The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home Updates from the Utah State Senate Fri, 24 May 2013 14:33:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 We’re # 1 (for Economic Outlook). http://www.senatesite.com/home/alec-6/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/alec-6/#comments Fri, 24 May 2013 00:09:48 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7972 If Utah’s green jello and snow-capped mountains don’t impress you, maybe this will.

Today (and for the 6th consecutive year), the American Legislative Exchange Council announced that Utah ranks #1 in the nation for Economic Outlook.

What is that, exactly?

From ALEC: The Economic Outlook Ranking is a forecast based on a state’s current standing in 15 state policy variables. Each of these factors is influenced directly by state lawmakers through the legislative process.

Generally speaking, states that spend less—especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less—particularly on productive activities such as working or investing—experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more.

The Economic Performance Ranking is a backward-looking measure based on a state’s performance on three important variables: State Gross Domestic Product, Absolute Domestic Migration, and Non-Farm Payroll Employment—all of which are highly influenced by state policy. This ranking details states’ individual performances over the past 10 years based on this economic data.

From the Press Release:

“Rich States, Poor States examines the latest trends in state economic growth. . . . The sixth edition focuses on the growing momentum in state capitals for fundamental pro-growth tax and pension reform. ”

[This is the good part.]  “Utah’s economic policies have remained strong, and because of their firm commitment to economic growth and competitiveness, they’ve ranked first in all six editions of our report,” said Jonathan Williams, director of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Center for State Fiscal Reform and co-author of Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic State Competitiveness Index.

Read more here.

[UPDATE:] Here’s the Utah Taxpayer’s Association Rich States, Poor States Press Release.

Also topping the list…

Are our friendly sister-states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.

At the bottom of the list? Maine, Montana, Connecticut, Oregon, Rhode Island, Minnesota, California, Illinois, New York, and Vermont.

In the media:

Looking for more coverage/info? Check out these links:

The Salt Lake Tribune: Utah is tops for 2013 economic outlook, ALEC says

Utah Policy Daily: New Study Ranks Utah #1 for Business

Fox 13: Utah ranks #1 for economic outlook

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/alec-6/feed/ 0 Today’s #UtEd Task Force meeting in a nutshell http://www.senatesite.com/home/ed-task-force/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/ed-task-force/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7955 Today the Education Task Force met at length to discuss Utah’s educational landscape, including:

An Education Data Overview: Demographic, achievement, outcome, and fiscal data for students in Utah’s public K-12 and higher education systems.

The Utah Data Alliance: Members of the state agencies that comprise the Utah Data Alliance (UDA), which include the Utah State Office of Education, Utah System of Higher Education, Utah College of Applied Technology, Department of Workforce Services, Utah Education Network, and the Utah Education Policy Center at the University of Utah, presented information to the task force on the Statewide Longitudinal Data System and activities of the UDA.

66% by 2020: The task force heard from representatives of Prosperity 2020, a business-led organization that is spearheading an initiative to promote 66% of the state’s adult population having some postsecondary training, certification, or degree by 2020. The task force also heard from education leaders who are working to implement an increase in post-secondary education attainment.

Perspectives on Student Achievement: Education stakeholders shared with the task force their perspectives on the foundational principles or elements of student achievement and how to design an education system that best promotes these elements. *Not all stakeholders were able to present due to time constraints.  They’ll be moved to the next meeting.

Want to catch up on what you missed? This link contains the notice, agenda, materials, and audio recordings from today’s meeting.

[Update:] Utah Moms Care offers their summary of the meeting HERE.

[Update 2:] The Deseret News’ coverage focuses on per-pupil spending and discussion on barriers to education outside the classroom.

[Update 3:] The SL Trib’s Lisa Schencker covers spending, task force goals, and single-parent homes.

AND thanks to the Twitterverse, you can catch up this way too. (Note: Opinions expressed are tweeter’s own. Well, most of them, anyway.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Thursday, y’all!

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/ed-task-force/feed/ 0 Shelter From The Storm: Utah’s Opportunity http://www.senatesite.com/home/stephenson-guns/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/stephenson-guns/#comments Sat, 18 May 2013 00:52:57 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7881 By Howard Stephenson
Utah State Senator, District 11

Yesterday, Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley signed SB281.  The bill severely limits the Constitutionally-protected rights of American citizens in the State of Maryland.

The new law adds 45 guns to a list of banned weapons.  It bans all “assault weapons” from being possessed or brought into the State of Maryland, and limits all magazine capacities to 10-rounds– among other things.

As a result, Beretta USA issued the following statement on their blog:

“The. . . law that passed is not acceptable, even with the improvements we were able to obtain. . . .The question now facing the Beretta Holding companies in Maryland is this:  What effect will the passage of this law–and the efforts of Maryland government officials to support its passage–have on our willingness to remain in this State?

. . . Prior to introduction of this legislation the three Beretta Holding companies located in Maryland were experiencing growth in revenues and jobs and had begun expansion plans in factory and other operations.  The idea now of investing additional funds in Maryland and thus rewarding a Government that has insulted our customers and our products is offensive to us so we will take steps to evaluate such investments in other States.”

[Here's a link to the full statement.]

In Maryland, Beretta has paid more than 31 million dollars in taxes. They currently employ more than 400 people. According to a guns.com exclusive from yesterday, Beretta has significant plans for growth and investment.

In light of Beretta’s statements and yesterday’s events, I opened a bill file.

My initial proposal will be to reduce obstacles and offer incentives to gun manufacturers located in the Beehive State.  This might include eliminating sales taxes on machinery, equipment and replacement parts which are used in the manufacture of guns.

This is an exciting opportunity for Utah, and tomorrow’s Republican State Convention provides an additional exciting opportunity to open up a discussion about bringing Beretta and other gun manufacturers to our state.

At tomorrow’s convention I’ll have a co-sponsor list with me.  I’m anxious to continue this discussion, and I hope that the other state legislators in attendance will find me and sign on to this opportunity for Utah.

When you see your State Representative or Senator tomorrow, send them my way.

Please contribute to this conversation.  I can be reached here, or by leaving a comment below.

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
– Samuel Adams

[Update:] Beretta is being courted by a few of our cooler sister-states, but none with as good an economic climate as Utah.  So far, they’re keeping tight-lipped about where they are headed.

[Update 2:] Publius Online provides a few more details.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/stephenson-guns/feed/ 4 Should Our AG Be Appointed? http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-ag/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-ag/#comments Fri, 17 May 2013 21:42:23 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7865 By Todd Weiler
Utah State Senator, District 23

Unlike any other elected official, an attorney general decides who get prosecuted criminally and put in jail.  Or who doesn’t.  Although many people believe that the state’s attorney general represents “we the people”, the Utah Constitution makes it clear that he is the legal advisor to the governor and other state officials.

Utah Const. Art. VII, Sect. 16.  Utah Code Ann. § 67-5-1, provides that the attorney general has an “attorney-client relationship” with the state and shall “prosecute or defend all causes to which the state or any officer, board, or commission of the state in an official capacity is a party, and take charge, as attorney, of all civil legal matters in which the state is interested”.

If you think the attorney general represents you as a citizen and voter, then I challenge you to call his office an ask for legal advice.  They won’t give it to you, and will explain that they can’t.  You are not their “client” — but the governor is.  For this reason, I believe it makes sense for the governor to appoint his attorney general. This change would allow Utah to have the best attorney — not just the best politician — to become the state’s chief law enforcement officer.  Some other advantages of this change include:

•More oversight by the appointing person or entity
•Can be removed more easily if a problem arises
•Less likely to be a policymaker
•Stronger, more united executive branch
•Can also serve as counsel to the governor
•Less likely to take politically motivated action
•Less likely to respond to the whims of the majority
•May get a more qualified attorney
•Less likely to be compromised by campaign contributors

Although the U.S. attorney general is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate, state attorneys general come to office in various other ways.  The Attorney General is popularly elected in 43 states and Guam, and is appointed by the governor in five states (Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wyoming) and in the jurisdictions of American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In Maine, the Attorney General is selected by secret ballot of the legislature and in Tennessee by its state supreme court.

Forty-six states presently provide a four-year term for the Attorney General. Maine and Vermont have a two-year term. Tennessee sets the term at eight years and in Alaska the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the governor. Among states where the Attorney General is elected to four-year terms, 16 states limit the Attorney General to two such terms. All the others may succeed themselves an unlimited number of times.

In 2011, appointed Hawaii AG David M. Louie told the state’s House Judiciary committee that he didn’t believe that having the AG elected would improve the quality of legal advice.  He testified: “In fact, I’m concerned about politicization. Rather than concentrating on what is the right answer, there would be an element of political calculation.”  In other states, attorneys general worry about how their actions will be perceived by the voting public, he said. In Hawaii, the attorney general can focus on the law.

Some governors and attorneys general disagree with one another over whether to challenge federal laws, such as the Affordable Care Act.  Governor Leavitt and AG Jan Graham had some very heated and very public disputes.  This dispute eventually led to the creation of the Governor’s General Counsel, which expanded government.

There are at least three reasons to change to appointment of attorneys general where they are elected.

First, elections politicize the role of attorneys general.  An elected attorney general may have an incentive to pursue certain kinds of popular or high-profile cases that would enhance his or her standing with the electorate or major campaign contributors in the next run for the same office or in a subsequent run for higher office (frequently governor).  And sometimes the incentive may be to sue unpopular defendants principally for popular or campaign contributor acclaim.

