End-of-Session Thoughts

It has been a privilege to represent you on Capitol Hill. I have surely cast enough votes for you to find some you like and some you don't. Taking a stand on issue after issue day after day is like living in a moral fishbowl. Everyone can see exactly what I stand for with respect to the things that make a difference in our community. One feels a bit exposed. I have no complaints about the process, but it is surely different from my life as a private citizen when I don't always have to wear my convictions on my sleeve.

We sometimes judge our success as legislators by how many bills we pass. I think rather that we should be grateful for some of the things that didn't pass. You may not agree with me, but I am proud to have played a role in keeping a lid on the following:

No increase in the sales tax on food. See my Deseret News column of March 9 for my thoughts on the issue.
Keeping state school board elections non-partisan. Likewise, see my column in the Tribune March 5.

Momentum had been building in recent years to make these changes; I was going against the grain on both. I didn't just write about these issues, I worked in committees and on the floor to build coalitions to defeat them. With a lot of help from colleagues, particularly fellow freshmen, we were successful in holding that momentum at bay.

To my constituents that elected me and to the taxpayers that pay for the expense of our political process, I can only say thank you! Representing you in the House of Representatives is rare opportunity and a great joy. It is sobering, yet enriching. It is a thrill to see firsthand how our Republic works to safeguard our way of life.

You have afforded me the opportunity to serve. I strive continuously to be worthy of the trust you have given me.
 

March 10, 2011

The last day of this year’s general session ended at midnight. More than an hour of closing ceremonies followed before we made our way home early Friday morning.

A few thoughts about bills we passed on this final day:

2nd Sub. S.B. 155, Political Subdivision's Procurement Process For Construction Projects

I was the house sponsor of this bill and the author of this substitute. We had discussed this briefly on the floor last week and then circled it for future consideration because of opposition from one of the representatives, a contractor, that doesn’t like the design-build procurement process for public projects.

This bill proposes extending authority to certain cities and entities (water districts and the like) to use procurement methods for construction that are becoming increasingly prevalent. Those are the Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) method and design-build.

We brought this bill up in the morning and thought we had agreement. At a minimum, we needed to pass the 2nd Substitute. A fellow lawmaker that is also an architect offered an amendment to take things one step further. That met resistance from my contractor friend, who tried to do a small substitute amendment but then realized it was a larger issue than he could amend informally on the floor.

So we circled again (how many times is that now?), and brought it back up after lunch when the two that had been presenting amendments had had a chance to get together and come up with a compromise amendment. This compromise passed unanimously by voice vote. With the new amendment, the bill passed 72-1. The senate then consented to the changes and passed the final bill 27-0, and it’s on to the governor for signature.

So I helped get something through this session, such as it is!

H.B. 4, General Obligations Bonds Authorizations

This bill authorized an $88 million bond for construction of needed capital facilities.

Two quick thoughts:

Buildings are on sale right now. With bids coming in at least 15 to 20% lower than they were before the economic downturn (and lower than they will be when the economy improves), if you can afford to build, this is the best possible time to do it. Extremely favorable interest rates make those good deals even better. One of the legislators did a quick Net Present Value calculation and figured the state would likely save between $15 and $20 million by moving ahead with these projects this year rather than waiting.
These projects will help increase the number of contractors and subcontractors that are able to stay in business through this downturn. If we don’t build now, more builders will go out of business. If that happens and we wait until times are better to build, lack of sufficient tradesmen once things heat up will lead to strong inflationary pressures. As we came out of the previous two downturns (which were not nearly as severe as the current slowdown), construction prices in each case increased by double digits over the course of just a couple months. Building during the slump is sure to lessen the shock.

S.B. 320, Deposit of Severance Tax Revenues into Permanent State Trust Fund

I spoke against this bill on the floor and we came close to defeating it. It passed 40-34. We needed just three move votes to block it. I hadn't heard much about the Permanent State Trust Fund prior to this session. Most people haven't. It’s a pot of money funded by oil and gas severance taxes that is supposed to be locked up to benefit our children and grandchildren once the state’s non-renewable resources are used up. Currently the fund has around $100 million in it, I’m told.

To spend money out of this trust fund requires the vote of three quarters of both the House and Senate. Prior to today’s vote, the first $71 million in severance taxes was scheduled to go into the state’s general fund. Everything above that was to go to the Permanent Trust Fund. Magically by majority vote today, we agreed to divert $77 million before sending any money into the trust fund. So it takes a vote by three quarters of us to use any money already in the fund, but if we can divert it before it goes into the fund, that only takes a simple majority. I guess permanent doesn’t mean quite what I thought it did. I don’t think this is what the voters had in mind when they voted for the constitutional amendment in the late ‘90s that instituted this trust fund.

Isn’t that amazing? In addition to the rainy-day fund that we barely touched this session, there is this other slush fund whose ostensible purpose is to help out our posterity one day but whose real function seems to be to provide extra funds whenever the legislature needs to plug a hole in the budget. So we tout our fiscal restraint in leaving the rainy-day funds largely intact. But we say nothing about raiding funds slated for the Permanent State Trust Fund in order to find a few extra millions!

I should note that I got a bit of a talking to on the floor after speaking out against this measure on the floor without giving advance warning. I had been warned beforehand that using these funds this way was quite popular among many of my colleagues.

I have a question: Could we get the media to focus on this issue for a while instead of all the other things they are preoccupied with? Ultimately, this is far more important.

S.B. 48, Alzheimer's State Plan Task Force

After the sponsor explained this bill, one of the representatives a couple desks away from me rose to speak. “Thank you, Madam Speaker,” he began. Then he hesitated for a moment and added, “I forgot. . .” and sat down. Bad taste for sure, but chuckles all around. (Somehow these comments didn’t get mentioned in the House Journal.)

March 9, 2011

Today we kept at it until 9:20 p.m. Just a warm up for day 45, tomorrow.

1st Sub. S.B. 73, Public School Teacher Tenure Modifications

This bill directs school districts not to based reductions in force on seniority. No more last hired/first fired. In my business dealings I have run across situations where a business partner has argued against a necessary personnel action because an employee has been with the firm for a very long time. I’ve always argued that we need to retain the employees that have the skillsets we need regardless of who has been with us the longest. A believe that approach makes for the strongest private-sector organization. This bill is consistent with that philosophy, so I supported it. It passed 45-28.

2nd Sub. S.B. 165, Election Law Amendments

This bill prohibits electronic signatures for campaign filing and citizen initiatives and referendum petitions. I don’t share the belief that we will have widespread fraud if we allow electronic signatures. We have been told it would be prohibitively expensive to ensure security (make sure everyone that signs is a citizen and no one signs twice). I think if we wanted to make this happen, we could find a way that wouldn’t break the bank. Supporters of this measure may not be motivated by a desire to render citizen-led initiatives more difficult, but it sure looks that way! I voted no, but the measure passed 52-23.

S.B. 285, Industrial Assistance Fund Amendments

This bill extended potential industrial assistance funding to sports development organizations. It reminds me of several years ago when Governor Huntsman said with a straight face that the state government had a compelling interest in building a stadium for Real Salt Lake. Granting incentives for industrial development is one thing, but I don’t support public subsidies for professional sports organizations. I voted no, but it passed 50-17 anyway.

S.B. 44, State Commission Amendments

This bill was much improved by an amendment allowing the Legislative Management Committee to call the Constitutional Review Commission into action. That does not require a resolution of the legislature. I opposed this bill before the change. With the modification, it made sense to me. Anytime the legislature, legislative leadership, or the governor have a constitutional concern, they can activate the review commission. The minority leader and one other Democrat voted with the majority to pass the bill as amended.

1st Sub. S.B. 256, Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Process

This bill was mostly about studying methods of evaluating teacher performance. It was hard fought though and only passed by a vote of 38-35. I voted in favor.

1st Sub. S.B. 119, School District Superintendents Amendments

This bill makes it possible for a person with outstanding professional qualifications to serve as superintendent without holding an administrative/supervisory license. I think it’s wise not to tie a search committee’s hands if there are outstanding candidates that don’t have the traditional license. I supported this bill and it passed 48-24.

3rd Sub. S.B. 113, Election District Boundaries

This bill resolves the boundary problem involving District 57 that I first mentioned in this blog way back on January 11th. I still don’t see a compelling need to make an immediate change since legislative elections won’t be affected by it this year and the boundaries will be changed this fall during redistricting anyway. Holly Richardson, who filled the District 57 vacancy the second week of the session spoke in favor of the bill. I voted against it on principle, but it passed with the 2/3 majority needed for an immediate effective date.

There will be calls for Holly to resign so Craig Frank can be appointed to the position he previously held. Craig has been spending most of his time at the capitol this session and would clearly love to be a part of this body again.

I have a prediction: Holly won’t step down!

2nd Sub. S.B. 162, Military And Overseas Voting

Only two of us voted against this. This bill implements a new Federal law requiring more time between individual election cycles to certify candidates and mail ballots overseas. That part is great. The problem is that this bill leaves Utah’s primary election on its current date in June and substantially squeezes the available time to meet with delegates prior to county and state conventions. The first county convention, for example, will now happen four days after caucus night.

The effect of this change will be to favor incumbents and the rich and famous—those that can get people to vote for them because they are well known or because they spend a lot of money, without a lot of one-on-one contact with delegates. I argued to no avail that the primary should be moved to August to allow for the kind of grass-roots involvement I think is the best way to campaign and learn from constituents.

2nd Sub. S.B. 57, Animal Control - Exception for Community Cats

This was a popular bill, but I asked myself if it was humane to pick up stray cats, spay or neuter them, and then abandon them again to fend for themselves on who-knows-whose property. I voted no, but it passed 42-28. The thing that makes us feel good is not necessarily the responsible thing to do.

1st Sub. S.B. 59, School Grading System

In the final version of this bill, learning gains received strong emphasis, alongside achievement. In addition, some had raised concerns about the fact that the bill called for the benchmarks to be raised once a certain level of achievement was reached. This automatic raising of the bar was also eliminated in the version we voted on. I know it is not altogether popular with everyone, but I believe it will help parents understand how their schools are doing. And ultimately, we’ve all got to realize that we as parents are the ones being graded. The most significant factor affecting student performance is parental engagement in their children’s success in school. So I supported it and the measure passed 39-32.

1st Sub. S.B. 65, Statewide Online Education Program

I’m with Clayton Christensen on this one. (See his column in the Deseret News yesterday.) The innovation and opportunity this program will provide are compelling. The substitute bill addresses many of the objections that had been raised against this bill, including a requirement that only Utah-based charter schools and school districts are allowed to be online education providers. The bill passed 48-27.

S.B. 179, Math Education Initiative

This bill includes detailed requirements for honors math programs and textbooks that do not, in my view, belong in statute. We shouldn’t require an act of the legislature to adopt a next generation textbook, for example, some year in the future. Comparing provisions of this bill with those related to core academic curriculum currently in statute, it is evident that this bill extends the reach of statute vastly further than the approach every legislature prior to this one has taken.

I opposed this bill and will continue to encourage our elected board of education to perform its constitutional function, which is to exercise supervision and control of our education system under the guidance of the legislature. This bill goes far beyond the type of guidance we ought to be exercising and have traditionally exercised at the legislative level. The bill failed 17-53.

S.B. 262, Tobacco Products Amendments

Since the legislature passed the cigarette tax increase a year ago, tobacco companies came up with a product that looks exactly like a cigarette except that its wrapper contains tobacco leaves, so it is a mini cigar. (Isn’t that what the word cigarette means? Mini cigar?) Anyway, this little subterfuge allows manufacturers to sell something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck but up till now has been categorized by tax policy as a goose, so it’s not subject to the cigarette tax but to a lower cigar tax.

