Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Friday, March 09, 2007Voucher Debate: An Added Layer of Complexity
Here are the facts about the latest twist in the voucher debate, as explained by the Lt. Governor’s Office and our counsel.
There are two voucher bills: HB 148 (the original bill) and HB 174 (which amended the original bill). HB 174 reenacted and included much of the language of the earlier bill because HB 148 was not yet on the books. It also included an explicit Coordinating Clause that states … "If this H.B. 174 and H.B. 148, Education Vouchers, both pass, it is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments to the sections in this bill supersede the amendments to the same numbered sections in H.B. 148...."If there is repetition or conflict between the bills, the second bill supersedes the first. Last week, a group of voucher opponents petitioned to hold a public referendum on the FIRST bill (HB 148), not the second. It’s too late to petition for a referendum on the second bill - the deadline has passed. That may not matter because the second bill (HB 174) received over two-thirds of the vote in both chambers. The Utah State Constitution states that legislation passed with a two-thirds majority is not subject to a referendum. Counsel has advised us that the core of Utah’s voucher program will be on the books through HB 174. There are, however, a few aspects of HB 148 that are not swallowed up in HB 174.
The mitigation in the original voucher bill (NOT in HB 174) provides that when a student leaves the public school system for a private school, the district will continue to receive funding for five years, as if the child was still there. This is an important aspect of the voucher program the legislature hoped would help reduce class sizes and make folks more comfortable with the new system.
posted by The Senate Site at 12:00 PM | Link
|
Your Government 2.0 Lab
Radio Free SenateKeep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
18 Comments:
From quotes in today's newspapers, it looks like voucher opponents have a differing view, especially if you take a look at Rolly's column.
Keep pushing the voters, it will make the next election cycle easier.
The anti-parent choice cabal needs a competent attorney. They are in big trouble and don't even know it.
The mitigation money needs to be eliminated anyway. There's nothing to mitigate in the first place. When enrollment decreases (or in growing districts' case, slows down), districts can respond by consolidating schools or build fewer (or smaller) new schools.
Are there mitigation payments when enrollment in Alpine increases but decreases in Ogden or SLC? Since minimum school program funding follows the student, the growing districts are "draining" the non-growing districts, aren't they?
The amount of state dollars attached to each student in a growing district like Nebo is higher than the amount of dollars attached to a voucher student.
Here are the articles our anonymous friend references:
Anti-voucher drive may be dead
New fight over vouchers
Loophole may ensure vouchers go forward
The D-News story brings out the Ostrich Mentality in the anti-voucher campaign. Wishing it wasn’t there doesn’t make a serious legal complication disappear.
Denying it exists is a stunning disservice to the somewhat-less-than-half-the -population who dream of voting against education vouchers.
How about some leadership here guys? It's no fun beating a group who can't ever muster a majority and can't organize their way out of a paper bag.
Be nice. They'll knock your head in someday. Politically speaking.
There is a small truckload of interesting comments on the KSL Comment Board ....
Maybe we need new legislation that allows the window of applying for a referendum to open once the bill becomes law, then close a few days after the governor takes action, not for a few days after the session is over, as it is now. Any law can be golden as long as the governor doesn't touch it until it is no longer eligible to be put to a referendum.
This voucher referendum issue is showing the shortcoming of the current system and gets in the way of the legislators' accountability to the people.
I know what you mean. It’s a short window. But I was surprised to read Carol Lear and other voucher opponents saying they could not file on the proper piece(s) of legislation because the Guv hadn’t yet signed one of them.
That seemed fishy to me so I called around. It turns out you can file a referendum petition on any bill for the first five days after session. The governor need not have signed it first. If it gets vetoed, then moot point.
I think they just made a rookie mistake. Their emotional, kill-the-messenger reaction is a little strange
It is discouraging that the Lt. Governor and certain senators are so quick to dismiss this issue. I am sure that it will end up in court. But, really, who do our elected officials represent? If a majority of Utahns say through a referendum that they don't want vouchers, why are the elected officials that represent them so quick to dismiss it? Stop looking for loopholes, and do what is right. I want elected officials that represent the people, not the deep pocket special-interests that throw money around. It's called integrity. And I'm starting to wonder if the Lt. Governor and certain senators have lost a handle on it. It is not virtuous to smirkingly disenfranchise the will of the people because you think you can.