There’s an old joke about the National Association of Attorneys General—their registered name is supposedly the National Association of Aspiring Governors.  While fears about the politicization of the office are legitimate to some degree, a bigger problem is creating a sort of congressional effect — that is, a constant, costly campaign.  From the moment an elected attorney general takes office, many effectively set up two shops:  one to do the job and the other to get elected again or prepare to run for higher office.  In 2010, 25% of the elected attorney generals in the U.S. were running for Governor, and Utah’s attorney general at the time was running for the U.S. Senate.  Recent campaigns for attorney general in other states ran into the millions of dollars. For example, the 2010 election in Georgia cost more than $3.6 million combined.

Bill Clinton was Arkansas’ AG before becoming governor.  Arkansas’ current governor, Mike Beebe, also previously served as AG.  In Virginia, three of the last seven governors have been AGs.  Arizona and Missouri also had two AGs succeed to the governorship.

Second, the process of campaigning for election may provide inducements to do the wrong thing. For example, there is an unfortunate potential relationship — or appearance of a relationship — between fund-raising for an attorney general’s election campaign and patronage for campaign contributors.  An attorney general may have the power to refer profitable cases to attorneys; and those attorneys may have an incentive to contribute to the campaign in order to improve their chances. The attorney general also may have limited incentives to regulate or sue those who contributed to his or her campaign or at least that may be the perception.

Third, voters may not be equipped to keep informed of the attorney general’s performance and hold the person accountable. One can imagine few campaigns in which relevant performance information — on competence, management skill, legal ability and impartial administration of justice — comes to public knowledge. The problem is perhaps greater when the candidate is not an incumbent. Elections are also susceptible to false and misleading campaign advertisements (which are largely unregulated), a problem often spotlighted in judicial elections as well. With an appointment process, a greater pool of qualified candidates may also emerge.

The terms of appointments of state attorneys general follow various models, including serving at the pleasure of the governor (as in the federal government) or serving for a fixed term (as in New Jersey). Providing the attorney general’s office with a fixed term in an appointment system, such as in New Jersey, provides the office-holder independence from the governor without substituting dependency on voters and campaign contributors. One feature that the states may borrow from judicial appointment models is the use of a nominating commission. In the best judicial appointment systems, governors (or mayors) select judges from a limited group of nominees who are screened and proposed by a commission in order to add an assurance of candidate quality and to limit executive discretion, including by avoiding purely patronage and unqualified appointments. This is also adaptable to attorney general selection.

 

Also posted on Senator Weiler’s blogsite: SenateDist23.blogspot.com.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-ag/feed/ 0 Our Caucus System: Improve, Don’t Replace http://www.senatesite.com/home/osmond-caucus/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/osmond-caucus/#comments Thu, 16 May 2013 21:18:04 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7845 By Aaron Osmond
Utah State Senator, District 10

We need to empower more Republicans to help choose who represents our party on Election Day. Utah’s Caucus system is a good system that provides an open door to all political candidates, even those who aren’t well-funded or famous. I don’t believe these two sentences are mutually exclusive. We can have both.

On May 18th, GOP State Delegates will meet to represent all 540,000 Republicans in Utah. As one of those delegates, I will be voting to raise the threshold required for a candidate to gain an outright victory in convention from 60% to a 2/3 majority. This will drive more primary contests and greater participation, but still preserve a path to avoid a primary when delegates approach true consensus.

I will also support other proposals to formally and purposefully enable a more open, flexible caucus system to include every Republican who wants to be involved and engaged in the process. I feel this approach will better accommodate average, busy but patriotic, like-minded Republican voters.

Some party activists disagree, and I respect their right to do so. At the end of the day, we are all committed to the same values. Where we differ on this issue is quite simple: I want the Party to be more inclusive. I want to see more every-day Republicans involved in the process, not just the most active or opinionated.

Unfortunately, some Republicans feel that participation as a delegate is a privilege only available to those that are the most educated, most knowledgeable about political issues, and most actively engaged in the political process. In my view, this opinion is based on the same arguments used against universal suffrage, which were, fortunately, resolved by the 14th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.

I believe that the Republican Party is stronger when we engage and develop a much broader group of members and potential leaders instead of rewarding only those who are the most willing to jump through hoops, have the most flexible schedules, or demonstrate the most activism.

I feel we need to foster a caucus environment where we consistently elect every-day Republicans from all socio-economic, educational, cultural, and religious backgrounds to be our delegates. We also need to expand access and involvement from a limited group of insiders to everyone who loves their country and state. As we do, our party will be stronger and more resilient, and our caucus system will work even more effectively. I also feel the principles in which we believe will be better realized and shared more persuasively.

The Founders of our state and nation intended our representatives to be selected by the voice of the people. To ensure we achieve that goal, I believe that Utah’s caucus system should be modified, but not replaced. By raising the primary threshold to a 2/3rd majority and by enabling more flexibility in our caucus process, we will enfranchise more Republicans to engage and strengthen our party.

Also published in the Deseret News.
Photo by Scott Jarvie.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/osmond-caucus/feed/ 1 Interim Appointments, & Et cetera http://www.senatesite.com/home/interim-appointments-et-cetera/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/interim-appointments-et-cetera/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 23:47:57 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7820 Today, the Senate confirmed the following appointments made by Governor Herbert:

Dept. of Workforce Services

Jon Pierpont as Executive Director of the Department of Workforce Services. 

Dept. of Corrections

Rollin Cook as Executive Director of the Department of Corrections. (Pictured above)

Securities Commission

David Russon and Gary Cornia as members of the Securities Commission, expiring May 12, 2017.
Erik Christiansen is reappointed as a member of the Securities Commission, expiring May 12, 2017.

Permanent Community Impact Fund Board

James Jae Potter as a member of the Permanent Community Impact Fund Board, expiring July 1, 2013, and to a term expiring July 1, 2017.

Labor Commission Appeals Board

Patricial Smith Drawe is reappointed as a member of the Labor Commission Appeals Board, expiring March 1, 2019.

Drinking Water Board

Paul Gailey Hansen, Heather Anne Jackson, Tage Ivan Flint, David King Stevens, Betty G. Naylor, Mark Howard Stevens, Brett Harvey Chynoweth, and Natasha R. Madsen are reappointed to the Drinking Water Board, with their terms expiring May 8, 2017.

Board of Business and Economic Development

Mel S. Lawitt and Peter Mouskondis are reappointed as members of the Board of Business and Economic Development, expiring March 15, 2017.

 

Here’s a copy of the official transmission, if you’re interested. And if your name is listed above, congratulations from the Utah Senate.

In other news – did you miss out on the Interim Day fun? You can always check out le.utah.gov for committee meeting agendas and audio archives. Tomorrow morning, there is a Health System Reform Task Force meeting and an Economic Development Task Force meeting.  They’ll both stream live audio, and agendas are online.

Thanks for joining us!

 

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/interim-appointments-et-cetera/feed/ 0 Predictable crisis. Let’s get ready. http://www.senatesite.com/home/economic-crisis-solution/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/economic-crisis-solution/#comments Fri, 03 May 2013 15:12:24 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7750 By Deidre Henderson
Utah State Senator, District 7

During the 2013 legislative session, I joined a group of CPAs, chambers of commerce, state legislators, community leaders, educators and others to pull the fiscal fire alarm and introduce Financial Ready Utah.  Our purpose is to take responsible local action to secure a fiscally sustainable future.

We have a growing concern about our financial future and what the impact of our nation’s debt crisis will have on our state, our communities, our businesses and our families.

Unfortunately, like every other state, Utah has become increasingly dependent on the federal government to provide us with funds for even our most basic needs. Much of society has been distracted with promises that the government can’t possibly keep. But we must not lose sight of the big picture. Our country’s current financial model of tax, borrow, print and spend is unsustainable. Erskine Bowles stated it bluntly when he said, “we face the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

Financial Ready Utah gives people simple steps they can take in their own personal lives, and also within their spheres of influence within their communities to educate others. Bringing awareness to the problem is the first step in the process of solving it.

As part of this great effort, a package of 7 bills was introduced during the 2013 Legislative Session:

1. S.B. 70, Commission Relating to Federal Issues – Senator Deidre Henderson:

This Bill creates a commission to assess the risk of a reduction in the amount or value of federal funds into the state and how to reduce the dependency of state and local governments on federal funds.

2. S.C.R. 7, Concurrent Resolution to Reduce Utah’s Dependence on Federal Funds – Senator Aaron Osmond:

This Resolution details what Erskine Bowles calls “the most predictable economic crisis in history” and calls on Utah, its subdivisions, communities and families to lead out in our state and our nation to provide for greater opportunities for future generations.

3. S.J.R. 7, Joint Rules Resolution on Revenue Estimates for Federal Funds – Senator Wayne Harper:

This Resolution establishes the legislative procedures for taking into account in the budgeting process the risk of a reduction in the amount or value of federal funds.

4. S.B.138, Amendments to Requirements for Governor’s Proposed Budget – Senator Wayne Harper:

This bill establishes the requirement for taking into account in the Governor’s proposed budget the risk of a reduction in the amount or value of federal funds.

5. H.B.195, Budgetary Procedures Act Revisions – Representative Ken Ivory:

This Bill establishes the Rainy Day Funding criteria to account for the risk of a reduction in the amount or value of federal funds.

6. H.B. 205, Contingency Plans for Political Subdivisions – Representative Ken Ivory:

This Bill extends the contingency planning requirements of HB138 Federal Receipts Reporting Requirements (2011) to political subdivisions.

