100 Unintended Consequences of House Bill 148 – “Education Vouchers”
The answer – operate as a CHARTER SCHOOL.
1. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could grant enrollment preference to a student based on socioeconomic status.
2. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a student if they do not achieve a certain minimum score on a standardized test.
3. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student if the student does not achieve a minimum score on a pre-assessment as determined or created by the school’s owners.
4. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student if they have a specific medical condition, such as ADHD or childhood depression.
5. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student based on their height, weight, or physical ability.
6. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny a student enrollment if the student has a learning disability.
7. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could remove a student the owners or an influential donor do not like.
8. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a student to make room for another student whose parents make a large donation to the school.
9. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could grant enrollment preference to a student based on proximity to the school.
10. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could immediately expel a student with or without cause without specifying the reason and without due process of any kind.
11. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require family-funded extracurricular activities or out-of-state school trips as a requirement for enrollment.
12. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents earn a minimum income, such as $100,000 per year, prior to accepting their children.
13. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents submit to a credit check and require parents to pay for it.
14. With your tax dollars, a voucher school which becomes dependent on voucher funds and then receives a reduction in funds due to legislative action in an economic downturn can require the difference to be paid for by the parents, placing a significant unforeseen burden on families with tight budgets.
15. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could auction or sell open seats to the highest bidder.
16. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire unlicensed or unqualified teachers.
17. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require teachers to sign a loyalty oath, forbidding them from discussing school operations or face financial penalties and/or termination.
18. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could remove a teacher without notice and for absolutely no reason.
19. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could force teachers to sign non-compete agreements, banning them from teaching at another school in the area should they choose to leave.
20. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could teach students specific religious philosophies.
21. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could teach that members of other races or religions are inferior.
22. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell religious books, videos, or software directly to students at significant markup, with the inventory of such materials to be paid for by voucher funds.
23. With your tax dollars, voucher schools could require students to make denominational pledges of allegiance (e.g., “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag”) and expel students who refuse.
24. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a child for refusing to pray.
25. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could advocate specific ideologies such as socialism or communism.
26. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could leave your children unattended without supervision.
27. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could operate in a building that is unsafe in an earthquake.
28. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire convicted felons.
29. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could be operated by convicted felons.
30. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow teachers to keep alcoholic beverages on campus.
31. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow children to browse the web without an Internet filter.
32. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny parents the ability to conference with teachers or the principal.
33. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold every single board meeting closed to the public.
34. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny access to all visitors, including district and state officials as well as the parents themselves.
35. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s parents could be banned from meeting the owners of the school or even knowing who the owners are.
36. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could mandate that all disputes be resolved with binding arbitration.
37. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny all GRAMA requests made by parents or state officials as they are not subject to Utah sunshine laws.
38. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will force legislators to appropriate additional money not covered by this bill to provide for oversight costs already being encountered in other voucher implementations such as Florida or Milwaukee.
39. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could change its mission or focus with absolutely no input or discussion from parents or teachers. If the parents don’t like it their only recourse is to “vote with their feet” and leave.
40. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could open next door to a traditional or public charter school without informing the school or sharing enrollment information of any kind.
41. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could open next door to a traditional or public charter school, starving it of students and forcing changes to boundaries or causing the school to close.
42. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold classes for significantly fewer days per year (60 days/year, for example) and still receive full voucher funding.
43. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could spend your money to defend itself against a lawsuit brought upon it by the state that provided the money in the first place.
44. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will grow, not shrink, the size of government as families with students currently in private schools inevitably lobby to obtain voucher funds.
45. With your tax dollars, voucher schools who become dependent on voucher funds will exercise enormous political pressure to maintain a steady stream of funds, even in times of economic downturn.
46. With your tax dollars, voucher schools place a significantly greater burden on small school districts whose economies of scale cannot match those of larger districts.
47. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could bribe parents by offering them a partial refund of their voucher as a “signing bonus.”
48. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will be able to issue an annual norm-referenced test that cannot be accurately compared to public school norm-referenced tests, thus making claims of voucher performance gains difficult or impossible to substantiate.
49. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require a severely strict uniform and could demand that families purchase uniforms from specific suppliers, including the owners themselves, at any price.
50. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could use spanking to discipline children.
51. With your tax dollars, a voucher school with multiple campuses could require students to move from one campus to another, without regard to the burden on the families affected.
52. With your tax dollars, a voucher school is not required to teach civic and character education deemed essential by the legislature as “fundamental elements of the constitutional responsibility of public education.”
53. With your tax dollars, a political party could operate and maintain a voucher school.
54. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could endorse specific political candidates.
55. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents are members of a specific political party or contribute to a particular political action committee prior to enrolling their children.
56. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow political candidates to pass out literature paid for by the school on campus.
57. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could pay for and/or post political lawn signs on school property.
58. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could ask for donations for political candidates.
59. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could host a political rally for a political candidate during regular school hours.
60. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could donate to political action committees.
61. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could pay for robocalls or television ads for a political candidate.
62. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire lobbyists to advocate for specific legislation.
63. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could close without notice, leaving local districts to reabsorb the students without reimbursement.
64. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could be mismanaged, go bankrupt and close its doors with the state never getting the voucher funds back.
65. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could relocate, perhaps multiple times per year, without any input whatsoever from parents or staff.
66. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could operate for one year in a low-income area, obtain voucher funds, purchase curriculum materials, desks, and computers, then close its doors and relocate to an affluent area the next year with new students.
67. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could obtain scholarship payments, close the business without notice at the end of a quarter and liquidate the company with absolutely no legal recourse.
68. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold large fundraisers and then close their doors immediately after the fundraiser with absolutely no recourse or notice.
69. With your tax dollars, a voucher school that becomes dependent on voucher funds to subsidize their operation will go out of business if future regulations invalidate the school from receiving vouchers.
70. With your tax dollars, a voucher school in financial distress could cut back on the number of students attending the school, “laying off” large numbers of students and/or cutting staff and raising classroom size to make ends meet.
71. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could spend public money at the owner’s sole discretion with absolutely no transparency and without being subject to an audit.
72. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could charge students any fee it likes for lunch.
73. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could have vending machines full of pop and junk food, with all of the proceeds going to the owners.
74. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require all supplies, books, and materials to be fees that fall outside of the normal tuition subsidized by the voucher.
75. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could raise its rates at any time for any reason and require the difference to be paid for by the parents or face expulsion.
76. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could charge more for voucher students than it would for students who do not have a voucher.
77. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could increase tuition until only those who could have afforded the school without the voucher could attend.
78. With your tax dollars, a voucher could be applied to a program in which the students meet at a facility and interact with a single teacher for only a few hours each week.
79. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners could appeal to parents to donate to pay off the building (in the name of helping the kids), then close its doors and sell the building without notice and with no recourse.
80. With your tax dollars, a voucher school as a for-profit enterprise could retain significant revenue obtained by voucher funds to enrich themselves rather than directing the funds to the students.
81. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could enter into vendor relationships with friends or relatives for any amount and with absolutely no transparency to the public.
82. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require a parent to sign up for a multiple-year contract in exchange for a tuition reduction, with significant early-exit penalties.
83. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners could pay themselves or a relative, such as a son or daughter, far more for the same job than they would other employees, with absolutely no transparency to the public.
84. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could set classroom size to be as high as the owners could get away with.
85. With your tax dollars, a voucher school can ask teachers who already receive free enrollment for their children to redeem their vouchers anyway, thus creating an additional cost to the public.
86. With your tax dollars, a voucher school can ask teachers who already receive free enrollment for their children to redeem their vouchers and then give it back to them as a free perk on the public’s nickel.
87. With your tax dollars, a home-school network with as few as 41 students could rent a small location, meet there once/week, and obtain full voucher funding.
88. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell merchandise to children on campus.
89. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could invite vendors to sell merchandise on campus and retain a kickback in exchange.
90. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could force children to participate in fundraising activities during school time and on school property.
91. With your tax dollars, a voucher high school could invite selected private higher education institutions to recruit the high school students, receiving a kickback for each student enrolled.
92. With your tax dollars, a voucher network could hold a portion of the student’s voucher in an account to be paid back as a scholarship to the student only if they attend a higher education institution owned by the voucher network.
93. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell curriculum materials to students at a significant markup to enrich the owners.
94. With your tax dollars, a charter school could close and convert to a voucher school, expelling all students and re-admitting only those students the owners decide to retain.
95. With your tax dollars, a charter school in trouble with the state could close its doors and convert to a voucher school, leaving concerns and pending investigations completely unresolved.
96. With your tax dollars, a charter elementary school’s owners could expand its campus to include a for-profit middle school and grant enrollment preference to elementary students of the public charter.
97. With your tax dollars, voucher schools can place private schools that refuse the conditions of the voucher at an insurmountable economic and competitive disadvantage.
98. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will encourage homeschoolers and existing private school families to exercise significant political pressure to obtain voucher funds for themselves.
99. With your tax dollars, unqualified owners or opportunistic entrepreneurs can create situations demanding further regulation. These regulations may unwittingly invalidate above-board private schools from obtaining voucher funds, thus placing them at a significant economic disadvantage and possibly putting them out of business.
100. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners will be faced every day with a continual dilemma – is the first priority of a for-profit enterprise that is given public funds to promote one’s self-interest or to further the public good?
Submitted by Craig Johnson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)