S.B. 262 subjected the two look alike products to the cigarette tax. Some characterized it as a tax increase, but market studies project that people will simply move back to cigarettes now there is no cost advantage for the mini cigars. Overall taxes will stay the same. “What’s wrong with this picture?” one of the Democrats exclaimed, “You’re proposing a tax increase, and I’m voting against it!” Now you should know that the house sponsor is a very conservative member of the Patrick Henry Caucus. Of course he didn’t take kindly to having his bill referred to as a tax hike.

I didn’t consider it to be a tax increase either. I voted for the measure for the sake of uniformity (and in objection to the industry subterfuge). The measure passed 42-28.

S.B. 287, Specialty License Plate Amendments

Another special license plate. I don’t care what it’s about. Not the proper role of government. Not a wise use of taxpayer resources. It passed anyway, 45-27.

March 8, 2011

All day on the floor once again. We only stayed until 6:15 p.m. (We got out early!)

1st Sub. S.B. 243, Historic Areas or Sites Amendments

I spoke out and voted against this bill. It passed anyway. This bill is self-serving (for us as legislators) and silly at best. It makes us feel important. It deals with a Salt Lake City dispute affecting the Yalecrest neighborhood. The dispute is about establishing a historic district in that area. The bill mandates a cooling off period of a year before making a decision. It offers no guidance about the underlying issue.

Before the bill came up, I had my intern contact Salt Lake City. We learned from the mayor’s office that they are planning to have a year-long cooling off period regardless. So the legislature acted to insert itself into this municipal decision. Yes, we have the authority to do that, but there was no need to. Constituents called for the legislature to protect them from their city government, but established procedures were already there to deal with their concerns properly.

Passing the law won’t change anything. But we will be able to tell constituents that we did something meaningful. People clamor for the legislature to fix a problem. We pass a law so we can feel good about ourselves. Much ado about nothing. Actually it is about something. It’s about throwing our weight around. If they think about it, most people agree that we should not make laws unless there are compelling needs. When we pass bills just to show that we’re doing something, we offend and often injure people whose rights are compromised by these laws. And even if their rights are not directly compromised, we all suffer from the threat of diminished liberties the next time the legislature overreaches.

S.B. 45, Wireless Telephone Use Restriction for Minors in Vehicles

Some suggest that this bill was overreaching, but I didn’t see it that way. I voted in favor, but the bill failed 32-38. My research and experience have convinced me that mature decision-making skills are not fully developed in the human brain when they are young. It is often not until they are in their mid twenties that young people develop consistent judgment and understanding of the consequences of decisions.

For minor children, laws and parental guidance are two strong influences on behavior. So I accept the notion that legal strictures are sometimes appropriate for minors when they would not be for adults. Hence we have motorcycle helmet laws for minors, but not for adults. Our laws against text messaging also apply only to minors. Consistent with that philosophy, I support restricting minors' use of cell phones while driving.

1st Sub. S.B. 67, Annual Eye Examination for Children in Grades Kindergarten Through Three

The title of this bill sounds like mom and apple pie. Yet I voted against it. This is an optional program using volunteer professionals. There is nothing in the bill that is necessary to allow the program to continue. I asked about that on the floor and was told it was necessary to shield professionals from liability while participating as volunteers. After speaking, I searched through the code books on my desk. That search led me to the existing statute that shields medical professionals from liability when they volunteer for public purposes. So there's already a general law in place. No need for a specific provision for this one program. Once again, a law that is not needed other than to make us feel like we’re doing something to address an important problem. Unfortunately, I did not have that code reference ready in time to mention it on the floor. The bill sailed through.

S.B. 150, Negligent Credentialing

This bill stops malpractice suits based on a doctor’s negligence (but not the hospital’s actions) from reaching beyond the doctor to the financial resources of the hospital on the basis that they did not properly vet that doctor’s qualifications before allowing him or her to provide services in the hospital. People in the healthcare profession argued convincingly that this would put expert judgment calls by healthcare professionals about details of past conduct under the microscope. It would also make it impossible for professionals to overcome a single prejudicial item in an otherwise exemplary record.

Mostly the concept of negligent credentialing seems to be a practice of searching for deeper pockets than those of an individual doctor to give plaintiffs and their attorneys the ability to seek very large malpractice claims with a higher probability of a commensurate payout. This bill put such improper extensions of liability out of reach. I voted yes and it passed.

Budget Bills

We approved a few of these. We’ll deal with several more tomorrow and Thursday. By the time we're done this year, we will have eliminated all but $50 million of the structural deficit. We funded growth in education ($100,000 more than the governor’s proposed budget), and we kept cuts in other programs to a minimum. We didn’t raise taxes. I consider all of that a success.

March 7, 2011

H.B. 477, GRAMA Redux

The nation is criticizing us over the GRAMA bill. The Tribune said so.

Once again I’ve taken heat over a vote. I guess that comes with the territory.

I explained in my post for March 3rd why I supported the proposed GRAMA changes in the first place. I stand by what I said. Our staff hasn’t retracted anything they told us. Based on everything I’ve heard both from staff and from the governor, the frequency and breadth of GRAMA requests is continuing to increase. It is becoming both expensive and burdensome. If anyone has a problem with something we did in the 66-page bill in question (H.B. 477), I invite your feedback. Tell me what language you think should be changed.

Stories of GRAMA’s death are greatly exaggerated. The giddiness with which Media spokespeople reported today’s events is evidence of a fundamental lack of objectivity on their part. These reporters have crossed the line from reporting on events to advocating for specific policies. They have become lobbyists. You may not agree with this assessment, but having been close to the center of this remarkable storm for the past few days, I assure you there is a story that is not being reported.

First a bit of background. Without the provisions of H.B 477, we do not have the ability to shield personal, sensitive information shared with us by constituents. Neither does anyone in the executive branch. Some of the testimony by members of the media during the committee hearing was particularly revealing. My colleagues that were there characterized the expectation expressed by the media essentially as follows: No communication of any kind by a member of the legislature while the body is in session should be protected in any way. It seemed that members of the media would like us to be wired with a microphone and followed by a camera 24/7.

Now to the process: Concerns with current provisions of GRAMA first entered my radar screen on Thursday of last week. Along with several of my colleagues, we heard comments from our legislative attorneys and analysts. We recognized a problem. We learned that this had been reviewed for several years now. The ongoing response from the media to this point has always been to ask for further study. We learned from the bill sponsor that he asked members of the media repeatedly what about his bill they would suggest changing. They had no recommendations. A previous legislature tried to deal with this issue under the leadership of Representative Doug Aagard. They pursued a lengthier process. That effort was steamrolled by the media.

The sense of those more senior than I was that it would be impossible to make necessary changes to GRAMA without evoking a strong reaction from the media. With that in mind, we undertook an expedited public process. Whether right or wrong, the decision was to move quickly and in concert. We expected the storm of criticism that we ultimately received. We figured it would be inevitable regardless of the merits of our actions. So we chose to have a hearing, vote the next day, and try to weather the anticipated storm. It is worth noting that the package of immigration bills that emerged late in the evening Friday moved through the system even faster than the GRAMA revisions, yet there was no outcry about the process with respect to fast-moving immigration bills the media favored.

So as the media reaction intensified today, the governor asked the House and Senate to reconsider. He came across as the voice of reason. Without his backing, I think many of us felt much like the brigadiers of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs, doomed to fail because of veiled and insufficient support.

So as I’ve mentioned, when we as members of the House of Representatives decided to move ahead with H.B. 477, we thought we had an agreement with both the senate and the governor on how we would proceed. We planned to vote on the bill early Thursday afternoon. The senate would vote on it later that day, and it would be on its way to the governor for signature on Friday at the latest. We were convinced there were valid reasons to take care of problems that had been brewing for years. We expecrted that the media would react strongly, but we felt that if we acted in coordination and quickly, we would survive the reaction and be able to move on to other business. This was not a tacit admission that there was anything wrong with what we were doing. Those that had been here longer than I just calculated, based on experience, that if we made necessary changes we would be pilloried in the press no matter what.

By now you know that, except for the expected outcry, things did not go according to plan. The senate took an extra day to pass the bill. Then the governor either changed his mind and decided we should postpone the effective date to allow study or he was never on board with the strategy in the first place. Either way, pushing for a delay cast the governor in a positive light. And the press questioned our motives as legislators. It felt as if we had been thrown under the bus. (Maybe we did it to ourselves.)

Now if this all sounds a bit like Chicago politics, note that I am explaining things as I understood them. Perhaps I have been guilty of taking things at face value and not recognizing everything that was going on behind the scenes. The last minute recall and amendment of the bill’s effective date to save face for the governor was distasteful to me, so I voted no. I will be very surprised if the delay somehow turns down the volume and leads to substantive recommendations for improvements. But at least by the time we cross that bridge we’ll know whether we can have a vigorous, fair discussion of this issue over an extended period of time without the outrage that to this point has always defeated any attempt at a reasoned conversation involving GRAMA. (She’s an opinionated and strong-willed woman!)

H.B. 281, Sex Offender and Kidnapping Amendments

As you may recall from my discussion of this bill March 4th, I opposed the bill as written and suggested instead that it include a judicial process to remove someone inappropriately on the list. The sponsor brought the bill up for reconsideration, presented a substitute that modified the bill accordingly, and got the bill passed this time. I supported it with the change.

H.C.R. 17, Concurrent Resolution Honoring Jerry Sloan and Phil Johnson

On a lighter note, we honored Jerry Sloan and Phil Johnson today. Not a single no vote. It was good to see them in the chamber.

H.B. 302, Reading Program Amendments

This bill enacted a specific earmark for an electronic assessment system using a portable device. I oppose such earmarks. I voted against it and the measure failed narrowly.

2nd Sub. H.B. 171, Abortion Clinic Licensing

I helped pass this bill. The bill should help ensure that abortion providers and their facilities are held to accepted medical standards. One can argue whether it is needed on that basis. To be frank, though, the goal of this bill is to add another hurdle that health care professionals and clinics must overcome in order to perform abortions. In my view, abortions are very serious matters. I believe that setting more stringent licensing and inspection standard that providers must meet is appropriate. Will this reduce abortions? There’s no guarantee it will. But if it does help save just one life, it will have been worth it.

1st Sub. H.B. 89, Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles

Remember this? The sponsor found a way to bring it back even though we voted it down in committee. On the floor, several of us voted for a substitute to changed this to an education campaign only. We fell short in the effort. The whole House then passed the measure 39-35. I voted against it. I am now left to hope that it will get lost in the end-of-session logjam in the Senate.

1st Sub. H.J.R. 13, Joint Resolution to Implement Legislative Compensation Joint Rules Changes

Based on my calculations, this bill would have meant a small pay increase for me. Given that we are still asking many agencies to take cuts, I voted no. The measure passed 57-16. The recommendations of the Legislative Compensation Commission will now be implemented. They will set a fixed salary for our service that is revenue neutral. For those of us that are new and have fewer meetings, it means a small pay raise. The bill allows individuals to reduce their own salary by whatever amount they choose. I think I’ll figure out what I need to change to bring it back in line with where I would have been and also to reflect something similar to the overall cuts we have had in this year’s budget. Perhaps it’s not a big deal, but there is a principle involved.

H.B. 320, 4-H Special Group License Plate

I love 4-H. I don’t like the government becoming a fundraising vehicle for private groups. I voted no. It passed anyway. Your tax dollars at work.

March 4, 2011

H.B. 281, Sex Offender and Kidnapping Amendments

This bill sought to modify the criteria for including someone on the state’s Sex Offender and Kidnap Offender Notification and Registration website. Specifically, it had to do with the age of the kidnapping victim. Apparently there is some consensus that the technicalities of the rules had resulted in one of the sponsor’s constituents being on the list when his actions did not fully warrant it. A few others apparently felt that they were wrongfully put on the list, which has significant impacts on their lives and livelihoods.