7. S.B.158, Municipal General Fund Amendments – Senator Deidre Henderson:

This Bill increases the Rainy Day cap for municipalities to deal with contingencies.

Throughout the course of the session these bills were heard in committee, debated on the floor, and ultimately voted on in both the House and the Senate. Each of the seven bills passed and will be enacted into law this year. These bills will become a part of the framework that guides our state through the coming years.

I am grateful for the way Utah supports fiscal responsibility.

Please join us for a ceremonial bill signing of SB70, SB158 and SJR7:

Wednesday, May 29 @ 3:05pm, Capitol Rotunda

Also – please take time to look at Financial Ready Utah materials and learn more about what, with your help, Financial Ready Utah can do to bring awareness to the community.

We will continue to work toward our goal of financial stability for individuals and our government.

Thank you for your continued support as we push toward that end.

____________________________

Financial Ready Utah will be holding a Spring Seminar for the purpose of helping citizens learn what they can do to help our communities. The seminar will feature Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity, as well as Kent Thomas and Representative Ken Ivory.

Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Time: 8 a.m. to noon
Location: UACPA, 220 E. Morris Ave., Suite 320, Salt Lake City

More information and registration at UACPA.org.

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/economic-crisis-solution/feed/ 0 Senator Van Tassell: Congress, Fix the Debt http://www.senatesite.com/home/fix-the-debt-campaign/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/fix-the-debt-campaign/#comments Fri, 03 May 2013 03:39:39 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7532 The Campaign to Fix the Debt is a non-partisan movement to put America on a better fiscal and economic path.The campaign is working out of headquarters in Washington D.C. to educate people on the need for a comprehensive plan to fix the nation’s long-term debt and deficits.

The following letter was written by Senator Kevin Van Tassell and sent to the six members of Utah’s Congressional Delegation. All Utah State Senators signed the letter supporting entitlement reform, tax reform, reduced discretionary spending and Utah’s Fix the Debt Steering Committee.

 

SENATOR KEVIN T. VAN TASSESLL
TWENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT
UTAH STATE SENATE
320 STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 145115
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114

March 15, 2013

Dear Utah Delegation Member:

As Members of the Utah State Senate, we write to express our concern regarding budget and debt matters in Washington D.C. The current pattern of “management by crisis” is damaging the nation’s economy and undermining the people’s confidence in government at all levels.

As you know, Utah must produce a balanced budget for each coming year, regardless of revenues. We know that each of you shares our commitment to fiscal responsibility, but Congress’ current deadlock over fiscal policies has become destructive and unsustainable.

Many of us have become familiar with the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a non-partisan effort mobilizing leaders from business, government and communities nationwide to urge Congress and the President to implement a comprehensive plan to address the mounting national debt, and to support the adoption of policies that will put the country on a sustainable fiscal path, provide certainty regarding federal programs on which some must rely and free American business to make long-term plans that will grow that private economy and create jobs.

Fix the Debt-Utah is co-chaired by Mr. Scott Anderson and Mr. Kem Gardner, both esteemed leaders here in Utah, and joined by a number of distinguished political, civic and business leaders who comprise the Utah Steering Committee. Having reviewed the principles of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, we the undersigned endorse those principles and call upon you as our duly elected representatives to act upon them, finding compromise solutions that are consistent with principles of good government and sustainable growth.

In signing, we recognize that in our nation’s current political climate, neither party will be fully satisfied with such a solution. Nevertheless, we call upon you to undertake this difficult task with our support, and find a comprehensive solution that includes entitlement reform, genuine tax reform—lower rates, broader base—and renewed efforts to properly manage and reduce discretionary spending.

We thank you for your dedicated service to Utah and the nation and confirm our support for your efforts as you move forward to lead.

[Signed by all 29 members of the Utah State Senate]

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/fix-the-debt-campaign/feed/ 0 Don’t Misjudge HB76 http://www.senatesite.com/home/cmo-hb76/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/cmo-hb76/#comments Wed, 01 May 2013 21:56:29 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7723 By Senator Allen Christensen, Representative John Mathis,
and Representative Curt OdaUtah State Legislators

Published in the Deseret News on April 30th, 2013.

We are very disappointed that Layton City Police Chief Terry Keefe misrepresented the intent of HB76 in his recent opinion piece (“Vetoing HB76 was for the public good“, April 23). We would like to help correct those misconceptions.

The chief indicated that HB76 would be a “dramatic and unnecessary change in our concealed carry permitting process.” We are curious as to how he draws this conclusion, as HB76 has nothing to do with the concealed carry permit. Nothing about the permit, the process of obtaining the permit or the privileges that come with the permit would have been altered in any way by HB76.

In the article, he spends a considerable amount of time explaining the screening process of obtaining a concealed carry permit — again we can’t understand why because it has nothing to do with HB76 or what it would have done. Section 76-10-503 of Utah’s criminal code, which he did not reference, has an even longer list of those who may not own or purchase a gun. HB76 would not change that list either.

He also states that “If HB76 became law, any person who is 21 years of age or older who may lawfully possess a dangerous weapon may carry a loaded firearm openly or concealed.”

This is false.

The only way anyone may carry a loaded firearm in the state of Utah is if they have gone through the training process to obtain a concealed carry permit. HB76 does not change who can carry a loaded gun — meaning a gun with a bullet in the chamber.

The true intent of this bill was to alleviate the potential for public excitement at the sight of someone carrying a gun and still honor a citizen’s right to carry.

Currently in Utah, any unrestricted person 18 or older can carry a gun openly as long as the bullet is not in the chamber ready to fire. (Remember, just as the law stands now, HB76 would not have allowed non-permit holders to carry a bullet in the chamber.)

Often, when a gun is carried in public it causes others to be unduly concerned. Frequently, officers are called and a law-abiding citizen is detained and questioned just because they are exercising their right to carry a weapon. If HB76 had been signed, those who wish to carry a gun without a bullet in the chamber could do so in a concealed manner, easing the possible concern of those around them.

How would this change alter the intent of a law-abiding citizen who is carrying a gun by right of law with no pre-disposed intent to harm anyone?

It would not.

How would such a change alter the intent of a criminal, who would conceal the weapon anyway?

It would not.

The police chief is disingenuous to assert that vetoing the bill was in the best interest of the people and that enforcing it would have been “difficult and dangerous.” The reality is that American citizens have a natural and legal right to possess firearms. All Utah citizens who meet the criteria set forth in our criminal code are allowed to carry a firearm with no bullet in the chamber, and anyone who is willing to go through the permit process may carry a gun loaded and concealed.

There are people who law enforcement should be worried about. Law-abiding citizens who choose — for their own reasons — to carry a gun, but do not want to cause public concern or the hassle of unnecessary scrutiny, do not fall into that category.

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/cmo-hb76/feed/ 2 Sen. Reid: In our republic, religion plays a key role. http://www.senatesite.com/home/religion-morality-debate/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/religion-morality-debate/#comments Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:22:45 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7561 By Stuart Reid
Utah State Senator, District 18

During an event in support of traditional marriage at the Utah State Capitol a proponent of same-sex marriage held a sign in protest that read: “Close your bibles and open your hearts.” This statement highlights the tension between religion protecting moral standards in society and those seeking tolerance for activities that heretofore were considered immoral.

Certainly, all of us should be tolerant in our personal interaction with others, especially with those who are different from us. We should not condemn anyone for seeking societal acceptance. It is a natural desire to want to be accepted. Even more, we should nurse the wounds of those who suffer.

However, that cannot be the objective when passing legislation and adjudicating the law. If society is to be preserved, legislation must be advanced and upheld by the courts to protect the moral well-being of the many, even if a few regrettably suffer as a consequence. To do otherwise will ultimately harm many more than would be helped. What good is toleration in the law for the few if the whole of society is diminished?

Indeed, because immorality has been tolerated, we now have the highest divorce rates ever, with vast numbers of children being victimized because of it; over 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock; millions of babies have been aborted; generations of children are swallowed up by welfare dependency; and the prisons are overflowing. We have yet to experience the full consequences of our morally compromised society — compromised in the name of toleration.

Because each new generation of lawmakers and judges adapts to the moral environment it inherits, it often cannot see the corrosive and accumulating impact of compromising moral standards in the law. What is worse, in this generation, it has devolved to the point that attempts to uphold moral standards in the law have been interpreted by the courts as “animus” against individuals or classes of individuals. In other words, the courts have ruled that legislation to preserve morality in the law is demonstrated hostility towards others.

In contrast to the legal interpretation of morality in the law for this generation, John Adams, a Founding Father, said,

“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” He further stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams, along with many other Founders, recognized the importance of morality in the law as necessary for a free and virtuous republic to endure through the ages. Thus, they presciently drafted the First Amendment to the constitution, memorializing foundational freedoms for religion.

In so doing, they fully anticipated that religion would play an essential role securing the future of the Republic by advancing morality in society. They expected succeeding generations to honor the God-given religious rights they memorialized in the constitution for that purpose.

Today, in the name of tolerance for the few, there are demands on religion to close its scriptures, forsake its own constitutional rights and retreat from the public square. Religion may retreat as it has too often in the past, or it can advocate for faith, family and freedom, securing the moral well-being of society as expected by the Founders when they drafted the First Amendment.

What religion chooses to do will in large measure determine whether the Republic as defined by the Founders can long endure.

 

Published April 16, 2013 in the Deseret News

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/religion-morality-debate/feed/ 1 Senate Journal: April 26th http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-26-2013/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-26-2013/#comments Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:29:28 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7633 It’s been a quiet week in the Utah State Senate.

