Welcome to The Senate Site

By Howard Stephenson
Utah State Senator, District 11

Hearing the truth about erroneous, but deeply held beliefs is a painful experience for all of us. Nevertheless, truth can also be a powerful anesthetic for that pain. Truth about the ominous omnibus education bill, SB 2, has been largely missing in reports about this important piece of legislation. That is why I would like here to debunk litigant's stories about SB2 before they reach the status of Utah political mythology. Maybe it's too late, but even established mythology should be challenged.

As co-sponsors of SB2, the education funding bill also known as "omnibus", Representative Brad Last and I wrote an op-ed for the Deseret Morning News. We wanted to mop up some of the misconceptions circulated by the candidates who are suing the state for what we think must be political motives.

We thought those who read this blog would also appreciate additional perspective.

1. The litigants make their first obvious blunder when they say that good bills were "held hostage" until the end of the session so they could be combined with "bad" bills in an omnibus package. The fact is that all fiscal note bills are held until the end of session. That is not a violation of our rules. It is exactly what our rules require and what we do every year. That is how we ensure a balanced budget each year.

2. Litigants are saying SB2 includes language from bills that didn't pass the first time through. HB200 was one of those bills. When its language was included in SB2, Rep. Karen Morgan tried to amend it out. The House debated it for 30 minutes. She couldn't persuade a majority to vote with her. Sen. Scott McCoy tried to amend the same provisions. He failed, too.

There were more attempts to amend SB2, but you get the picture.

The fact is that every single word in SB2 was subject to discussion and amendment. Welcome to an essential (and potentially frustrating) element of democracy: You need a majority vote to change the law. It seems the political message being taught here is if you can't attract enough votes by the force of your argument, you can always sue those who voted against you.

3. Our so-called omnibus bill was 42 pages . . . hardly the thousand-page congressional monstrosity the litigants try to invoke.

4. SB2 didn't happen in the dead of night. It was the result of an entire session of negotiations. The news media reported the details. We posted information on our official Web site and on our blog site. We passed out the details to all legislators, reporters and the interested public. We made staff available to answer questions. The two chambers and the governor's office were in constant communication. The entire chamber debate is archived online for everyone to witness.

The only way this anti-democratic lawsuit makes any sense is as a campaign stunt. Sixteen of the plaintiffs are currently running for office. Others are reportedly running for leadership positions in their caucus. As the vice chair of the state Democrats recently said, "If some of the plaintiffs on this suit win their elections due to 'earned media' then so be it."

I think that is pathetic. Let the money flow to the teachers and classrooms. We hope our board of directors (a.k.a voting citizens of Utah) will recognize this lawsuit as election-year grandstanding, pure and simple.

I believe that the root cause of the litigation is not so much about process as it is about innovation and change. Public education is a sacred cow for many people. Attempts to modernize, incentivize or test new programs are usually met with resistance. Our goal is to provide a world-class education for Utah's families with the funding available. Sacred cows must be examined for efficiency and new ideas will be piloted where appropriate.

4 Comments:

 Anonymous said...

1.The voucher bill was not held until the end of the session. It had a fiscal note but I am not completely clear on the legislative process, was there a difference?
2. That is the frustrating part of democracy in Utah: the conservative caucus and those who continue to return extremists to office. Force of argument is irrelevant if you are making a deal.
3. It still looked just like a Congress style pork-filled bill, just Utah sized.
4. It was a surprise to the public nonetheless. The Senate sponsor of SB 2 is not up for re-election this year. Coincidence?
Does so called innovation excuse the abuse of the democratic process or is this post an effort to reframe the argument?

6/11/2008 12:15 PM  

 Sanity said...

Howard Stephenson and his and his cronies would do anything to see the demise of public education. They believe in a class system and want only for themselves. When their beloved bills failed... along with the voucher vote earlier in the year they set forth a plan to make sure that they stuck it to public education. I am not saying that they don't stand on their principles... they do. What I am saying is that they are not good representatives of Utah and their constituents but our legislature has been hijacked by the Utah Eagle forum and the extreme right wing of the republican party. They want to take away opportunities within the public education system and make Private and Charter programs look better than the public education system thus gradually enticing you to remove your kids from the program. Public education needs to be "no strings attached" funded. Give the money to the districts and local school board and let them decide where best to use that funding. Local School boards are the closest thing to the public. If they are unwilling to do that then give the money directly to the school and allow the local community council decide its disbursement.
The Omnibus bill is bad legislation. Senator Stephenson likes it because it allowed him to get his way. It has legislation hidden in it that had previously failed on the floor and in committee. Legislators were told that if they didn't vote for it that there would be no public education funding, raises for teachers etc. They were put over a barrel by Mr. Stephenson and his friends.
Secret combinations and Secret deals are bad for our democracy. It is time for our Legislature to pony up and fund public education. Quit with these silly little side show attractions like vouchers and charters. GIVE THE MONEY TO THE SCHOOLS!

6/12/2008 7:54 AM  

 Sen. McCoy said...

Howard,

What is "pathetic" about this whole affair is your attempt to impunge my motives and the motives of other plaintiffs by asserting that the filing of the lawsuit is purely political. As evidence you point to the fact that sixteen (of thirty-eight) plaintiffs are running for office. Please. Is that really all you've got. How ridiculous. I would note that none of the incumbent legislators need ot file a lawsuit to get "earned media" or to get elected. I am not even up for re-election until 2010 and your total reach with the assertion that I need to file a lawsuit to be elected to a leadership position in my caucus is patently laughable. My decision to be a plaintiff in this suit is the last thing that my caucus will base its leadership elections on. The sad thing is that I know you know this and you only bring the point up to try and leave a false impression with the public to try and buttress your weak accusation of political motive. I would expect better of you Howard. I signed on to be a plaintiff because, as a lawyer, I think there are three constitutional provisions that have been violated in the passage of SB2. Period. It is the right thing to do. If we win the suit the constitution and our sound process is vindicated. If we lose, we lose. What is it you are so afraid of?

As for your specific arguments, the number of pages doesn't necessarily have an impact on whether a bill violates the constitution so your reference to page numbers is unhelpful to your argument. As to your argument that I and others tried to amend the bill and failed, again this is not the key to determining constitutionality. For example, if you ran a bill that had an abortion provision and a tax provision and I tried to amend out the abortion provision and we debated the bill for hours on end in the first week of the session and my amendment failed and the bill then passed both houses and the governor signed it, according to your argument, the bill would not be unconstitutional. Wrong. It would still violate the single subject rule of the Utah Constitution. Presumably you would think a suit challenging its constitutionality would be "political" when in fact it would be an easy win under the single subject rule even under your limited understanding and narrow interpretation of the constitutional provision. As to the argument that fiscal note bills are held until the end of the session, while some may be held, they don't have to be and certain of the education bill weren't nor was the voucher bill. Again, Howard, you should know better than to make such a disingenuous and false argument.

Finally, your attempt to paint this lawsuit as political is curious given that the courts, not the public, will ultimately decide its merits.

6/12/2008 9:59 AM  

 Anonymous said...

Take a look at utahsenatedemocrats.com. Love "The Three Amigos"!

The Utah GOP antics are undermining my faith. I'll be voting for McCain but any Utah candidate with an R behind his or her name will have to earn my moderate vote. Sorry Governor.

6/16/2008 9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home