The reason I voted against the bill was that by setting specific criteria, it is highly likely someone that probably should be on the list will be taken off along with any that are perhaps inappropriately on it today. I would prefer a provision for a review by the governor or perhaps a judge who could, under certain circumstances, recommend that someone, whose offenses were not as egregious as those for whom the list is intended, be taken off the list. Then there would need to be a process for approving that recommendation. Decisions such as who stays on the list should not happen automatically but should instead be weighed carefully.

The bill went down to the wire and failed 37-38. It was so close, we had a call of the house. The last person into the chambers cast the deciding vote. After the vote I talked with the sponsor about developing some sort of a judicial process. Later in the day the bill came back to life and was amended with just that sort of provision. The bill was circled so we could review the new amendment before final consideration.

H.B. 497, Utah Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act

This bill is similar to H.B. 70 that we passed previously. In this incarnation, the sponsor eliminated “reasonable suspicion” as a basis upon which public safety officials would determine that it was necessary to review a person’s immigration status. That’s even closer to what I had encouraged the sponsor to do a few weeks back. As I see it, this change makes profiling even less likely. I had no hesitation supporting the bill. Every Republican supported it this time around. We also got one vote from a Democrat. The bill passed later in the day in the Senate and is on its way to the governor.

H.B.466, Migrant Workers and Related Commission Amendments

This is a great bill. It sets up a guest worker program using existing temporary visa programs to facilitate legal immigration of a migrant work force. It starts as a pilot program in cooperation with the state of Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Yes, this will require a federal waiver, but it is far more likely that we will receive cooperation from the federal government when it’s just a matter of modifications to an existing temporary visa program for legal immigrants rather than an effort to secure the right to grant permits to people here illegally and their employers to violate federal law. I supported the bill. It passed the House unanimously.

1st Sub. H.B. 496, Technology and Life Science Economic Development Act and Related Tax Credits

I do my best to distinguish between incentives and subsidies. I can make a pretty strong case for incentives to encourage economic development. But I can’t justify subsidies. This bill included a couple of non-refundable tax credits for businesses that create jobs. So far so good. Then it included a third refundable tax credit for another situation. Non-refundable tax credits are credits that are good only up to the amount of taxes the organization or individual owes. Non-refundable credits are incentives. With refundable credits, on the other hand, you can claim the full amount of the credit even if you don’t owe that much in taxes. That’s a subsidy.

So I voted no. It still passed, 51-15. I think it’s hard to resist the pressure to have the government take action to solve our economic problems. Of course the state can’t spend a dollar on one thing without taking it away from somewhere else. Taking it out of people’s pockets does just as much harm as the good we intend to do with the funds we raise in the process. It’s like scooping water out of the shallow end of the bathtub and dumping it in the deep end and somehow expecting the overall level to rise.

H.B. 388, Operation and Management of Charter Schools

This bill aims to ensure that oversight of charter schools does not abridge their unique qualities and the flexibility they are given by statute to innovate. We fended off an amendment that would have deleted the core of the bill and then passed the bill by a vote of 49-23.

H.B. 370, Bail Bond Amendments

As I understood this bill, it attempted to make things a bit more fair for bail bondsmen when they helped return a defendant to the courtroom but the court either turned around and released them (but expected the bond still to hold) or didn’t take action for a year. Some of the attorneys among the legislature saw it otherwise. I voted in favor, but it failed on a 36-37 vote.

3rd Sub. H.B. 116, Utah Immigration Accountability and Enforcement Amendments

This was the vote that kept us in the House chambers until almost 10:00 PM. First there were back and forth volleys between the Senate and House. The Senate had chosen H.B. 166 as the vehicle to gather provisions from several other bills in order to craft a comprehensive immigration package. Neither chamber would agree to the version passed by the other. A conference committee was appointed and we waited while they conferred. Remarkably, within about a half hour we had the compromise bill on our computers to review. Fifteen minutes later, we were debating it, and the debate went on for two hours.

You may recall that we had passed this bill February 23rd in its original form. (See the post for that date below.) I voted against it then because it unfairly gave opportunities to those here illegally without due consideration for those waiting patiently in line to come legally. And it relied on fantasy, assuming the federal government would give Utah the right to grant illegal immigrants and those that employ them a permit to break the law. With all the added Christmas ornaments the Senate had added, it still had the same flawed illusion at its core.

It claimed to demonstrate compassion for those that have come here just because they want to feed their families. I spoke out forcefully on the floor. “What is compassion?” I asked. “Is it compassionate to provide preference to those that break the law over those that wait patiently to come by legal means? And is it compassionate to perpetuate a system in which tens of thousands of workers are consigned to a permanent underclass, where they live in the shadows, afraid to be found out.” If that is what we call compassion, I will have no part of it.

I heard from a few of my colleagues that they had been asked to meet with members of leadership. Let’s just say they were encouraged vigorously to support the party line. I’m glad no one tried to twist my arm. It wouldn’t have worked, but it would have been unnecessarily unpleasant. In the end, forty-one representatives voted for and passed this omnibus collection of wishful thoughts. I voted no. Now the headlines can trumpet how compassionate and innovative we are here in Utah. But in the end there is nothing real about this bill. Just a message. It is merely a mirage that will make us feel good about ourselves.

As you can see from my comments above, this bill evoked powerful emotions among all of us. Many legislators remarked about what a tough vote this was. Several were dismayed at how quickly such a complex and vastly modified bill descended upon us late in the day when people were exhausted. A deal had obviously been struck that we were going to finish our work on immigration this very evening, no matter how long it took.

I spoke briefly with one of my colleagues that had a long drive ahead of him. His frustration with the process was palpable. He was exhausted and perhaps a bit disillusioned. He choked back tears. Then he and I headed home to recharge for the weekend in preparation for our final push in the coming week.

Perhaps these comments about this bill give you a little perspective on what goes on in the House chambers. As a legislator, you try to do the right thing. You put your heart and soul into the effort. And sometimes the process and the outcome are gut wrenching.

But in spite of how crazy it sometimes gets, I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to grapple with these meaningful issues. And I am convinced that all 75 members of the Utah House of Representatives truly strive to do our best and to do what we believe is right.

March 3, 2011

Here's a column I submitted to the Deseret News today responding to the attempt to raise the sales tax on food so that we have a more stable tax base. Comments about bills we considered are included below.

Stable for Whom?

When we talk about a stable tax base, we usually mean tax policy that generates a predictable revenue stream to fund government operations, programs, and services that doesn’t vary dramatically regardless of what the economy is doing. Property tax is the poster child for stability. In Utah, property tax revenues typically do only one of two things: stay the same or increase incrementally, regardless of economic conditions. In the past two difficult years, for example, property taxes increased by $200 million statewide without consideration of taxpayers’ diminished ability to pay. If a taxpayer lost a job during that period, he still owed his share of a growing property tax base. That is what passes for stable.

In contrast, our sales and income taxes are considered relatively unstable. Unlike property tax, these revenue sources decreased during the past two years by about $500 million each. Tax receipts shrank in proportion to reduced incomes and declining business and consumer purchases, directly reflecting taxpayers’ ability to pay. In good times sales and income taxes rise; in bad times they fall.

It’s a matter of perspective. From the government’s point of view, taxes that go down when taxpayers have reduced ability to pay are considered unstable. Taxes you have to pay regardless of your ability to do so are declared stable. From the point of view of the taxpayer, there’s nothing stable about having to shoulder a constant or growing tax burden when you are having trouble putting food on the table.

Speaking of food, the loudest argument being advanced to support the effort to increase the sales tax on food is stability of our sales tax base. Even though every bill on the subject has promised it will not raise taxes overall and will result in a more stable tax base, the fact is that each of these proposals increases taxes for many taxpayers. The burden is markedly higher for those below average on the income scale. Yes, total added food taxes will be lower for families that spend less on food. But if we express the tax increase as a percentage of family income, the tax hike is far greater for low- rather than high-income taxpayers. Certainly, increasing the tax on food will make revenues more predictable. Stability of revenues for important government programs is worth careful consideration. But in the end, budget stability for cash-strapped families is of greater concern.

In committee, I’ve spoken out and helped defeat two bills that would raise food taxes. Senate Bill 270 is another effort along the same lines. Several of us will work to defeat it on the House floor. Remember, when ever we speak of stable revenue sources, that means stability for the government, not for the taxpayer. In the name of stability, we expect taxpayers to fork over a consistent amount of revenue, regardless of our ability to pay.

One final thought about a comment from a recent caucus. A Republican colleague reported that when the economy was booming four years ago, the reduction in food taxes helped keep the state from spending a sizeable portion of the unsustainable surpluses we had at the time. So my question is, if reducing sales tax on food helped us keep the lid on spending then, why on earth are we talking about reversing that decision now?

S.B. 124, Leaving a Child Unattended in a Motor Vehicle

This bill came back to life today. It has a provision that if another child at least 12 years old is left in the car with the younger child (and there is no danger to the children), there cannot be an infraction. Representative Wimmer moved to amend the qualifying age to nine years. He reported that he and his wife had engaged babysitters younger than 12. So have we. Some representatives complained that the age of nine was arbitrary. I suppose so. Twelve is also arbitrary.

I supported the amendment, but it failed on a vote of 38 to 37. We had a call of the house to get every last representative to vote. By the time Rep. Mel Brown was rounded up, it was a 37-37 tie and he cast the deciding vote to defeat the amendment. The bill then passed 47-26. I spoke in favor of the bill and supported it as a common-sense compromise.

H.B. 301, School District Property Tax Revisions

This bill simplifies the property tax categories (or individual levies) used to generate local revenues for schools. We had a vigorous debate on this subject. Those opposed to the bill suggested that it reduced local flexibility and transparency. I couldn’t disagree more. Having fewer special levies with greater flexibility inside each of the levies gives districts more latitude on how the funds are managed, not less.

Also, consolidating these fractional tax segments into a group of six rather than 13 makes it far easier for anyone to comprehend tax rates and purposes without exhaustive study. Most of us don’t have the opportunity to survey the local school finance landscape at eye level. We see it from 30,000 feet or higher, if you will, and are best guided by a select group of key, meaningful landmarks. This bill moves us in the right direction. I spoke strongly in favor of the bill and voted with most of my colleagues to pass it 39-31.

H.B. 477, Government Records Amendments

This bill passed 61-12. It amends the Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA), restricting access to certain types of records such as text messages and assessing reasonable costs to gather records when requested. Our actions on this measure have been widely criticized, but I make no apologies for my vote in support of the measure, which passed unanimously in committee and 61-12 on the floor with bipartisan support.

It’s very simple. Our staff attorneys and analysts have told us unequivocally that requests (or should I say unfocused fishing expeditions?) have mushroomed to the point that they are unable to do their job of gathering information and drafting legislation. In addition, this bill increases the ability to protect sensitive personal information constituents confide in their legislators on occasion. This legislation provides a reasonable mechanism to facilitate the public’s right to know. It also deals with broad, untargeted requests in a manner that doesn’t cause the system to grind to a halt.

H.B. 469, Immigration Related Amendments

This bill enacts a program to allow Utahns to sponsor people seeking to come immigrate legally and seek employment or education. Like the guest worker program I voted against a few days ago, this program would also require a federal waiver. So why did I support this one even though I voted against the guest worker program that included illegal aliens?

First, I don’t think it’s fair or compassionate to make accommodations for people who are here illegally when people are lined up waiting to come here legally. Second, we clearly stand a much better chance of getting the federal government to make modifications to an existing temporary visa program for temporary visitors than we do of getting approval to grant permits to illegals to continue to violate the law.