Our first 2013 Interim Day is 19 days away. The 2014 Session? 276.

This Week’s Links

* “Be you. Find a cause. Embrace failure. Find someone to love. And give back,” Former Governor Jon Huntsman said, before adding an extra ingredient:

“Never forget to rock and roll.”

Congratulations to all of Utah’s grads this week.  Welcome to the ‘real world’.

* Speaking of degree-conferring institutions, congratulations to Senator Urquhart and Representative Ipson.  They”ll be receiving Dixie State University’s “Excellence in Education” award from the DSU Board of Trustees as part of their Commencement Ceremony.

* Senator Harper worked this week to remind our Congressional Delegation that Utah (or at least a majority of the legislature, the guv, and thousands of utah businesses) supports the Marketplace Fairness Act, on which the US Senate will vote soon. His comments have stirred up some great discussion at the Senate Site and the world wide web.  [Addt'l coverage @ the Trib]

* Last week, Senator Weiler told us what he’s learned about the Common Core.  This week, Senator Dayton added her voice to the conversation.  So did Rep. Peterson.

* You may also want to check out this Daily Herald Article.  There’s an anti-Common Core petition going around.

* Senator Hillyard received the Amicus Curiae award [aka friend of the court] on April 12th from Utah’s Justice Court Judges, and thanked him for his outstanding service to the courts. Thanks, Sen. Hillyard.  Thanks, Justice Courts.

* Senator Henderson says some nice things about Rep. Knotwell, who is already looking forward to the 2014 Session. (Yes, we’re already thinking about it.)

 

Tweets, and a parting thought.

On Monday, we were visited by a delegation from Shishi High School (the oldest high school in the world, established in 143 BC!) Here’s a pic:

This week, soldiers from the Utah National Guard’s 624th Engineering Company returned home to Utah.  Here are some awesome pics via Governor Herbert’s twitter.

 

Nothing you do for children is ever wasted.
They seem not to notice us, hovering, averting our eyes,
and they seldom offer thanks,
but what we do for them is never wasted.
  – Garrison Keillor

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-26-2013/feed/ 0 A level playing field: Marketplace Fairness http://www.senatesite.com/home/harper-mfa/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/harper-mfa/#comments Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:46:09 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7563 By Wayne Harper

Utah Senator, District 6

This week, the United States Congress will vote on a critical piece of legislation: S.743 - Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA).

Simply stated, the measure will remove a government endorsed tax situation that puts local retail businesses at a competitive disadvantage.  I have spent my 16 years in the Utah Legislature pressing for lower taxes. Over that time, I have led Utah’s charge in support tax reduction and  this legislation so that state and local governments can lower the sales tax rate by expanding the sales tax base. Simply stated, Marketplace Fairness keeps taxes low and eliminates existing unfairness in the tax code.

The Marketplace Fairness Act and Utah

The Marketplace Fairness Act is a state sovereignty and budget issue. It is not a federal budget issue.

Tommy Burr’s article in April 24′s Salt Lake Tribune correctly states that

“Utah is missing out on $180 million in sales tax revenue annually through online purchases, although Senate legislation under debate could provide a simple tool for Internet retailers to collect the already due tax from consumers.  The proposed change, which the Senate should vote on Wednesday, would affect Internet retailers who do more than $1 million in business a year. . . the legislation would allow states that now charge a sales tax to require online businesses elsewhere in the United States to charge and remit the tax . . . .”

The Utah Legislature has on multiple occasions and over several years spoken to this issue.  We adopted the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, and passed multiple Resolutions in support of a federal solution. The states have been waiting and working for over 20 years for Congress to respond to the directive issued by the Supreme Court to address this tax inequity problem and return control of sales tax policy to each state.

Last month, both the Utah House and Senate passed HJR 4, a Resolution in support of the MFA. We specifically called for Utah’s delegation to support S. 336 (which is identical to the current bill, S 743).

Utah is passionate about our support for all businesses and business owners.  Absent of the Marketplace Fairness Act, there is no mechanism to collect taxes that are already due. Under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause decisions, states may require in-state retailers to collect sales tax from their customers, but states may not require out-of-state retailers to do the same. Instead, states impose a “use tax” on purchases from out of state retailers.  Use tax is identical to the sales tax, except that there’s no meaningful way to collect it. Thankfully, no one source tracks what each consumer has purchased and where they’ve purchased it.  Therefore, there is no way for a state to know how much a taxpayer owes. In theory, taxpayers calculate the amount of use tax they owe, and submit it as part of their state income tax filing. Unsurprisingly, almost no one does.

With no solution to this ‘use tax problem’, the explosive growth of e-commerce will create pressure to increase other taxes. As ever more people use e-commerce to purchase from out of state retailers goods that they have historically purchased from brick and mortar stores, and therefore owe use tax instead of paying sales tax, states lose tax revenue, creating pressure to raise other taxes. By making use tax as easy to collect as sales tax, the MFA will allow state and local governments to lower sales tax rates.

Opposition to Marketplace Fairness

The arguments against Marketplace Fairness are misguided. Some critics have compared Marketplace Fairness to Obamacare – a misguided comparison at best.

First, the Obama Care legislation was thousands of pages long, while the Marketplace Fairness Act is a scant 11 pages long.

Second, Congress has considered previous iterations of Marketplace Fairness. In fact, the current version of Marketplace Fairness is in nearly all respects identical to the 2011 edition (S. 1832). The differences between the two bills have occurred precisely because the public has had two years to evaluate the proposal. That’s a far cry from Speaker Pelosi’s infamous dictum that we have to pass Obama Care to find out what’s in Obama Care.  Likewise, the Senate Finance Committee discussed this Act in two difference committee hearings in 2012 and the Senate Commerce and House Judiciary Committees held full hearings on the Act in 2012.

Other critics object to Marketplace Fairness because, they aver, Marketplace Fairness creates new burdens on out of state retailers. Frankly, it’s hard not to dismiss this argument. Out of state retailers have gamed the sales tax system for decades. These retailers sell identical goods as in-state businesses, but they enjoy a roughly 7-10% price advantage, because their customers don’t have to pay state and local sales taxes at checkout. Marketplace Fairness eliminates this systematic and inappropriate preference.

Utah’s Congressional Delegation

In many meetings over the past decade, businesses owners, constituents and elected officials from Utah met with Senator Hatch in Utah and in DC  to discuss this important bill and to seek his support.  Much dialogue has occurred with his staff to clarify questions and discuss the opportunity and benefits this bill offers to all taxpayers in Utah.

Two days ago, a cloture vote on S. 743 was taken.  It is apparent that both of our Utah Senators are opposed to the MFA. Two similar votes have recently been taken on the issue, and each time, our DC Senators have voted against Utah’s long-standing precedent of supporting this legislation.  Frankly, I do not understand it.

As mentioned, the Utah State Legislature has repeatedly taken a strong position in favor of this bill. So do tens of thousands of local businesses in Utah.  Governor Gary Herbert also supports the Marketplace Fairness Act.

We’re all on board.  Why aren’t they?

It seems that Mr. Hatch’s primary argument as to why he voted “nay” on the cloture vote is because of the process by which the bill was brought before the Senate – namely, that the measure did not go before the Senate Finance Committee.

The Senator’s press release calls for vetting of this issue and the opportunity to present amendments:

“Despite the good intentions of those backing this bill, it just isn’t ready yet. Bringing legislation of such far-reaching consequences to the floor of the Senate when the Finance Committee hasn’t even held a hearing or a markup on it isn’t the way we should be doing business around here.  I’ve heard concerns from Senators on both sides of this issue that we need more time and this bill needs greater scrutiny before moving ahead.  One thing is certain, however, this legislation must be subject to a thorough open debate and amendment process.”

I respect the Senator’s desire to support legislation going through the proper processes. However, I would remind all that in two Senate Finance Committee hearings in 2012, the MFA and remote collection of due sales taxes was part of the Committee discussion and hearings. Likewise, last fall, full hearings were held on the MFA in Senate Commerce and House Judiciary Committees.

The Marketplace Fairness Act

At this point, I am incredibly disappointed in our U.S. Senators’ apparent position.  I cannot fathom why they would choose to not support this legislation.  (This is the email I sent to Senator Hatch’s Office last week.)

Congress needs to approve Marketplace Fairness. If they don’t, the tax system will continue to discriminate between market competitors, and pressure to raise state income taxes will continue to mount. In a time of mounting global competition, we simply cannot afford to raise taxes, and we should never let the tax code systematically discriminate against market competitors.

This bill has had congressional hearings and has been fully vetted. The Marketplace Fairness Act is now ripe for floor debate and passage.

I call upon on our congressional delegation to support the bills and respect the votes of the legislature and Utahans. I passionately request that the good Senators from Utah listen to the businesses and elected officials of this state, and support this important bill.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[Update, 5/3/13]: Utah Retail Merchants Association’s’ op-ed piece on the MFA  in the Salt Lake Tribune.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/harper-mfa/feed/ 2 Thoughts on NCLB & the Common Core http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-nclb-commoncore/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-nclb-commoncore/#comments Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:25:03 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7490 By Margaret Dayton
Utah State Senator, District 15

How well I remember passionately promoting a No Child Left Behind Opt-Out bill that I had created for the State of Utah.  NCLB was new – and I was then a member of the Utah House of Representatives.

Several national media outlets featured my concerns. Most interviewed me as if they were interested in my perspective, but in reality they were gathering clips to poke fun at me and the Utah House for taking such a stand.