Thanks Natalie. No one can dismiss the issue; no one has the POWER to dismiss the issue. What can and can’t be done here is governed by the law and the Constitution, not personalities, be they smirking, laughing, crying, or indifferent.
The situation seems clear: The referendum against HB 143 CAN NOT take voucher law off the books. A referendum effort MAY be able to yank funding, which would also yank the hold-public-schools-harmless money.
I like the defiant patriotic attitude – it makes America work. But may I temper it with a few observations?
#1: There has been no referendum yet. We don’t know what the “will of the people” would be unless it is through their elected representatives or through several public opinion polls taken over time – all with varying results. What seems certain is that 1) people would like to vote on the issue and, 2) they are divided, and 3) opinions change with education.
#2: My personal observation is that the Lt. Gov’s staff are acutely aware of their ethical responsibility to conduct a fair referendum election in accordance with state law. If you look beyond their accusers and read what they have actually said to the press you will find terse legal explanations and not much else.
#3: Our non-partisan attorneys and staff pointed out the complicated dynamics of the situation. The Lt. Guv’s office, apparently, arrived at the same conclusions independently. They didn’t push a loophole or viewpoint. They just explained the situation. Of course dedicated partisans on either side cheer when an advantage is handed to them. That’s human nature as old as high school football. But the perceived smirk, emotional hysteria, name calling, etc. seeped in when the media went to partisans on both sides for quotes. The underlying legal reality is in force no matter who loves or hates it.
This is going to be a long discussion. Everyone will have the opportunity to be heard, and every vote will be counted. We should keep it pleasant.
I don't think the Senate should be so proud about creating loopholes and laws that are not complete. You should be ashamed of this rather than so smug. Has anyone thought about just funding the public schools so that people don't need to look at private schools? Also, can families obtain a voucher if they decide to homeschool. I would hate to hear that our state is providing funding for the wing-nut parents that pull their kids from public school to protect them from the social world. I think that's the underlining issue that scares me. As for now, I'll be supporting any referendum, and if that creates an interesting situation in the lawbooks, well that's the Senate's fault, not the public that has to step in to correct their mess.
The Senate is not proud about creating loopholes. They are amused that the UEA pushed amending law is the thing that is biting the UEA in the behind.
I would hate to hear that our state is not providing funding for an alternative to the wing-nut UEA that forces the liberal agenda, with its anti morality rules the world theme, down our kid’s throats in the public schools.
Wow, it is easy to call names without substantive argument.
To the anonymous above,
I find NOTHING smug about this blog entry. It seems quite fair and impartial in expalining the current legal situation (despite the fact that almost 2/3rds of the Senate voted for the voucher bill).
And concerning your statement that it's "the Senate's fault, not the public that has to step in to correct their mess," I think it was the teachers union that created this mess by not submitting a referendum on both bills...
But as we learn here, HB 174 can't be repealed becuase it passed with a supermajority...So I guess it's also the Constitution's fault.
Why can't we just fix our public schools? if we start abandoning them, where will we all be in 5 years when they stop receiving the current level of funding?
To anon 3/12 2:54:
Why do you assume vouchers aren't a way to help fix public schools? By co-opting private funding into the education of the state's many children (paying a private school $500-$3000, substantially less than the $6000 we pay the public education system to educate the same child), what remains is a larger funding pie to be divided between fewer slices. And this is on top of the additional mitigation money and the benefits that competition usually creates.
I guess I just don't understand why the public education system is so afraid of competition. It generally does a good job for most kids with the limited resources it's given. And I would think most kids are going to stay with the public education system. Why not let parents choose to help relieve that burden a little bit (and maybe even reduce class sizes a little)?
First of many responses.
http://davisdidjeridu.blogspot.com/2007/03/pro-petition-response-part-i-dead-or.html
By the way, I find it interesting that you did not seek the advice of the AG's office or the Legislative Counsel on this matter. Looks fishy.
We spoke with our Legislative Counsel in great detail. They are bright, they know their stuff, and they are non-partisan. We trust them implicitly. Look at the blog post, above. When I wrote, "as explained by ... our counsel," and "Counsel has advised us...," that is precisely who I was refrencing.
Oh yeah. Janet Jenson is *not* the only attorney looking at this. Just the loudest.
Post a Comment
<< Home