March 2, 2011

Today my father and stepmother stopped by to see the House in action. They had been out of the country for the first few weeks of the session. I had the honor of introducing them on the floor of the House. I introduced my stepmother as the driving force behind their humanitarian service around the world. And I introduced my dad as a WWII veteran and former teacher, state legislator, Speaker of the House, associate commissioner of higher education, U.S. Congressman, and state senator. “Some people have suggested I might be following in his footsteps,” I said, “but I cannot imaging being able to fill his shoes.” Truly I have no ambitions for a political career like that. (I already have a career I love.) But I am sure proud to be the son of such a giant of a man.

1st Sub. S.B. 155, Political Subdivision's Procurement Process for Construction Projects

I was the House floor sponsor for this bill. It provides additional delivery methods large cities can use to obtain construction services on large projects. In my experience working with this newer delivery methods, I’ve found them to be valuable tools for project owners. This bill was requested by Salt Lake City and sponsored by Senator McAdams of Salt Lake.

After I presented the bill on the House floor, Representative Sandstrom proposed an amendment requested by the League of Cities and Towns to extend these same procurement methods to all cities and towns and to smaller projects. Representative Morley, a contractor, spoke out strongly against the amendment. Based on his experience he doesn’t think design-build method, for example, should be used on public projects. I’ve actually had pretty good experience with design-build public projects, so I tried to counter. Others did also, but there was clearly a sense that maybe we should not open this up to everyone. So the amendment failed 31-36.

I immediately circled the bill (put it on hold) so I could talk with several of those that voted the amendment down to see whether they were just opposed to the amendment or to the entire concept. After satisfying myself that we had enough votes to pass it without the amendment, at the beginning of the afternoon session I moved to un-circle the bill, and we passed it 43:26.

But the story didn’t end there. Representative Morley and others apparently had some conversations behind the scenes and came to the conclusion that as the bill passed (without amendment), some unintended effects were likely. So before the day was out (and before the bill got signed and sent to the Senate for signature), I had to make a motion to reconsider our actions and place the bill back on the reading calendar for a vote another day (when the necessary changes and amendments are ready). Quite the convoluted process for what should be a simple bill.

S.B. 124, Leaving a Child Unattended in a Motor Vehicle

This bill carves out an exemption from parental neglect laws for a parent that leaves a child in a car for a brief time period without in any way endangering her. Say she’s in a car seat asleep and the parent goes into the convenience store to pay for gasoline. The parent couldn’t be charged with an infraction. I consider it a common-sense constraint on the powers of government. Not enough of my colleagues agreed. The measure failed 29-41, even though the House sponsor was Lee Perry, one of our two law-enforcement officers.

March 1, 2011

By the way, as of today (February 29th, actually) we have lived in Bountiful for exactly 19 years!

I submitted the following column to the Salt Lake Tribune. We'll see if they use it. Once again, you read it here first.

Appointed, Nominated, or Elected? Partisan or Non-Partisan?

Choosing our Public School Leadership

There’s consensus that something is broken with our school board elections but disagreement on how to fix it. A couple weeks ago, we tried and failed to eliminate the governor’s nominating commission and replace it with direct, non-partisan state school board elections. Last week the senate voted to assign education to the governor rather than the state school board. The next day Senator Stephenson unveiled his bill calling for partisan school board elections.

Should the governor appoint public school leadership? Our constitution balances power carefully between the three branches of government. Yet human nature, the desire for leadership, and the urge to make things happen have concentrated power in the executive. Legislators have also ceded power to the executive branch by writing oversimplified laws that require administrative rulemaking. In addition, the governor has acquired power through involvement in the budget process, a role not granted by the constitution. I can’t imagine why we’d want to give the governor yet more power.

So what about partisan elections? Much has been made of the public’s opposition to partisan school board elections, but let’s start by examining the arguments in favor of partisan elections. Here are the arguments I’ve heard:

Other things being equal, working with delegates tends to be less expensive than campaigning to voters at large. Delegates gain an in-depth understanding of the issues and are thus better equipped to vet the candidates, I’m told, than voters in non-partisan primary elections. I’ve also heard that state school board districts are too big (roughly twice the size of a Utah senate district) for direct campaigns. Another argument is the assertion that current board members don’t really represent the ideology of Utah voters.

Let’s begin with the expense of campaigning in large districts. Non-partisan municipal races are often larger than Utah house and senate races, but yet they tend to cost less. A convention opponent of mine last year, a well-respected former Bountiful city councilman, spent around $5,000 getting elected to the city council a few years back. In contrast, I spent more than $8,000 to get through the convention and came in a close second. By the time I won the general election, I had spent many times that amount, as had several of my freshman counterparts. Clearly, making school board races partisan will not make them less expensive.

And of course non-partisan races can be quite large. To use the most notable example, candidates for Salt Lake City mayor (nominally non-partisan) somehow get their message out to an electorate much larger than any of our state school board districts without the benefit of a partisan nominating system.

When all is said and done, I trust voters. I won’t apologize for that. Given a sufficiently long campaign season, with non-partisan primary and general elections, I am absolutely confident in the public’s ability to make informed choices, just as they do with non-partisan municipal elections. Striving to make these elections partisan is a fight we don’t need.

Although the debate on the subject of partisan school board elections centers on vetting candidates properly, the real goal seems to be to change the political makeup of the board. But it would not be surprising if things didn’t turn out quite that way. A significant consequence of such a change might well be that educators and citizens that care about education would attend caucuses and become delegates in greater numbers than they have in the past. They would do that to support the candidates they considered most friendly to education. Those same delegates would also be the ones choosing legislators.

Think about it. Considering Republican delegates as a whole, partisan school board elections could result in a move to the center. If Democrats were to vote tactically rather than on principle, they might be the biggest boosters for such a change.

At the Capitol—

This was a good day. I got a bill passed and I got a chance to set that stage for a very important priority for an upcoming session. But first an explanation of my actions on a couple of other bills.

2nd Sub. H.B. 95, Amendments to Traffic Code Provisions

This bill criminalizes driving while fatigued, adding it to other things that may constitute distracted driving. Yes, driving while fatigued is a bad thing to do. However, any loss caused while doing so is already accompanied by penalties commensurate with the offense. I don’t agree with the idea of enhancing any more penalties than we have already enacted unless there is a compelling public interest. I didn’t see it here; I voted no. The bill passed with a small margin: 38 votes in favor and 31 against.

H.B. 328, State Government Work Week

This bill aims to overturn former Governor Huntsman’s decision to implement a 4-day work week for state employees. I spoke against the bill and voted against it. I don’t know why we feel the need to insert ourselves in an executive branch decision. “Let the executive branch do its job!” is the quote KSL and the Deseret News picked up. It was a surprise to me that it passed comfortably, 63-8. (Note that the story, though it quoted me correctly, listed the wrong vote total.)

I had more than one of my Democrat colleagues apologize for voting in favor of this bill. Something about possible repercussions on their bills. I hate that kind of stuff!

H.B. 410, Access to Voter Date of Birth Records

The intent of this bill was to restrict public access to the day of the month and month of a voter’s birth. Only the year would be disclosed. Both major political parties howled. They use this information very strategically and rely on it to help double check the actions of public officials with respect to elections. To me the privacy concern, along with the fact that a name and complete date of birth together comprise two out of the three pieces of information needed for identity theft (the third being Social Security Number), seemed far more important than political party strategies.

I don’t mind voting against my party establishment when it takes a wrong-headed position, so I voted for the bill. Again I heard apologies from some that didn’t feel free to vote their conscience on this one. It failed 30-42.

1st Sub. H.B. 134, Collection of Front-line Teachers Data

This was my bill. If you’ve read earlier entries, you’ve already heard more than enough about it. I introduced a substitute that turned it into a one-year data collection effort in anticipation of an incentive program next year. The substitute also added criteria allowing a potential incentive for improvement as well as the original intent, which was above-average performance. It came together well, I guess. The bill passed 62-11 and is on to the Senate, where it will be in the capable hands of our own Senator Dan Liljenquist. I should have a celebration now that one of my bills has made it through the House! (Perhaps I'll wait until it is also passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor.)

H.B. 140, Divorce Waiting Period Amendments

This bill gave me an opportunity to introduce the idea of a Family Impact Statement to my colleagues in the House. See my issue page on the family for more information about this idea. My intern had helped me get a statement from a marriage & family science professor outlining the potential impact of this particular bill on families. I shared my interest in beginning to require family impact statements for bills and asked leave of the body to read a few lines from the statement we had gotten prepared. I think those comments helped pass this bill, which closes a loophole in the state’s cooling-off period. Also, referring to the statement on the floor got the idea of a family impact statement in front of the body for the first time.

I’m laying the groundwork here.

February 28, 2011

H.B. 233, Insurance Coverage for Amino Acid-Based Formula

Representative Moss amended this bill to recommend rather than require that insurers cover the supplement. The concern I had prior to the amendment was with the government mandate. With the amendment, I had no problem voting yes.

1st Sub. H.B. 138, Federal Receipts Reporting Requirements

I promised Ken Ivory I wouldn’t speak against this bill, but I still voted against it, as I did in committee. It passed by a big margin. I’ll probably lose points on some conservative scorecard, but the bill just didn’t make sense to me. It directs executive branch agencies to report the extent of Federal funds they disburse (which is already a matter of public record) and to make plans for what to do if those go away.

Here’s how I explained my opposing vote in committee to Ken in an email:

“I think the question of what to do in the event that Federal funds dry up is a policy question rather than a procedural one. I would not put the onus on the executive branch to develop policy. I would prefer it if we allowed the private sector to assist the legislature (the policy branch of government) to develop the policy direction we might establish for contingency situations.”

H.B. 348, Motor Vehicle Light Usage Requirements

This bill says that any time you turn on your wipers you also have to turn on your lights. Otherwise there’s a fine. The law already says you have to turn your lights on if atmospheric conditions limit visibility and so forth. I couldn’t see the need for an addition, nor could most of my colleagues. Interestingly, even though this bill lost by a big margin on the house floor, mine was the only vote against it in committee. I guess that means we didn’t do our work there.

1st Sub. H.B. 269, Commission On Civic And Character Education

I spoke against this and voted against it as well. I’m all in favor of holding the executive branch accountable for implementing curriculum guidance we’ve incorporated in statute. Chapter 13 of Title 53A, in its entirety, lays out all curriculum guidance from the legislature that has been codified over the years. Topics covered range from driver education to core curriculum to health, and beyond. This bill focused only on one small portion of the Chapter 13, a section of the code the sponsor authored a few years back.

I don’t like narrow. We shouldn’t single things out. In my view, laws should have broad, uniform application across the board. If we are going to monitor performance on one portion of what we’ve mandated, I have to ask why we’re not asking about the other portions. It was on this basis that I opposed the bill. It passed anyway.

1st Sub. H.B. 191, Nonresident Tuition Waiver Amendments

You can read my discussion of the committee vote on this bill in my entry for February 18th. It’s gotten amended a bit, but it still reduces the likelihood that tuition subsidies will go to illegal aliens when some that are here legally do not receive them. That’s an issue of fairness to me. The bill sponsor tried to insert coordinating language asserting that the provisions of this bill would take precedence over conflicting provisions in any other immigration bill being considered this session. I supported that amendment, but it failed. I then voted with the majority 44 to 28 to pass the bill.

1st Sub. H.B. 327, Public Education Annual Report Amendments

I voted against this for the same reason I opposed 1st Sub. H.B. 269 (see above). I don’t think we should single out little pieces of the code for special treatment.

February 25, 2011

Even more interesting parliamentary tricks! (And a very touching moment of silence.)

H.B. 89, Protection Of Children Riding In Motor Vehicles

Today Representative Arent sought to bring the bill to the floor for debate in spite of the fact that it did not get voted out of committee. The parliamentarian ruled that she needed to get a majority vote on two motions, one to lift the bill from the transportation committee and send it to the rules committee and a second to lift it from rules and put it on the third reading calendar for consideration by the house in turn. She said she felt it was unfair that this bill was sent to the House Transportation committee when she felt it should have been heard by Health and Human Services.