Interestingly, these same media outlets did not recant their jocularity when all 50 states joined in some sort of resistance to NCLB.  Some states, like Utah, created legislation to opt out. Some wrote resolutions opposing it. Some sued the federal govt complaining that NCLB was an unfunded federal mandate, and some took a stance of civil disobedience choosing to ignore the law.  The latter were eventually fined, and all states were threatened with withdrawal of federal funds if the 1000 page law – and its thousands and thousands and thousands (they just kept coming) and thousands of pages of regulatory guidelines – were not heeded.

There were several reasons I opposed No Child Left Behind.  Some include:

- The law violated the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of all 50 states.  Our Utah State Constitution is based on the same format as other states already in the Union, and on the language of the Utah Enabling Act which states that the ‘education of the residents of said states shall forever be under the exclusive control’ of our state.

- One of the stated goals of NCLB was to close the so-called ‘achievement gap’.  It has been repeatedly said that such a plan is not a noble goal.  If that is our hope, all we need to do is bring down the achievers to the level of the challenged students, and the gap is closed.  The goal of education should always be to help each student learn and achieve at their highest potential, and to help each develop a love for life-long learning.

- Every time I visited with officers from the United States Dept of Education (incidentally, the creation of such a dept violates the Constitution – and President Reagan was frustrated in his efforts to dismantle it), my fear that NCLB plowed the ground and planted the seeds for a national curriculum were minimized by USOE personnel.

- Another major goal of NCLB, and one which was highly celebrated by its promotors, was that 100% of students in the United States would be proficient in reading and math by the year 2014.

No Child Left Behind was up for re-authorization in 2007.  The time came, and no re-authorization was addressed; no changes or evaluation or consideration of elimination of NCLB was made, nor has there been any effort to address re-authorization in the years since.

Worse still than the re-authorization debate which Congress chose to ignore, however, was the USDoE’s layering of more ill-conceived efforts to patch up and perfect a national take-over of education.  Ignoring the Constitutional and traditional pattern of education being a state issue, the USDoE offered a nefarious plan called Race to the Top, which offered financial incentives and temporary NCLB waivers to a limited number of states if they applied for Race to the Top money.  Included in the application for Race funding, however, was a commitment that the applying state would accept Common Core.  States that applied were obligated to Common Core – even if the states were not accepted in the Race.

Much has been said about Common Core – by those who support it and those who oppose it.   To me, the greatest benefit of Common Core is the fact that it  has generated a army of parent activists who have educated themselves on the implementation of national standards, USDoE regulations, and the data mining of students’ academic and personal information.  We should all take note of the trends taking place in education:

- 2014 is quickly approaching – and the goal of 100% proficiency in math and reading is not happening.

- The so-call achievement gap still exits.

- NCLB is evolving into a more dangerous national curriculum than was proposed in its original, overwhelming proposal, and plans to address re-authorization don’t seem to exist anywhere.

- Common Core is creeping into every school in every state – even into those that don’t want to be ‘common’.

The lesson to be learned from the NCLB battles early in this century is that we were right to oppose NCLB, and we were wrong to collectively accept federal funds instead of standing firm on opting-out.

 

This blog was featured April 22nd, on Utah Policy Daily.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-nclb-commoncore/feed/ 1 April 19th, 1775 http://www.senatesite.com/home/april-19th/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/april-19th/#comments Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:04:39 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7479 April 19th

The inscription on the monument near the Concord Bridge reminds us

H E R E

On the 19 of April 1775 was made the first forcible resistance to British aggression

On the opposite Bank stood the American Militia

Here stood the Invading Army and on this spot the first of the Enemy fell in the War of that Revolution which gave Independence to these United States

In gratitude to GOD and In the love of Freedom this Monument was erected

AD 1836

From the Federalist Patriot:

By the Spring of 1775, the Massachusetts Colony was preparing for conflict with the Royal authority over taxation without representation. The colonial authorities had become oppressive, and American Patriots were prepared to cast off their masters.

On the eve of 18 April, 1775, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, dispatched a force from Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord, and to capture Patriot rebels Samuel Adams and John Hancock, reported to be in Lexington. But Patriots had anticipated this raid.

Paul Revere had arranged for advance warning, and though he was captured, Patriot allies William Dawes and Samuel Prescott continued their midnight ride for twenty-two miles from Boston’s Old North Church to Concord and warned militiamen along the way.

As dawn arrived on 19 April 1775, between 50 and 70 militiamen came to the town green at Lexington to confront the British column. When a few links away from the militia column, the British officer swung his sword, and said, “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!” Several Patriots were killed and wounded, but none had been ordered to return fire.

However, when the British arrived at Concord’s Old North Bridge, American “Minutemen” fired the “shot heard round the world” as Emerson notes [below].

That was the beginning of an eight-year struggle for American independence . . . .

Concord Hymn
By Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, are sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

 

 

This blog post was hand-carried in a colonial-era wooden bucket from the old Senate Site

Concord Bridge pic courtesy of Martine Smith

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/april-19th/feed/ 1 Senate Journal, April 19th http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-19-2013/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-19-2013/#comments Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:54:11 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7451 It’s been a quiet week in the Utah State Senate.  And a pretty one.  Come visit.  Take a walk around the campus.  Cherry blossoms in full bloom.  Also – Happy April 19th!

There are 283 days until the 2014 Session.  That’s 9 months and 8 days from now… but if you can’t handle being off the hill for that long, here’s the 2013 Interim Meetings Calendar.

The Votes are In.

Our veto override poll closed at 5 p.m.  The Senate did not reach the 2/3 threshold required to call a veto override session on HB76.

Schott and Bernick and Gehrke knew somehow, but as of 5:01pm, we can officially announce that there will not be a veto override session.  The final vote in the Senate was 16 “yes” and 13 “no”.

Top Links!

* Senator Stephenson talks about digital learning in Utah.

* Senator Weiler is also talking about education:  “What’s the deal with ‘Common Core’”?

* Senator Dayton shares thoughts about Immigration, the Utah Compact.

* More legislative report card-ing coverage. How’d your senator do?

* No such thing as a free meal. Lee Davidson follows up on the oft-discussed legislative compensation changes.

* Punny title, Lee. Mormon missionaries may be using the new TRAX line extension to the airport.  Currently taking bets on how many mothers will ‘happen’ to ‘accidentally’ be on the same train as their transitory missionary.  Our guess? All of them.

*  Senator Curt Bramble’s daughter Catherine was in full view of the finish line when the bombs went off in Boston on Monday.  Glad she’s safe.   This Utah family is grateful to be alive and well after a close-call in Boston.  Another story from the Standard-Examiner on Utahns’ involvement at the Boston Marathon.  Our thoughts and prayers are continually with those involved in this developing situation.

A tweet, and a parting thought.

On Wednesday, the senate joined in the 2013 Great Utah Shakeout.  To celebrate (and probably just because), our Chief of Staff brought us actual shakes.

 

I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death.
- Thomas Paine

 

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-19-2013/feed/ 0 Immigration & the Utah Compact http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-utah-compact/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-utah-compact/#comments Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:37:03 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7416 By Margaret Dayton
Utah State Senator, District 15

I recently attended a Utah County Central Committee Meeting.  One of the topics of intense discussion was the proposal to fold the so-called Utah Compact in to the Utah County Republican Party Platform.  Feelings were intense on both sides.

Some of the arguments in favor of such a plan included support from religious organizations, concern for separating families with members in 2 countries, and the desire to be more inclusive as a party.  I was not on the side of such arguments.  Here, I detail a few of the reasons why.

• First, I don’t think a Party Platform is an appropriate place for a bipartisan agreement.  The Party Platform should address the principles that the party wants to promote.  So-called political correctness notwithstanding, in my way of thinking the operative word in illegal immigration is still ‘illegal’ – and I would hope that our party would be a party of laws – and hope that all religions would want us to be law-abiding citizens.

• Second, the concern of separating families should not be part of the argument. Sometimes families – or their employers – or the courts – are involved in temporarily separating family members.  For those who are incarcerated, such separation is the result of a family members choice.  For schooling or employment requirements, such separations (uncomfortable as they are) can happen.  My earliest memory of my father is his absence – he was gone for months with military forces involved in post-Korean War occupation.  In high school, he was gone for a year to Vietnam.  These were difficult but understandable separations, and were not based on choices of illegal immigration that the new country was now obligated to ameliorate.

• Third, the idea of inclusiveness comes with a price.  What is the consequence of fair and equal treatment for those legal immigrants when we are urged to overlook and accommodate illegal immigration?  It includes health care concerns, public education challenges, and social issues.

It is very distressing to me that we, as a state legislature, and a society as a whole, are forced to even deal with this challenge — but because of failed federal policy and the ineptness of Congress and the President, we are.

As the granddaughter of a legal immigrant, I grew up hearing the stories of waiting and preparing for immigration, the health screenings, and the challenges of learning a new language that my then-teenage grandma and her family faced.

Last year, my daughter-in-law became a naturalized citizen. she studied hard to pass the 100 question history test and to learn the language.   Her naturalization ceremony was a sacred experience for our family.  This year, she and my son have brought  her  12-year old niece to live with them and go to school.  She is here legally with a student visa.  Such visa does not allow her to go to public school.  Had she come via the Mexican border rather than via Hong Kong, she could attend public school with no questions asked, and receive ESL tutoring, healthcare, etc. Instead, because she chose the legal route, her American ‘parents’ are paying $8.000/semester for her to attend private school. Her new parents realize that young girls from many foreign countries have already maxed out their educational opportunities – but they are working to help this bright young lady.