The motion to move to rules passed on a 40 to 30 roll call vote. I voted no for the same reasons I voted against the bill in committee. See my report of the committee discussion, February 22nd. She then made the second motion to put the bill on the third reading calendar. Then Rep. Dougall made a substitute motion to send the bill to the House Health and Human Services committee, which is where she had said it should have been heard. That was a delay tactic on Rep. Dougall’s part. It means it will take that much longer before the bill has a chance to make it to the floor, even if it can get a favorable recommendation by the new committee.

So we had one clever maneuver answered by a counter maneuver. One was to revive the bill, the substitute was to bottle it up in yet another committee. This substitute motion passed on a voice vote, and the chess game continues.

H.B. 210, Animal Cruelty Amendments

Speaking of clever machinations, the so-called feral cat bill followed immediately after H.B. 89. The sponsor moved to substitute a revised bill on the floor that put back in a provision allowing people in rural areas to shoot pests without fear of being charged with felony animal cruelty. Everything but self defense had been eliminated in committee. The substitute passed.

There was a minor amendment later to clarify that one could only shoot in areas where hunting was not prohibited. (In other words, this would not be permissible in unincorporated Salt Lake County.) The bill passed. I supported it. It simply prevents a farmer taking care of stray animals in a rural area where no animal control is available (or someone in a similar situation) from being charged with a felony for a reasonable action.

If you don’t agree with my description above, please read the bill the way it passed the house. It has been terribly mischaracterized by the media.

Special Order of Business

Representative Wilcox presented special citations to the families of Utah's Fallen Soldiers: Lance Cpl. Carlos A. Aragon, U.S. Marines, 4th Marine Division, died March 1, 2010; Sgt. First Class James E. Thode, Utah National Guard, died December 2, 2010, Sabari District, Khowst Province, Afghanistan; PFC Jordan M. Byrd, U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, died October 13, 2010; Sgt. Aaron K. Kramer, U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, died September 16, 2010; Lance Cpl. Nigel K. Olsen, U.S. Marines, 4th Marine Division, died March 4, 2010; Chief Warrant Officer 3, Matthew G. Wagstaff, U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, died September 21, 2010; Capt. Ellery R. Wallace, U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Divisions, died August 28, 2010.

It was an honor to be with these courageous families and to be a part of this tender moment. I do not believe there was a dry eye in the house chamber. Holly Richardson, my fellow representative newly appointed from the disputed district 57, included Representative Wilcox’s memorable words in the following post: Honoring Our Fallen Sons.

H.B. 155, Cycling Laws

A few days earlier I changed my mind in committee on this one. This bill allows an adult bicyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield, slow to a reasonable speed, and continue through the intersection if it is safe. Idaho has had a similar law in place for more than 20 years without an increase in accidents. The law would eliminate a disincentive for bicyclists to avoid quieter neighborhood streets (which have a lot of stop signs), and could actually increase safety. And (and this was key for me), it reduces government involvement in the lives of at least a few of us.

My first inclination is law and order, I suppose. But I ended up supporting this bill in committee, I spoke strongly in favor of it on the floor, and I voted for it on the floor. It was sponsored by Rep. Moss, a Democrat. Democrats sometimes have difficulty getting bills passed. Rep. Moss thanked me for my comments in favor of the bill afterwards. Maybe it helped. It passed the house by only a few votes (39 in favor to 33 against).

H.B. 134, Focus on Primary Classroom Teachers Program

I presented my bill to the House Education Committee this afternoon. I think I was grilled for almost an hour. I had both the Utah Taxpayers Association and the State School Board by my side. There is a broad coalition of support. But there were those that testified against the bill as well. It's a new idea. (See the summary way at the bottom of this page.) I thought they were going to kill the bill and send it interim study, but in the end it passed out to the House with a positive recommendation. Only two representatives voted against it. I think I need to fix a few things when it comes up on the floor.

Marilyn and my two daughters were in the audience. At least I didn't crash and burn in front of them. One of my co-workers was listening online. I was exhausted after all that!

February 24, 2011

Interesting parliamentary maneuvers today!

1st. Sub. H.B. 191, Nonresident Tuition Waiver Amendments

See my entry under February 18, 2011 when I voted in favor of this bill in committee. On the floor today, Representative Bill Wright offered a substitute changing the bill to say that in order to qualify for in-state tuition, the illegal alien parents and student needed to show evidence that they have paid state taxes for the preceding three years. I still hold that we should not under any circumstances allow those here illegally to have a tax subsidy in order to attend school, especially since many legal immigrants do not qualify for in-state rates.

So I voted against the substitute. It was a very close vote. Several people changed votes back and forth during the roll call. When it got down to just a few remaining votes to be cast, Representative Wimmer requested a call of the house, which means they secure the chambers and the seargent at arms rounds up anyone not present and brings them to vote. (By rule in Utah, you are required to cast a vote on every issue. Call of the house is employed to enforce this rule if it is requested and ten or more people stand, indicating they agree with the request. I was among the ten that stood.) The substitute passed 38 to 36. The only representative they couldn’t round up to vote was Rep. Wayne Harper.

Carl Wimmer, the bill sponsor, voted against the substitute, of course. As soon as the call of the house vote was completed, he moved immediately to circle the bill, which puts it on hold. I would think he’s working on an amendment or some other change to propose in order to undo what happened with the substitute. I imagine he’s also trying to change a few people’s minds as well.

February 23, 2011

Today I voted against an expanded role of government in bills sponsored by lawmakers from across the spectrum.

H.B. 138, Federal Receipts Reporting Requirements

In simple terms, this bill requires state agencies to identify all funds they disburse that come from the Federal Government and to create contingency plans to show how they would operate with up to 25% less funding than they currently have. The contingency planning requirement is an attempt to deal with the possibility that Federal funding will likely be seriously reduced sometime in the future because Federal spending is on an unsustainable path.

I voted against the bill in committee for two reasons. It is my understanding that the information about Federal funds requested in the new reports is already publicly available. A private think tank could readily assemble it in the desired format.

Also, as I emailed the bill sponsor after he asked why I opposed the bill, “I think the question of what to do in the event that Federal funds dry up is a policy question rather than a procedural one. I would not put the onus on the executive branch to develop policy. I would prefer it if we allowed the private sector to assist the legislature (the policy branch of government) to develop the policy direction we might establish for contingency situations.”

And by the way, doesn’t tasking the executive branch with all this extra reporting and prognosticating expand the role of government, even if only slightly?

H.B. 124, Commercial Breeders

I voted against this in committee. I had dozens of small breeders and public officials express fundamental concerns about the bill. Almost no one presented me with an argument in favor. The sponsor’s comments didn’t shed much more light on the subject. I asked why the bill kicked in with six animals. I understood her response to suggest that was the number that ensured widespread application of the new regulations. Another comment was that this bill matches a nationwide trend. The implication is we need this because other states are doing it. Expanding government. Everybody is doing it. With me, that argument’s not helpful.

H.B. 116, Guest Worker Program Act

Can I be absolutely frank? Of course you can’t reply as I type this, so I’m going to call it the way I see it. I don’t even know how to explain this bill because it is based on pixie dust. Yes, pixie dust. Seriously, it purports to create a guest worker program for illegal immigrants just so we can feel compassionate. It calls for the Governor to seek a Federal waiver for the State to grant indulgences to illegal aliens permitting them to break Federal law. It completely ignores document fraud and identity theft. Just sign up and we’ll give you a get-out-of jail free card. The reality is, Federal law makes no allowance for such a waiver. It would require an act of Congress. The worst part of the bill is that it directs the executive branch to go ahead and implement the program in two years if during that time no waiver is forthcoming. So we just voted on a law that puts us on a course to grant who-knows-how-many illegal aliens permission to ignore multiple Federal laws, but we decree we’re going to do it even if we haven’t got the authority. That will be a convoluted lawsuit!

The bill was amended to add the statement that “priority [for the state permit] is given to anyone who has filed a federal application for legal citizenship.” Of course no one trying to come to the USA by a legal route begins by filing for legal citizenship. One files first for lawful permanent residency (a green card). Another legitimate way a foreign national might be in our country would be something temporary such as a tourist visa, a student visa, or an H-1B visa. Certainly a foreign national that has exercised care in coming to our country by any of these legal means should be given preference over those that don’t bother. The language of the amendment could be fixed, but that wouldn’t solve the fact that even with the amendment the bill still purports to offer permission to some to break the law.

So I voted against the amendment. And I voted against the bill. Both passed, but the bill is being held for possible reconsideration. I hope we do revisit it.

H.B. 183, School District Leave Policies

This is one I was able to vote FOR. The bill says you can’t use public funds to pay the salaries of school district employees that are doing UEA work. It’s my understanding we don’t allow anything like that for highway patrolmen or corrections workers. I may be criticized for this, but I think I’ll speak frankly on this subject as well. In my view unions and professional associations should cover their own costs. It doesn’t seem right for the public to pay for any of that.

Here’s an idea: How about if we ask those holding union positions to volunteer their services? I’m sure someone will explain to me that it’s not at all the same, but officers in my professional association serve on a volunteer basis at both local and national levels.


And now for something completely different: another Op-Ed piece I submitted to the Clipper. Remember, you read it here first.

How to Vote?

A Careful Balancing Act

I never push the yes or no button without thinking long and hard about what I hear from constituents and about the principles I stand for. These things inform my choices, but it’s never easy. Our decisions as lawmakers often balance one important principle against another.

Take the committee discussion we had on H.J.R. 1, Joint Resolution Amending State and Local Taxing Authority. The bill requires a two-thirds majority for a tax increase. On the one hand, allowing a minority to block the will of the majority is a concern. On the other hand, raising taxes is not something we should take lightly. It was a close call for most of us. I voted yes, but the measure failed on a tie vote.

In a recent committee hearing on H.B. 89, Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles, the contrasts between competing principles were stark. This bill would outlaw smoking in a vehicle with a child.
 I voted with the majority to defeat it by a vote of nine to five. I was quoted in the paper and on the radio. I’ve taken a bit of heat for this difficult decision; I owe all of you an explanation.

This bill outlaws a practice that puts a child’s health is at risk. How can you argue with that? The bill sponsor handed out an editorial with the following underlined: “For those who feel it is a matter of parental discretion and rights and not that of the state, we would have to declare secondhand smoke harmless. It is not.”

This message supporting the bill, although eloquent, contains the germ of a potent argument against the measure. Reading these words, I thought to myself, “What if we took this to its logical conclusion and stated that review of any action by a parent, unless declared harmless, is the province of government?”

Based on this test, I wondered if feeding a child junk food (arguably not harmless) would be the business of government. Then I thought of a child riding in a convertible without sun block. That might cause cancer, just like secondhand smoke. Both happen in a car. Are we ready to have government fine us for sunscreen dereliction? Would eating Twinkies in a car be next? And when would surveillance by the state move from our private property on wheels to our homes?

Am I over-reacting? Consider seat belt laws. In 1984 New York passed the first mandatory seat belt law. Since then, 48 states have followed suit. At the outset we all heard that a seat belt violation was only intended as a secondary offense. Now that decades have passed, some complain that we have laws on the books we can’t enforce. As a result, more than 20 states have now made seatbelt violations primary offenses. As this example demonstrates, government’s influence over our lives tends to increase in subtle ways. In the process, we lose liberty.

In committee we heard that H.B. 89 won’t lead to further expansion of government. But it surely will. During the hearing, proponents justified the proposed law based on the relatively recent ban on smoking in private clubs. If that law created a precedent for this one, H.B. 89 would doubtless be used to justify future bills expanding government power yet again.

So this is the dilemma. On one hand we want to protect children. That’s pretty convincing. On the other side, however, we must acknowledge that government’s influence over our lives will, if left unchecked, continue to grow as our freedom shrinks. For me that reality carried the day.

I hope these words help explain my approach to representing the great citizens of Bountiful and Woods Cross responsibly. Choosing how to vote is almost never clear cut. I listen and strive to understand. I vote on principle to the best of my ability.

And then I do what I can to explain myself!

February 22, 2011

Allow me to explain my stance regarding:

H.B. 89, Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles

We heard this bill in the House Transportation Committee and voted it down by a vote of 10 to 5 (if memory serves me correctly). I spoke against it and voted with the majority to defeat it. This bill makes it a violation of law to smoke a cigarette in a private vehicle with a child under the age of 16.

Let me start by explaining the philosophical underpinnings of the principles I applied in deciding how I would vote on this issue. One of the things I appreciated most about the six years I spent working for President Reagan was his clear understanding of the tendency of government to encroach on our freedoms and control our lives.

It seems to be the natural course of events for government to expand. It happens gradually and subtly. We see a need, a concern, a vital problem in our society, and the human response is to try to do something. Often we turn to government as the vehicle to solve the problem. With each step as government expands, we lose a small measure of freedom. Those small steps measure up to something real. It is significant to note that in spite of Ronald Reagan’s vigilance, he was hardly able to stem the tide of government expansion. Perhaps he held it in check a bit; but he did not turn it back. It was growing when he came into power and it has continued to grow ever since.

I believe we have become a bit like the proverbial frog in a pot of warm water. The government is gradually turning up the heat of involvement in our lives. Because the government has done one thing to us in the past, we don’t particularly notice when it does something more.

Now I do care about children. As noted above, I also care deeply about the expanding role of government in all of our lives. To me that was the overriding issue. I’ve seen it during the more than 50 years I have been around. Take seat belts, for example. In 1966, the federal government mandated that all cars have seatbelts. By 1984, New York instituted the first law requiring seatbelt use. Shortly thereafter the Federal Government required states to establish seat belt laws in order to receive highway funding. I was in Washington at the time. I clearly remember proponents of this added government role saying this would only be a secondary offense, that it would never be a primary infraction. Yet in the last decade we began to hear in Utah that although the seatbelt law is on the books we cannot enforce it; we must make it primary. Other states have already moved this direction. In the USA, we have 49 states with seat belt laws, and by now more than 20 of them have made it a primary offense. This is but one instance of the natural tendency of government influence to increase unless we are ever vigilant.

In preparing to present this bill, the sponsor passed around an editorial in the Deseret News that included a statement that goes right to the heart of the matter: “For those who feel it is a matter of parental discretion and rights and not that of the state, we would have to declare secondhand smoke harmless. It is not.” When I read this I started thinking to myself, what if we took that statement to its logical conclusion and declared that any action by a parent, unless declared harmless, is the province of government. I first thought of feeding a child a Twinkie or a food that contained trans fats. Then I conjured up the image of a sunburn prone child riding in a convertible in open sunlight without the proper sun block. That could cause cancer, just as secondhand smoke could. And in my thought experiment, the behavior occurs in a car.

Are we ready to ask government to step into that situation and fine the parents for this action? Where does government’s intrusion end? Does partially hydrogenated vegetable oil come next? And of course, when does surveillance by the state in these matters move from our private property on wheels to our homes? If you think I am being reactionary, I would invite you to put these words in a time capsule and see how we fare in a generation or two. I dearly hope we don’t end up in a society where government controls everything we do, but the trend is clearly that direction. Some would say we are there already, or dangerously close, but history clearly shows which way we are heading.

In presenting the bill, the sponsor declared that HB 89 did not constitute a slippery slope, that it would not be the basis for further expansion of state oversight of behavior. Yet the bill itself would have expanded state authority. And more than once during the debate, proponents used as justification for this bill the actions of the legislature several years ago to ban smoking in private clubs. That action became precedent for this bill. If this bill were to pass, I am convinced there would be countless times in the future when this year’s HB 89 would be cited as justification for subsequent bills that would reach for solutions to concerns of the day while at the same time expanding government influence over our lives.

So that’s why I voted as I did. A radio station asked to interview me, so I tried to explain all that in a few sound bites. (Actually, I didn’t speak in sound bites, but I presume that’s how it got parsed.) As always, I welcome feedback.

1st Sub. H.B. 99, Motion Picture Incentives Amendments

This bill passed the House, but I voted against it. It increases the level of financial incentives to the film industry over what we’ve been doing in the past. As long as we are having difficulty funding critical needs like education, corrections, and public safety, I can’t justify increases in this area. I know it’s supposed to be economic development, and I know other states and countries also offer incentives, but I would prefer that the government be less involved in private markets, not more.

1st Sub. H.B. 253, Employment of Unauthorized Aliens

I voted for the amendment that would have expanded the coverage of this law to companies of 5 or more (from 15 as it was amended in committee). That failed. I then voted for the bill. It passed the House. As I said on the floor of the House, it takes 2 minutes to use E-Verify. Our firm has been using it since it became available. This is not onerous. It is common sense. For background on this issue, see my issues page on immigration, which I wrote and distributed almost exactly in its current form more than two years ago.

February 18, 2011

First a message from House Republicans:

At the beginning of the session we began to address a $315 million hole in the budget called the structural imbalance. Over the first four weeks we put together a base budget with cuts across the board to address that problem. The understanding has always been that the base budget is a starting point, like pouring the foundation of a building before you can build the walls.

Since we introduced our base budget, the rumor mill has been buzzing with stories that the Legislature will not fund new student growth and is making draconian cuts to public education funding.

We thought it would be best to set the record straight: Lawmakers have children and grandchildren, not to mention thousands of constituents using Utah public schools. So it is an issue that is very personal to us. Balancing the budget and correcting the structural imbalance while funding quality education is a difficult process, but it’s a challenge we are happy to accept. It’s a challenge you elected us to handle. And we have. The entire Republican caucus, and the public education appropriations and executive appropriations committees have spent countless hours reviewing, discussing, debating and preparing the public education budget.

The final budget will be different from the base budget and part of that is anticipated to be funding millions of dollars for new growth. Two weeks ago in our Republican caucus meeting, we released our top three priorities, which include a focus on accountability and excellence in education: “Utah has unique challenges with an exploding student population; this requires serious solutions on the part of the Legislature. Excellence is about improving student performance and exploring the best possible ways to deliver quality education. Accountability means that the state, school districts and teachers must be responsible for ensuring the ongoing success of the students.”

Now back to events of the day:

Because of my committee assignments, today was a momentous day. It was all immigration all the time. Well mostly.

H.B. 191 Nonresident Tuition Waiver Amendments

Debate and testimony on this bill took almost the entire time in this morning’s House Revenue and Taxation Committee. The proposed bill ends the in-state tuition benefit provided to the children of illegal aliens if they spend three years in High School in Utah and graduate. A bunch of cameras were rolling as we debated whether that benefit should continue. I had to admire the courage of the illegal alien students that appeared before the committee to ask that the practice continue. They are admittedly here illegally, yet they were willing to appear before lawmakers to plead their case.

On the other hand, many people told of experiences where legal residents from other states ("immigrants" from Idaho, for example) could not afford to attend schools in Utah because they had to pay out-of-state tuition. We ended up passing the bill out favorably for consideration by the full House. The vote was 10-5. I voted in favor of it along with all but one of my Republican colleagues. All four Democrats on the committee opposed the bill. Someone emailed me afterwards wanting to continue the debate. He pointed out that if someone arriving in Utah legally satisfied the same requirements as an illegal (at least three years residence in high school + H.S. graduation), he would also benefit from in-state tuition.

Not the point. I’ll end my comments on this bill with my reply to him: "As long as anyone legally in the state is denied in-state tuition while any other individual here illegally is granted the same, I consider that unjust. I believe that is what others voting in favor of the bill were trying to articulate, even though they may have had some of the details mixed up."

And, as I told that respondent, you can find further information on my position on the issues page of this website under immigration.

H.B. 70 Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act

This bill took up most of our floor time today. Once again, a bunch of cameras were rolling. We were only scheduled for two hours of floor time, but the debate went into overtime. It lasted an extra hour. As we moved to the reading calendar after taking care of routine matters for the first hour or so, it was like watching a major league pitcher pitch around batter after batter, loading the bases to get to the one he wanted. It was a coordinated effort. Three or four bills were on the board ahead of H.B. 70. One by one the bill sponsors stood up and moved to circle their bills. Circling a bill has the effect of putting it on hold for another day and moving to the next bill on the reading calendar. In minutes we were in the middle of the immigration enforcement debate people have been anticipating for the last ten months.

As background, some have recently suggested that Representative Sandstrom, the bill sponsor, has been so accommodating that the bill has at this point been gutted. Indeed, he has worked hard to resolve legitimate concerns raised during all the months he’s been working on this bill. He’s made some concessions, but I would not say the bill has been gutted. I would say the bill has become much improved. And it improved on the floor today.

So this is what the bill does now: It sets up an objective standard for reasonable suspicion that triggers further inquiry into a person’s immigration status. Of course, this trigger only applies in secondary action after a person has been pulled over or arrested for a primary offense. For routine misdemeanors, which represent the lion’s share of cases, checking immigration status is now optional. It is only mandatory for Class A misdemeanors and for felonies.

The successful amendment on the floor eliminated the special provision in the bill allowing citizens to sue if a community doesn’t implement this new law. As I understand it, in reality, citizens always have the right to petition government if something isn’t being done that should be. This applies to all laws equally. Eliminating the special provision in H.B. 70 gave it equal standing with all other laws, most of which don’t have a similar feature. That amendment passed by a roll call vote of 45 to 27, even though Representative Sandstrom opposed it. I supported the amendment.

As I’m sure you know, the bill ultimately passed by a large margin, 58 to 15, after almost two hours of debate. Yes votes included two Democrats and all but one of the Republicans present. My vote was one of the 58. Rep. Sandstrom had only counted on about 45 votes. I think the final amendment on the floor made the difference for a few holdout Republicans.

I believe if opponents read and understand the bill in it’s final form and give it an honest appraisal, they will be hard pressed to find fault with the end product.

Yes this was a momentous day.

February 17, 2011

H.B. 227 Test Driving Vehicles

We heard this bill once again in the House Transportation Committee today. We voted to move to the next agenda item and take no action. Previously it was mostly dead. Now I think it is all dead. The bill placed an undue burden on car dealers to warn people about to take a test drive that their insurance would have primary responsibility if they got in a crash. There was no evidence that this was a widespread problem warranting added government involvement in private transactions. This was the last item on the agenda. The committee voted unanimously to take no action on the bill and adjourn the meeting.

After that committee meeting, we had another five hours of floor time today as well! The one bill that stood out was:

H.B. 271, Restrictions on Political Subdivisions Regarding the Regulation of Knives

This bill prohibits cities, towns, and counties from restricting or regulating knives (defined broadly as pretty much any sharp, pointy object). Our Federal and State constitution already guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms (or weapons) is not to be restricted. So based on our state constitution, communities should not be able to regulate or restrict weapons generally anyway.

My concern with HB 271 was that we have a preemption statute on the books for guns. Now we’re talking about knives & pointy things in general. Where is the pressing need to forbid regulation of this specific group of objects when the constitution already makes it clear that cities, towns, and counties can’t do so? What other weapons will we need to mention in statute specifically? Billy clubs? Lead pipes? Where does it end?

I voted no. The bill passed with 52 votes anyway.

February 16, 2011

We had five hours of floor time today instead of just two. That means fewer committee meetings. It’s also the beginning of a trend. It signals the fact that we are now in the second half of the session. In spite of the extra floor time there is still a long list of bills on the reading calendar for us to consider.

1st Sub. H.B. 75, Dangerous Weapon Amendments

We passed this bill today. I voted in favor of it. See my comments in yesterday’s post.