While they are following legal pathways, they are also required through their taxes to help fund huge numbers of illegal immigrants who have not followed the law, have not had health screenings, have not learned the language nor the history.

These are real and personal concerns to me.  Hopefully this explains to those who were offended at my speaking against the Utah Compact becoming part of our Republican Party Platform why I choose to stand and speak out.

 
 
Photo: Arizona/Mexico Border, West of Nogales. Taken by Michael Waddoups.
 
 
]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/dayton-utah-compact/feed/ 1 What’s the deal with “Common Core”? http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-common-core/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-common-core/#comments Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:07:26 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7364 By Todd Weiler
Utah State Senator, District 23
Published April 3, 2013, at SenateDist23.

 

What’s the deal with “Common Core”?

I have had a lot of people contacting me with concerns regarding Common Core. This is what I have been able to ascertain so far.

What is common core?

The Common Core State Standards (Common Core) are a set of math and English language arts curriculum standards adopted by 45 states. The Common Core was developed by a state-led effort known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative, coordinated by the National Governors Association for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Educators, administrators, researchers, parents, community groups, and private companies all reviewed the standards and provided feedback during the process. Included within the common core are college-and-career-readiness standards, which address what students are expected to learn when they have graduated from high school, and grade level standards for kindergarten through grade 12, which address expectations for elementary through high school. The State School Board adopted the Common Core as Utah’s core standards for mathematics and English/language arts in August 2010.

Utah professors in both Math and English at local institutions of higher education have endorsed the new core standards. See http://www.schools.utah.gov/core/Utah-Core-Standards/CommonCoreResourceGuide.aspx

How did we get here?

In 2008, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers began a push for common standards for English language arts and mathematics in cooperation with interested states. In May 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to participate in the development of the Common Core (Utah’s Common Core MOA). Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core. Participation in the Common Core States Standards Initiative (the Common Core Initiative) was “voluntary for states.” The purpose of the MOA was to set up a process for the development of the Common Core Initiative and commit states to “the process and structure as described” in the MOA. Utah’s Common Core MOA does not commit Utah to maintaining the Common Core.

In May 2010, Governor Gary Herbert signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Utah to join the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a group of states working to develop computer adaptive assessments aligned with Common Core. SBAC has received a grant of $160 million from the federal government through the “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund along with a supplemental award of $15.9 million to develop assessments and associated materials. (Utah sent a letter withdrawing from the SBAC in August 2102, issued its own RFP, and awarded a contract to AIR — which is also assisting other states in developing their computer adaptive tests.)

In the MOU, Utah agreed to adopt “a common set” of college and career standards and “common achievement standards”. This is what we now call “Common Core.”

Utah has had its own standards in place since 1984, and has revised them every 5-7 years. Prior to the 2009 agreement to use Common Core, Utah individuals who were elected or were overseen by elected officials created those standards. So the teachers and parents, etc. had some avenue if they wanted it changed.

Even though the legislature did not create the standards, there have been instances where they made firm requests that the standards be adjusted and the state school board considered and complied.

Contrary to what many have been told, Utah has not received any federal dollars to adopt or implement these standards. But the way we accepted our NCLB waiver arguably requires that we keep them — but our basis for that can be changed.

The minutes of the Utah State Board of Education (State School Board) meeting on August 6, 2010 state that the Board voted unanimously to adopt the Common Core Standards. This document states that it “supersedes the specific governance provisions of the MOU,” and has the same five-step Exit Procedure as the MOU. This vote effectively replaced Utah’s core K-12 standards with Common Core State Standards developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. On this date, the State School Board formally adopted Common Core as Utah’s core standards for English language arts and mathematics.

On January 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education entered into a Cooperative Agreement with SBAC. (In August 2012, the State School Board withdrew from the SBAC.) This has become to be known as the “Race To The Top” (RTTT) Award. However, Utah did not win a RTTT award. The award is deemed cooperative because the Secretary of Education has determined that “substantial involvement” of the Department is necessary for success. The Appendices contain 14 Conditions, including compliance with the Stimulus Act (ARRA) and all applicable operational and administrative provisions. There are Budget tables totaling $149 million for four years, plus $10 million for three years of comprehensive assessment. Finally, the separate Grant Award Notice covered the $149 million and $10 million items above. And it specified “substantial involvement of the Department of Education.”

What is the effect of Utah’s Waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?

On September 23, 2011, the Secretary Duncan invited states to request flexibility regarding specific requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). States were given the opportunity to replace the federal accountability system with an accountability system developed by the state. Under the federal accountability system, schools were annually evaluated based on meeting targets for the percentage of students scoring proficient on English language arts and mathematics assessments with the goal of all students attaining proficiency by 2014.

To obtain flexibility, the Department of Education requires a state to adopt college-and-career-ready standards (i.e., common core standards) and develop and administer high quality assessments tied to those standards. The State School Board submitted a flexibility request and received approval on June 29, 2012. In its flexibility request, Utah noted its adoption of the Common Core and its membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to fulfill the Department’s requirements for flexibility.  But then Utah sent a letter withdrawing from SBAC on August 9, 2012.

Utah was not required to fully adopt the Common Core nor participate in an assessment consortium (such as SBAC) to obtain flexibility from the current ESEA requirements. However, as part of its application for ESEA flexibility, Utah made assurances to the Department of Education regarding its current incorporation of the Common Core into its core standards and Utah’s membership in SBAC. Although Utah’s application for flexibility made goals and assurances related to its status as a Common Core state and membership in SBAC, Utah could have taken the option to adopt standards other than the Common Core or withdraw from SBAC (which it did). Utah could still petition the Department to allow it to amend or change its approved flexibility request, or it could still re-apply for the ESEA flexibility waiver with different college-and-career ready standards or assessments.

Although the ESEA flexibility waiver has been granted for two years, a state may amend its request: “The Department encourages Utah to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and other elements of its ESEA flexibility request as it proceeds with implementation, and to make necessary changes to address any challenges that it identifies. . . . If Utah wishes to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request, Utah must submit those changes to the Department as early as feasible for the Department’s review and approval.”

When Utah received the waiver, it was automatically excused from the AYP Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting. As of September 2011, about one-fifth Utah schools were not meeting the AYP standards as designated by NCLB.  About 20 of those schools were Title 1 schools and would therefore be required to offer to bus children to better schools and offer more tutoring.

After the changes are submitted to the Department, the changes could be approved or the Secretary could decide to terminate Utah’s waiver for non-compliance with the ESEA flexibility waiver. If the waiver is terminated, Utah and its school districts and charter schools (LEAs) would be required to comply with the current provisions of ESEA without the flexibility. If the Secretary terminates the waiver, “Utah and its LEAs must immediately resume complying with the requirements of current [ESEA] law.” At that point Utah could re-apply for ESEA flexibility with the new standards or simply comply with current ESEA provisions without flexibility.

Can Utah get out of Common Core?

Utah’s 2009 agreement with the Common Core State Standards Initiative says “This effort is voluntary for states” and does not require the state to do anything as a participating member other than adopt the standards.  Utah can stop using common core as its state standard. Since the MOA signed by Utah to participate in the development of the Common Core does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core, and because Utah did not receive federal money related to its adoption of the Common Core, Utah is not required to keep the Common Core as its state standards.

Some maintain that Utah is required to keep Common Core unless and until it changes the waiver.  So it might be more fair to say that Utah does have the option of using other standards that are not aligned with the Common Core. However, it would require Utah to re-write and then be re-approved for the NCLB waiver — or just abandon the waiver all together. Utah could also adopt “standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the post-secondary level” — an option the federal government originally offered the state when it applied for its waiver. Such an alternative would allow Utah to develop its own standards and still obtain relief from some stifling NCLB regulations and receive the funding to which those regulations are attached. Two states – Minnesota and Virginia – have received NCLB flexibility waivers by choosing this option. In all events, changing Utah’s standards by leaving Common Core would requirement an amendment to the flexibility waiver for NCLB. In the waiver, Utah asserted the state’s right to change the standards whenever the state chose to do so. This assertion was accepted by the department.

In both January 2010 and May 2010, Utah submitted applications to receive grants through the first two phases of the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund. As part of its evaluation process for determining which states would receive funds, the federal government gave preference to a state if it had “demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high quality standards” (this is Common Core) by participating in a consortium that included “a significant number of states” and was “working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards.” Because the state did not win a grant in either the first or second phases of RTTT funding and did not apply for phase three, it is not required to remain in Common Core because of RTTT.  But the waiver is a separate matter, as set forth above.

In 2012, the Utah Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to administer statewide computer adaptive tests aligned with Utah’s core standards. The State Office of Education released a “request for proposal” in order to have its own assessments developed or to adopt another existing assessment. It eventually awarded a contract to American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.).  AIR is the only vendor that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, which makes some people question the amount of federal influence.

What are assessments?

In order to determine if students are learning and understanding the standards through the teaching of the curriculum, schools administer assessments. Utah law requires the State School Board to develop an assessment method to uniformly test students in basic skills courses. In the 2012 General Session, the Legislature passed H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing, which enacted a new requirement to test Utah’s core standards in science, math and English/language arts with a computer adaptive assessment system.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) was authorized under theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the federal government provided funding to two consortia of states to develop assessments aligned with the Common Core. Utah initially joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a consortium of 27 states created to develop an adaptive assessment system.

On August 3, 2012, the State School Board voted to exit SBAC. The Board’s August 3, 2012 Meeting Summary states that the Board voted to end its membership in SBAC in order to avoid a conflict of interest related to the Board’s request for proposals for an adaptive assessment system required under 2012 General Session H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing. Utah is no longer a member of SBAC and through the RFP process has contracted with the American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.) to develop Utah’s computer adaptive assessments.

What will common core cost?

The answer is not yet clear.

According to the Utah State Office of Education, “Utah is not spending any more money on the common core adoption than is typically associated with core standards revision — which have been in place since 1984. School districts and charter schools have received no additional funds, federal or state, to implement the new core standards or new instructional materials and curriculum. In fact, earmarked funding for professional development, which is used to train Utah’s public school educators in new core standards, has decreased significantly. Before 2008. school districts and charter schools had $78 million in state funds for professional development through the Quality Educator Block Grant. This funding has been almost completely eliminated. For the 2011-12 school year, the Legislature allocated only $2 million in state funds for professional development, and cut that amount in half for the following school year. Furthermore, textbook costs are not anticipated to increase. Whenever new standards are implemented, school districts and charters are required to phase in new materials. Due to restricted finances, many do not immediately purchase new books.Instead, most have a five-to-seven-year textbook replacement plan.

“Utah is, however, spending money on developing new computer adaptive assessments. In 2007, Governor Jon Huntsman convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Assessment. The panel, stakeholders throughout the state, and the Utah State Board of Education concluded that computer adaptive assessments should be studied and, if successful, should be adopted statewide. Successful pilots were conducted, and the State School Board concluded that state funds should be sought for computer adaptive assessments aligned to state standards. This request would have been made for whichever state standards were adopted by the State Board.”

The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel had similar findings in regards to the cost of implementation of the new core standards in Utah. It concluded that the federal government may only require a state to comply with a public education mandate if the mandate is a condition of the receipt of money accepted by the state through a federal program. If a state were to fail to comply with the conditions of a grant, the federal government could require the state to refund the money as a penalty for non-compliance. While Congress has no authority to regulate activities for a general welfare purpose, it may tax and spend “for the general welfare.” According to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congress may not directly regulate certain interests that traditionally belong to the states, such as education. Congress may, however, indirectly regulate traditionally local interests by conditioning a state’s receipt of federal money on the state meeting certain conditions.

There is a limit to Congress’s ability to coerce a state to act by granting or withholding federal funds. The United States Supreme Court has noted the possibility that a given set of federal conditions to a state’s participation in a federal spending program could be so onerous as to rise to a point where “pressure turns into compulsion,” regardless of whether Congress has sought the consent of the states as part of the federal program.

In South Dakota v. Dole, the state challenged a grant of federal funding for roads that required South Dakota to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 or lose 5% of the state’s ongoing federal transportation funding. The Court recognized that a circumstance could exist where the conditions placed on receipt of the federal money were so extreme that they amounted to coercion of the states. The Court ruled in favor of the federal government, finding that a loss of 5% of ongoing transportation funding was minimal and that the state’s argument that it was “coercion [was] shown to be more rhetoric than fact.” Despite the Court’s specific holding in Dole, the case left open the possibility that a future grant program offered to the states by Congress could be struck down if the grant conditions were so onerous that a court could determine that they amounted to “coercion.”

Is Utah required to give student-identifying data to the federal government or other states because of the Common Core or SBAC?

Neither Utah’s adoption of the Common Core nor its past participation in SBAC require Utah or its school districts and charter schools to share data or report student information. Utah school districts and charter schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs, but both of the largest federal public education programs explicitly prohibit the reporting of student identifying information to the federal government. Utah will have to comply with the same federal reporting requirements whether it continues to use its current standards based on the Common Core or if Utah adopts other core standards created exclusively for Utah.

There is some concern about data sharing that may be associated with using national assessments.  Those will arguably link Utah into national data banks that we don’t have control.  Therefore, Utah will not have any say regarding what information is collected or to whom it is distributed.  So it may be more fair to say that Utah schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs. The Legislature has attempted to secure the information of Utah students, but this is an issue that has proven to be complicated.   Some people fear that federal FERPA changes have made it optional to share this data.

Can Utah change the Common Core?

Utah adopted the Common Core standards and they are now Utah Core Standards in math and English language arts, and yes, Utah can change the Utah standards at any time. In early April 2013, the State Board adopted new standards in cursive writing, adding that to the Core standards. So we have already made changes to adapt these to Utah’s needs.  So there is little or no argument that Utah can add whatever it wants.  But the true concern is that the assessments are tailor made to the standards, with the curriculum falling somewhere in between.  Since teachers will be evaluated on how well their students perform on the assessments, they will be motivated to teach only the common core materials.   

Utah could change or substitute portions of the Common Core.  Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core but, by the terms of the MOA, allows Utah to add 15% on top of the Common Core: “States that choose to align their standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common core represents at least 85% of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative license grant states: The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) hereby grant a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to copy, publish, distribute, and display the Common Core State Standards for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative (emphasis added). These uses may involve the Common Core State Standards as a whole or selected excerpts or portions. The license grant allows Utah to use the Common Core in whole or in portions “for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative.” If Utah amends the Common Core standards significantly, it is uncertain whether NGA and CCSSO would consider the changes or substitutions to be supportive of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

According to the minutes of the August 3, 2012 State School Board meeting, there is no “core police” that will stop or prohibit Utah from amending the Common Core standards in excess of the 15% allowed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The State School Board is free to add to (but not delete from) to the standards to meet a state’s individual need and encouraged all states to look at those needs. Even if Utah has the legal right to amend the Common Core by more than an additional 15% added to the top, it risks losing benefits a state gains when it adopts the Common Core. If Utah amends its core standards to make them significantly different from the Common Core, Utah may not be able to accurately compare its students’ performance to the performance of students in other Common Core states. Also, Utah may not be able to take advantage of products and materials developed for the Common Core states, which may be more cost effective. Legally Utah is free to amend its core standards significantly beyond the 15% added to the top. Doing so, however, could cause Utah to lose certain benefits of being a Common Core state.

How are Common Core Standards different than Common Core Curriculum?

Core standards are concepts, knowledge, and skills that students need to understand and master as they move through their schooling that prepare them for further education or careers after high school graduation. Standards are not curriculum. Utah law requires the State School Board to establish core curriculum standards.

Utah Code 53A-1-402.6(2) provides that the board shall:

(a) identify the basic knowledge, skills, and competencies each student is expected to acquire or master as the student advances through the public education system; and

(b) align the core curriculum standards and tests administered under the Utah Performance Assessment Systems for Students (U-PASS) with each other.

The State School Board adopts standards in a range of subjects including math, English language arts, driver education, social studies, science, and fine arts. These core standards are revised every five to seven years to assure that students learn what they need to know to be successful after public school.

Curriculum is an educational plan; it sets forth how and what is used to teach the standards. It may include content, teaching materials, and methods. Strategies are recommended at the state level, but are not mandated. Utah law requires local school boards to establish curriculum, which may vary from district to district and be tailored to local needs. UTAH CODE Subsections 53A-1-402.6(4)–(5) provide that

(4) Local school boards shall design their school programs, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, to focus on the core curriculum standards with the expectation that each program will enhance or help achieve mastery of the core curriculum standards.

(5) Except as provided in Section 53A-13-101,each school may select instructional materials and methods of teaching, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, that it considers most appropriate to meet core curriculum standards.

Although the federal government cannot control curriculum, some are concerned that it can effectively drive the curriculum by controlling the assessments (assessments are the annual testing) on the standards.  There remains the concern that the adoption of federal standards diminishes local control, i.e., a parent’s ability to go to the local school board and seek a change in curriculum from what is currently being taught.

What are my concerns?

My biggest concern is that Utah obtained its waiver from NCLB by agreeing to adopt common core standards and that the assessments (end of year testing) that will evaluate those standards will effectively dictate what curriculum will be taught in Utah’s schools. I am wondering what that will do to local control. I am also concerned that Utah’s acceptance of stimulus money in 2009 (ARRA), which created the state’s longitudinal data base has linked us into a federal student data sharing initiative.

At this point I am still trying to figure out what, if anything the Legislature can or should do.

What are my sources?

UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).

BRENDA HALES, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC., IMPLEMENTING UTAH’S CORE STANDARDS INREADING/LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS: COSTS (2012)

Common Core Standards for Mathematics, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE,http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2012); Common Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDSINITIATIVE, http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf(last visited Aug. 14, 2012).

UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).

Process, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE,http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/process (last visited August 7, 2012).

Official minutes of the State Board of Education, which discussed the Common Core at its February 5, March 5, and May 7 meetings; adopted the Common Core on first reading at its June 4 meeting; and adopted the Common Core on final reading at its August 6, 2010 meeting. In a joint meeting with the State Board of Regents on June 25, 2010, the Board discussed the Common Core. The Legislature’s Education Interim Committee discussed the Common Core at its June 17, 2009 meeting.

Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012),http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings/Summary.aspx.

Letter from Arne Duncan, U.S. Sec’y of Educ.,to Chief State School Officers (September 23, 2011), available athttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html.

Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936).

Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).

COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, BACKGROUND ON THE INITIATIVE (2010); COMMON CORESTATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, POWERPOINT—MARCH 2010.

Public License, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE,http://www.corestandards.org/public-license (last visited Aug. 1, 2012).

Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012),http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings/Summary.aspx.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Utah school districts and charter schools to report certain aggregated student information.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(C)(iii)(2006) (“The State shall not report to the public or the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Education] any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children. . . .”).