H.B. 264, State Board Of Education Member Election Process Amendments

Representative Carol Moss and I were both pursuing very similar bills. Her bill had made it through committee before mine was quite ready, so I had mine recast as a substitute bill (1st Sub. H.B. 264). She was amenable to my doing so. I moved the substitute, answered questions about it on the floor, spoke to the motion, and so forth, and got it adopted by roll call vote. The bill then went down to defeat 28 to 45. That was an experience! I was quaking in my boots running the substitute motion on the House floor, but I gained some valuable insights in the process.

Oh, you want to know what this was all about? Our bills both proposed eliminating the governor’s State School Board nominating commission and replacing it with a direct, non-partisan election. In addition, my substitute proposed moving these elections to odd-numbered years in order to raise the profile of these contests and combine them with other non-partisan elections (municipal races). Many of my Republican colleagues feel that school board races should become partisan races. The ostensible reason is that the delegate/convention system would vet the candidates better than the voters could in a straight election.

If we want well-informed choices, I don’t think making the elections partisan is a fight we need to have. Moving the races to the off years where they will be at the top of the ticket will provide the visibility we need to help voters learn what they need to know about the candidates. A primary and general election cycle, each of which will extend for several months, will give candidates of any philosophy the time they need to raise funds, get their message out, prove whether their candidacy is viable, and build the necessary momentum to win. I trust the voters to make good decisions.

That’s my philosophy. Apparently, more of my colleagues disagree than agree with me. So chalk that one up to experience and to getting a conversation started that needs to happen. There will surely be more on this subject in the weeks to come.

February 15, 2011

Today was day 23. We’re more than halfway finished with the session. We passed the halfway mark at midday.

During floor time, we considered and made minor amendments to 1st Substitute. H.B. 75, Dangerous Weapon Amendments. Then the sponsor circled the bill for consideration in the future. This is the bill to designate the extents of the gun-free safe zone around schools as the school property line. The difficulty with the present law, which extends that boundary 1,000 feet beyond that, is that it creates inadvertent lawbreakers. They may not realize there is a school nearby when they are a block and a half away and believe they are in a place they can carry their weapon legally. And of course no one with criminal intent is going to refrain from carrying a weapon with the intent to do harm just because he knows he is near a school. So the people affected by the law are the law-abiding citizens that do not pose a threat to students. We did not have a vote on the bill yet, but you can probably tell from the foregoing which way I’m leaning.

The school bus advertisements bill came back to life today & got approved with an amendment that addressed safety concerns by limiting the size and location of the ads. Rep. John Dougall of north Utah County gave a great speech about allowing school districts the latitude to decide for themselves on this issue. Local control. I think that speech carried the day.

In the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, we heard a bill to raise the Severance Tax on Oil and Natural Gas. The sponsor and his experts admitted that it would reduce economic activity by oil and gas producers, “but not by too much,” they said in effect. Oil industry experts said the effect would be much greater. The truth may well be somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that if you want less of something, you tax it. Want even less? Tax it more.

I don’t accept the idea that we should consider raising taxes and putting people out of work in our current economic position. It’s a downward spiral we can ill afford. The committee voted along straight party lines to table (or kill) the bill. So the bill is dead for this session, but the Democrats will probably bring the idea back another day.

By the way, that was the first time I’ve encountered a motion to table a bill, which is a pretty drastic measure. Perhaps we ought to do it more often. I think there are a great many bill that shouldn't pass.

Oh, and one final comment. Based on the recent editorial about how reasonable the rookie class is being, the House Majority Leader has taken to referring to us as the Reasonable Caucus. Maybe we'll take that idea and run with it. Sounds reasonable.

Valentines Day, 2011

H.B. 135, Local Sales and Use Tax Distribution Revisions

I presented this bill in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee meeting this afternoon. I had many comments suggesting I was courageous to bring the subject up. My professional experience is that the fewer point-of-sale revenue incentives communities have, the better public policy they are likely to make in the areas of annexation, land use planning, and zoning. Better, fairer, more consistent with public input, and more uniformly applied across the board.

As noted, this is a touchy subject. I think some folks went easy on me since I'm the new kid on the block, but it was obvious it will take a long time to build support for any changes in the way we distribute sales tax. That was really my goal—to begin a long-term discussion of a very difficult, sensitive, and important subject.

So we voted to hold the bill and take up the subject as a study item during the interim. We will work with stakeholders and hope to build momentum for the session a year from now.

I must note that the view from the presenter's table facing the whole committee is much more daunting than the perspective I get when I sit as a member of a committee and look on. And I'll note that I think I did win over one or two solid supporters among my colleagues. That's how we'll win this battle: one legislator at a time.

I didn't pick an easy bill to start things off with. (Goodness, it was 50 pages long.) I'll chalk today's committee meeting up to experience and move on.

February 11, 2011

1st Substitute H.B. 54, Electronic Communications In Public Meetings

The question this bill asks is whether public officials may email or send instant messages to each other during a public meeting. The concern many have raised is that the public is unaware of these communications, so such communications may constitute a violation of open meeting laws. This sort of thing happens routinely during city council meetings and in other public forums. H.B. 54 makes such communications legal. I must confess that during the debate I emailed one of my Democrat colleagues. (He’s also an attorney, so I guess that’s two strikes!) I asked if he thought I was violating open meeting laws by sending that email. He responded (also by email!) that he thought I was, but that it looked as if I would be in the clear shortly. You see, the bill passed on an almost straight party line vote. I voted in favor of it. He opposed it. So if he had his way, we’d both be in trouble.
Other Items

On a completely unrelated note, the ads on school buses measure was resurrected today. There was a successful motion to reconsider. Then the bill was circled in order to allow amendments to get ready. So it will be back with modifications that, we are told, will address the safety concerns noted earlier.

And my sales tax distribution bill is on the agenda for the Monday afternoon Revenue and Taxation committee meeting. Have a look at it: H.B. 135. We got the amendment adopted in the Rules Committee today, so look at it as amended. Here is a link: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillamd/hb0135.htm. We think with the amendment, the cost impact shown in the fiscal note will either completely disappear or be only a fraction of what is shown. Wish me luck Monday! Note that the superb analysts that help draft our bills came up with a much more elegant hold-harmless mechanism than I had proposed initially. I’ll explain that to the committee Monday.

February 8, 2011

This was an interesting day. In the last two days, two of my bills have been released. They are awaiting fiscal notes. We’re working on the right mechanism to introduce my third bill. The two bills that are released are H.B. 134 and H.B. 135. They’re similar to what I described in my very first entry, but some details have changed. I’ll talk about them in more detail as they go through the process. If you have questions about them, let me know.

Here are some of the bills we dealt with today:

H.B. 248, County Office Vacancies

This bill makes changes to the way vacancies are filled when a county elected official steps down. This bill changes the current method. Currently, the political party of the one stepping down forwards a slate of three recommendations and the governing body chooses one (not necessarily the first choice of the delegates making the recommendation). Under the new law, delegates will select a single nominee, who will then be appointed. That is the way things work for state legislature vacancies. It works the way it should, I believe. I voted with the majority to pass the bill.

H.B. 226, Local Government Fee Authority

This bill makes it illegal in most instances to use a fee to pay for basic emergency services. If it becomes law, it will invalidate the Public Safety Fee introduced by Salt Lake County a couple of years ago. I believe, along with the sponsor of this bill, that general services should be paid for by taxes, not by special fees. Fees should be reserved for things that users choose to do. Hunting license fees, building permit fees, and even golf course green fees come to mind. I voted with the majority to pass this bill.

H.B. 203, Codification Of State Construction And Fire Codes

Of significance here, I spoke against an amendment offered by Representative Biskupski that would have made the adopted energy code for new home construction more stringent. A memo was circulated estimating the cost of compliance with the more restrictive code at less than $1,000 with the payback period being less than a year. At least two or my colleagues are contractors. One is a major homebuilder. They were of the opinion that the cost would be much higher and the payback period much longer. I am hesitant to ask the government to intervene any more than it already has. As consumers ask for more energy efficiency, the market will respond. I voted against the amendment. I then voted with the majority to pass this bill, which codifies building and fire code adoption decisions developed by consensus of the stakeholders over the past year.

H.B. 258, Child Restraint Device Amendments (Transportation Committee)

Discussion of this bill in committee was emotional. This was a very challenging bill. It provides an exemption from the requirement to use a child restraint device for a person five to eight years old if the driver is on a road with a speed limit of 45 MPH or less. If not in a booster seat, the child would need to be in a seat belt. This was Rep. Chris Herrod’s common-sense solution to the dilemma many adults face when they do not have a booster seat and this cannot legally give a child a ride home from school or some other place. Representative Herrod presented data that showed that the difference in injury and death rates between children of this age in booster seats vs. seat belts was statistically insignificant at or below this speed.

Healthcare professionals and the parent of a child injured in an accident spoke in opposition to the bill. To me the central question is whether we should leave latitude for parents to exercise reasonable judgment or whether the state must mandate by statute what decisions are in the child’s best interest. I sided in favor of parental rights and argued along those lines. That opinion did not prevail, however. The bill failed with only five votes in favor and six against.

February 6, 2011

An opinion column I submitted to the Clipper. Whether or not it makes it into print, you can read it here:

Did I Say That?

Media Coverage and the State Legislature

The other day I was quoted suggesting bonding for roads and capital construction. The trouble is, I didn’t say bonding. I said building roads and infrastructure is a legitimate role of government and if we don’t pay for them now, we’ll pay more later. If we count these as current expenses (pay as you go), it shows us that the hole in our budget is really deeper than we thought. (See, nothing about bonding!)

Several weeks ago I read that one in five campaign dollars went for personal purposes. The article mentioned a lawmaker using campaign funds to take his family to the circus. Bad idea! What the headline didn’t say was that instances of actual misuse of campaign funds were fairly rare. In order to come up with one in five dollars, the reporter also included as potentially improper: repayments of loans to campaigns, charitable contributions, and contributions to other candidates.

That is misleading. Other than just a few, the expenditures decried in the article were legal and above-board. We can argue about whether they should all be legal, but it is a stretch to lump legitimate expenses together with misuse. Ironically, reporters bemoan how few donations come from concerned citizens, yet articles exaggerating the facts like this one further discourage individuals from contributing!

Each March we encounter an article asking “How Effective is my Legislator?” It grades lawmakers based on how many bills we pass. That analysis equates an “Italian-American Heritage Month” declaration to a comprehensive retirement reform bill that was years in the making. But what about defeating bills? Isn’t that also important? Last week I worked with fellow committee members to reject a problematic tax bill presented to the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. This bill had the distinction of being rejected by both the Utah Taxpayers Association and the Utah Education Association.

This session, my bills focus on education funding, tax policy, and election law. Even if we don’t get any of them passed, we’ll get the conversation started. Then we’ll have a chance for further study in the interim and action next year or a future session. So be forewarned: using number of bills passed as the (irrelevant) measure of success, I may get an F.

One final overreach: every February the Deseret News reports that 20% to 25% of all the bills that session represent an “apparent conflict of interest.” In order to paint with such a broad brush, the reporter compares the profession of the bill sponsor to the subject of the bill. If they seem to be related, the bill is as an “apparent conflict.” So when an insurance agent sponsors a bill about insurance, that counts as an “apparent conflict of interest.” If a contractor wants a building code change, that must be a conflict, too.

A conflict of interest means you or your business stands to benefit from the legislation. That’s serious. But when we need a bill on medical matters, why would we not turn to someone in the medical profession? Yes, it is possible that such a sponsor could benefit, but you cannot say there is “apparent conflict” unless there is at least some evidence of personal financial gain. This whole concept is such a stretch that in one of the recent annual installments, the author invented the term “good conflict,” thereby acknowledging the notion that expertise in a field may actually make legislation better. Well, of course, it’s good. But it’s not conflict. It’s a benefit.