U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., ESEA FLEXIBILITY REVIEW GUIDANCE 6 (2012).

UTAH BD. OF EDUC., UTAH ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST 34 (2012).

Letter from Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant U.S. Sec’y for Elementary & Secondary Educ., to Hon. Larry K. Shumway, Utah Superintendent of Pub. Instruction (July 9, 2012), at 3.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/weiler-common-core/feed/ 5 Utah: Leading the way in digital learning http://www.senatesite.com/home/digital-learning/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/digital-learning/#comments Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:17:57 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7349 By Howard Stephenson
Utah State Senator, District 11

Utah is the only state to receive an “A” on the newly released report card from Digital Learning Now! (DLN).

The report card measures each of the nation’s 50 states against the 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning as it relates to K-12 education. State policy plays a central role in either accelerating or constraining the scaling of next generation models of learning.

With an overall score of 92%, Utah beat out Florida, Minnesota, Georgia, Virginia and Kansas, who were the next highest scoring and the only states to secure a “B”. All other 44 states received a “C” grade or lower.

Since education improvement is critical to achieving an educated workforce and since Utah spends more on education than any other part of the state budget, this achievement should be important to all taxpayers. It represents real efficiency and  effectiveness in the use of education tax dollars.

This recognition places Utah at the forefront as an example to other states of how to advance student-centric reforms through technology, innovation and smart policy. As states are moving to modernize their policies to create new opportunities for students, explore new models of learning, and provide needed infrastructure, Utah is leading the way.

The report shows states are advancing student-centric reforms, reducing barriers to blended learning, and encouraging the use of technology to offer a more personalized college-and-career-ready education. In 2012, more than 700 bills involving digital learning were considered by state legislatures and more than 152 were signed into law, with nearly every state enacting a bill that advanced a digital learning policy.

The low 22% success rate for these measures is due in large part to the general opposition to such legislation by entities representing the education community. In Utah, for example, some of the most significant digital learning legislation have been opposed by organizations representing “Big Education”: the UEA teachers union, State PTA, School Superintendents Association and School Boards Association. Even the State School Board has opposed many of the digital learning initiatives proposed or passed by the legislature.

This opposition to legislation providing digital technology is surprising because when deployed at the classroom level, it empowers teachers, assisting them to personalize student skill building and content knowledge, giving teachers more time for one on one student interventions with struggling students. Contrary to teacher union dogma, digital technology is not meant to replace the teacher, just as electronic spreadsheets have not replaced accountants and CAD systems have not replaced engineers.

One example of legislation which distinguishes Utah as a leader in digital learning and which was opposed vehemently by Big Education is Utah’s Statewide Online Education Program. The legislation frees all Utah high school students to take online courses from a multiplicity of competing providers with the dollars following the student to the provider of the online course. As DLN reports, “Louisiana, Georgia and Utah are leading the way in adopting ‘course choice’ programs that offer students the option to take publicly-funded, online courses from providers approved by the state.”

According to DLN, “State policy plays a central role in either accelerating or constraining the scaling of next-generation models of learning.” Utah legislators have embraced this important role.

During the recent 2013 Utah Legislative Session, 18 education technology related bills and appropriations were considered with 12 successfully passing (a 67% success rate). The measures will deploy a multitude of digital initiatives including learning technology, computer adaptive testing and infrastructure, competency-based education, online course choice options, literacy and math solutions, blended learning options, college entrance test prep tools, and more.

When digital tools are deployed effectively to provide individualized learning in the classroom and at home, student performance shows marked improvement. For example, in 2008 the Utah Legislature appropriated funds for every English language learner to receive 45 minutes a day of computer delivered personalized English language training. As a result, the 35,000 children who would typically have taken four or five years to become English fluent are now able to perform on par academically with their native English speaking peers in a fraction of the time.

Last year the Utah Legislature passed HB 513 (in spite of strong opposition from Big Education), to provide reading software to assist teaching professionals in giving 30,000 kindergarten and 1st grade students a half hour of digital reading instruction each day.  According to Ernest Broderick, principal of Stansbury Elementary in West Valley City, student reading progress has doubled since using the software, “I felt that to know the efficiency of reading software intervention and not to provide it, would be educational malpractice.”

Mr. Broderick’s commentary on the effectiveness of the software in assisting his dedicated staff to teach more effectively is similar to those in every school receiving software. Nevertheless, Big Education opposed legislation to expand the number of licenses to reach up to 90,000 K-3 students in the coming school year. They also effectively killed a bill to provide math software for elementary students statewide, calling such legislation “vendor bills.” These same entities which now oppose legislative appropriations for digital learning supported legislative appropriations for textbook “vendors” in the past.

Commenting on the DLN report which cited Utah’s achievement, Jeb Bush, former Florida governor and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd), said, “We need leaders in every state who are willing to make the necessary changes so that student-centered education is a reality. I am confident we can meet the challenges ahead, but only if we harness the opportunities afforded to us through technology and innovation.”

 

Published in the Utah Taxpayers Association April 2013 Newsletter.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/digital-learning/feed/ 1 Senate Journal, 4/13: Ghost Town Chronicle http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-12-2013/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-12-2013/#comments Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:46:34 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7304 It’s been a quiet week in the Utah State Senate.  Here’s a slide show of the debates, packed press conferences and busy hallways over the past few weeks.

Four weeks ago, citizen legislators returned to their homes, jobs and families.  For most of you involved with the legislative process life has returned to normal.  There are 290 days until the 2014 Session, but you didn’t really want to know that just yet, did you?

That reminds us – the 2013 Interim Meetings Calendar is up. Also, the Guv signed a lot of bills. Vetoed one.

The Veto!

HB76, which passed both bodies of the legislature, was vetoed by Governor Herbert.  What’s next?  Here’s the process. We’re currently polling our Senators to see if they favor an override session. The deadline for responding is next Friday, April 19th. The deadline for the start of an override session is May 13th.

* Lisa Riley Roche offers a concise and thorough story on the veto process.

* Utah Data Points did some polling of their own on Utah citizen’s opinions of gun rights. Addt’l coverage @ The Daily Herald, KUTV,  SL Trib, & UPD.

* Gehrke did his homework and believes he has the vote count.

* To override, or not to override? Senator Urquhart thinks we should. As do Senator Christensen and Senator Henderson.

* Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund doesn’t think that the legislature will vote to override.

Top Ten Post-Session Links

And even though the Session is over, your Utah Senators are still as involved as ever by way of discussion here at the Senate Site.  Just to catch you up:

10 – Three cool clean air victories from the 2013 legislature.

9 – Public schools will be graded A-F, and report cards sent to parents.  Senator Stuart Reid discussed why that’s a good thing.

9a - 2013 was a significant year for education policy in Utah.  Most of them are.  Here is an encyclopedic list of public ed work done during the Legislative Session. (Might be a helpful reference.)

8 - Bob Bernick’s notebook highlighted the key process work we’re going to do this summer.

7 - Rebels gonna rebel. Our new BFF state is South Carolina.  They’ve got our backs re: Utah Public Land.

6 - A sackful of session recapping: from Senator Dabakis, Senator Urquhart (re:Education), Elizabeth Garbe of the United Way, and Utah Data Points.

5 – Senate President Michael Waddoups will soon be Mission President Michael Waddoups.

4 – Pignanelli & Webb:   “The 2014 session was a model of responsibility, competence and efficiency.”  Thanks, guys.

 3 - Ray Pickup wrote a nice op-ed piece about how the #utleg strengthens the economy. The Trib Trolls were apopolectic.

 2 - An expensive, five year legal oddessey came to an end. The upshot: 2008′s SB 2 was not an unconstitutional breaking the single subject rule.  Told ya.

And… 1 – Senator Mark Madsen’s 3/1/13 comments about parent responsibility stand in stark contrast to the MSNBC Model where the community owns your kids.

Lastly - We couldn’t leave this out.  Former Senator and Current SLC County Mayor Ben McAdams held an event featuring stand-up comedy from Senators Todd Weiler and Jim Dabakis.  We’ll spare you the jokes, but the picture contained too much inherent awesomeness to pass up. (Shout-out to the illustrious Ms. Rassmussen.)

openmic

Happy weekend, all.  Talk to you Monday.

Utah Senate Chamber | Post-session.  Audio courtesy Clint Eastwood.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/4-12-2013/feed/ 0 Sen. Christensen: We need to override. http://www.senatesite.com/home/hb76-override/ http://www.senatesite.com/home/hb76-override/#comments Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:18:44 +0000 The Senate Site http://www.senatesite.com/home/?p=7286 By Allen Christensen
Utah State Senator, District 19

The House and Senate are currently being polled to determine our commitment to our vote regarding gun control. HB76 was and still is a valuable bill and, furthermore, a strong statement of our endorsement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

I hope each of you took the time to read Sen. Urquhart’s eloquent statement on of his support of HB 76 and support for an override session. I wish I could say it as well.

The Governor’s veto of this bill was not technical nor was it due to error of facts. It was because he disagreed with the legislature over the issue. That is his right and he has a legitimate role to play in the process.  I applaud him for sticking to what he believes.  With his veto, however, he set himself at odds with over 2/3 of those elected to vote on what they think is best for Utah. I feel strongly that his minority of one should not stand.

This veto, if allowed to stand, also gives those at the Federal level one more stone to throw at our constitutional liberties; something they are getting all too used to doing.

I sincerely hope the Utah Legislature will join with me and stick by our original vote on 1HB76 by calling for an override session.

]]> http://www.senatesite.com/home/hb76-override/feed/ 1