The common thread in these examples is that news reports, in spite of best efforts to the contrary, sometimes miss the mark. Thanks to the Clipper for a forum showing another point of view. Thanks also to those that become involved enough to see through the haze and find out what’s really happening. And voters, if you hear or read something in the media that doesn’t quite seem to add up, please ask your public officials directly.

February 4, 2011

Today I’ll begin on a lighter note. This was a serious topic, of course, but there was still room for a bit of lightheartedness in our proceedings:

H.B. 71, Victim Rights Amendments

This bill had been on the consent calendar for three days, so it was time for consideration this morning. If a bill passes through a committee with a unanimous vote and committee members consider it so uncontroversial as to need no debate on the House floor, with unanimous approval they can place a bill on the consent calendar. If no one objects during the three days it stays there, it is then brought to the floor, the sponsor has two minutes to introduce it, and it us put up for a vote.

Consideration of H.B. 71 this morning apparently came as a bit of surprise to bill sponsor, Brad Wilson. He expressed the fact that he was caught off guard and waived the introduction. House members instinctively decided to yank Representative Wilson’s chain just a little: I registered my yes as soon as voting opened, but I was amazed to see that almost all the senior members were voting no. The bill appeared to be going down to defeat. Crashing and burning. But our colleagues were just giving a new representative a scare. Before voting finished, every no vote changed, and it passed unanimously.

I appreciate the good-natured give and take that accompanies our efforts as representatives on your behalf. Even though we may have disagreements, people go out of their way to be respectful and friendly.

H.B. 81, Tow Truck Amendments

We heard this bill in the House Transportation Committee. The central issue is whether tow truck operators can recover costs incurred in good faith for cleaning up personal possessions scattered around an accident site, and whether they can hold these possessions until payment is received (as is currently the law with respect to the contents of storage units when the customer doesn’t pay). The debate centered on whether tow truck companies already charge too much. On the other hand, I am concerned that we not use the heavy hand of government to make it impossible for a private business to recover costs for legitimate work it undertakes in good faith.

Ultimately, representatives made several attempts to amend the bill in different ways. Then the motion was made to move to the next agenda item and allow the bill to come back with modifications later. The hope was that they would come back by the end of the meeting, but the decision was to postpone further consideration until our committee meeting next Tuesday.

February 3, 2011

This evening we attended the Davis County Lincoln Day Dinner. Karl Rove, mastermind behind much of George W. Bush’s success, gave the keynote address. His insights were incredible. Read his new book! (I'm going to.)

During the day, we blocked a couple of bills, among other things. First, I’ll mention one we dealt with in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee:

H.B. 72 Taxes and Related School Funding Provisions Amendments

This is a far-reaching bill. First, it puts the full sales tax back on food. Second, it directs those funds to school districts. Third, it requires districts to reduce their property taxes by exactly as much as the sales tax they receive. Finally, it freezes property taxes at these lower rates for 12 months.

I had two fundamental concerns:

1. I know I’m running against the grain here, but I don’t agree that we should increase the sales tax on food. I think we should eliminate it entirely. See my issues page on taxes on this site for my reasons.

2. With property tax rates reduced well below statutory maximums by this measure, school districts may then find it easier to raise taxes down the road. So after the twelve-month prohibition expires, this measure may well contribute to overall tax increases. That’s the biggest concern.

I asked pointed questions and spoke against it at length. So did others. I don’t think a single representative spoke in favor of the bill. Ultimately the committee put the agenda item on hold and moved on. I will be interested to see what the sponsor’s next steps are, but I don’t see any appetite for the measure in anything resembling its current form.

H.B. 223, Innkeeper's Rights Act Modifications

This was a challenging bill for me. It balanced two very important rights against each other: second-amendment gun rights and the private property rights of hotel owners. The question this bill poses is whether an innkeeper can choose not to rent a room to someone that will bring a gun into that room. Current law says the innkeeper can deny lodging in that event, even though some suggest that concealed carry laws provide otherwise. There’s apparently not been a case where this issue has come up. On learning about the proposal, though, hotel owners responded with strong opposition.

Two freshman representatives, David Butterfield and Derek Brown, spoke out passionately in opposition to the bill. The sponsor, Stephen Sandstrom, and several others spoke in favor. So it came down to this: two opposing rights and a consensual contract between private individuals. Those were the key factors in my mind. Add to that the strong hand of government setting the terms of that contract. You can probably guess how I voted. I am a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights. In this case, though, I considered private property rights and keeping government out of private transactions to be the greater good. I voted no, and the bill went down to defeat by a vote of 48 to 22. Interestingly, you had members of both parties on both sides of the issue, but a majority of both voting no.

Groundhog Day 2011

Did he see his shadow? I'm afraid I wasn’t paying attention.

H.B. 211, Community Service Medicaid Pilot Program

This bill got more debate than any other this morning. It seeks a Federal waiver to set up a pilot program requiring a small group of Medicaid recipients to perform community service in order to receive benefits. It exempts any that are not capable of providing service. The pilot program would be limited to fewer than 100 participants. Several Democrat Representatives stated that requiring community service would be demeaning or might hinder the ability of a recipient to find work.

Majority arguments were that doing service would actually be ennobling, not demeaning. Those that can do service would be better off if asked to do service in exchange for receiving benefits. That’s how I see it. A small pilot program is an appropriate way to test that concept. I voted in favor of the bill, which passed along party lines. (By the way, our newest Representative, Holly Richardson from Pleasant Grove, chose this bill as the vehicle for her first speech on the House floor, very effective.)

Now let me ask anyone reading this blog for comments (to my email address on the Contact Me page of this website) about a significant issue coming up:

Calls for a Constitutional Convention

Two resolutions are currently circulating that would call for such a constitutional convention in accordance with Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. One calls for an amendment that would require action by a supermajority of states in order to raise the Federal debt ceiling. The other calls for an amendment allowing a supermajority of states to repeal any Federal law or regulation (the Repeal Amendment).

I have received many comments (many in all CAPS) opposing any consideration of a constitutional convention, none in favor.

Most of the emails are exact copies or slight variants of the same message.
(Note: I get more out of emails that contain your own thoughts rather than repeating something you’ve picked up from somewhere else.)

At this point, it doesn’t appear that any of these emails have come from House District 19.
(Note: I represent the constituents of District 19, so your opinions are most important to me.)

So, constituents of District 19 (please identify yourselves as such so I know!), tell me your opinions, for or against a call for a constitutional convention. As noted, send them to the email above. I supposed I'm really interested in knowing whether anyone has strong arguments in favor of a constitutional convention. I think it is always good to hear arguments for both sides of an issue.

With that I say thank you for allowing me to represent you.

All the best, and good night!

February 1, 2011

Base Budgets

Appropriations bills have an impact on taxpayers and state programs alike. As a starting point this session, each appropriations subcommittee was tasked with trimming 7% from its respective budgets. In the appropriations subcommittee I sit on, for example, we approved a base budget that eliminated many line-item programs but also eliminated a portion of flexible spending money given to districts across the board. Again, I want to emphasize, these base budget bills are starting points. We hope we are able to restore the dollars we’ve cut, but we want to stay with more local control over how the money is spent rather than centralized mandates. If we aren’t able to make up the money, school districts will have difficult decisions, and we could see class sizes increase, furlough days, and layoffs.

Today we adopted the first three base budgets: Business, Economic Development, and Labor; Executive Offices and Criminal Justice; and Infrastructure And General Government. Cuts contained in these budgets include things like shutting down prisons and releasing prisoners early, fewer law enforcement officers, and waiting yet another year for needed maintenance of state facilities, to name just a few.

Most of us can make strong arguments for avoiding any of these cuts. At the same time, we can’t spend money we don’t have. The 7% across the board cuts built into these base budgets would eliminate the structural imbalance in our budget entirely. We would no longer rely on one-time money for ongoing programs. A couple of things could happen to ease things a bit.

1. We may decide to use some of the rainy-day funds we have left. Those funds currently total $210.

2. Revenue estimates to be released later this month may come in better than predicted. Some folks are saying we may be better off by $50 million or so. We will see.

I’m hopeful on both of these counts. My goal would be to replace as much of the funding we’ve cut in education as possible and then address critical services in other areas, such as law enforcement.

But back to today’s votes. With the understanding outlined above, I voted for all three base appropriations bills that came up this morning. I encourage all to temper their criticism of these temporary documents until we get to the final funding decisions at the end of the session.

H.B. 202, Death Penalty Procedures Amendments

I should also mention this bill. It has been crafted over a long time, working with people on both sides. This bill requires that all issues a defendant and his team are aware of at the time of appeal be brought up then rather than held in order to give rise to a follow-up appeal. It includes reasonable safeguards for new information that comes to light after appeal and that no one could reasonably have been aware of, but the overall effect will be to streamline death penalty appeals. These appeals, as we are all aware, can extend over of a period of more than 20 years.

I voted in favor of this bill. I believe justice delayed is often justice denied. I was pleased to see that most of the Democrat delegation voted with the majority on this one.

January 31, 2011

H.B. 199: Advertisements on School Buses

Considering this bill led to one of the more lengthy debates on the house floor today. It would allow local school boards or the charter school governing board to sell advertising on the exterior of school buses. The bill prohibits certain kinds of advertising from being placed on school buses including advertisement of things that are illegal or inappropriate for minors. It also limits advertising to a relatively small portion of the bus. This bill could result in new income for local school districts, possibly more than $3 million statewide.

Many representatives raised concerns about safety. “Would the ads distract drivers and cause them not to see the bus or the students?” they asked. Others spoke of the tradition of yellow school buses and did not wish to see that image changed in any way. The sponsor pointed out that this bill allowed local control and gave cash-starved districts an opportunity to bring in more revenues if they chose to. One of the more interesting arguments we heard more than once that schools were seriously underfunded, so we shouldn’t turn to measures like this, which were only a small band-aid, when in reality more significant funding increases were needed.

Well, I felt the guidelines established as to size, location, and content were sufficient to address the safety concerns. I couldn’t accept the logic that suggested schools were so poorly funded we should not offer an opportunity to raise cash. That just didn’t seem logical to me. And as for the yellow school bus image, well I think if schools can earn money off a modest advertising campaign, I’ll still recognize the vehicles as school buses.

I voted with the sponsor, Jim Bird, in favor of the bill. In fact, the entire Jim Caucus supported the bill. (That’s Jim Dunnigan in addition to Jim Bird and me). Alas, our efforts were in vain, and the bill failed. Oh well, I’m quite sure we spent more time on the issue than it was worth. I think the extended debate may have been a subconscious effort to postpone debate on an issue we’ll likely face tomorrow. (Perhaps that will be the subject my next blog post.)

January 28, 2011, Evening

I know this is off topic, but I have to tell you about the opportunity I had this afternoon to help out at the school-wide spelling bee at Valley View Elementary in Bountiful. It was my privilege to be the pronouncer—the one that speaks the words for the students to spell. Watching their faces as they strove to do their very best was priceless. A memorable moment came as Kathryn, the eventual 3rd-place finisher (out of 32), asked me to use endocrine in a sentence. The sentence provided was, "Hormones from the endocrine glands regulate metabolism, growth and development, and stress responses."

"Stress responses," this charming sixth-grader deadpanned, "that's what's happening right here" (gesturing to herself).

January 28, 2011, 11:45 AM

(From the floor of the House)

H.B. 57

We just voted on H.B. 57. This bill provides for the establishment of a veterinary education program offered by Utah State University in partnership with Washington State University. The bill proposes that initially up to 20 Utah resident students and 10 nonresident students can be accepted to the program leading to a doctorate in veterinary medicine. The first and second years of study will be completed at Utah State University and the last two years will be completed at Washington State. The Utah Legislature, subject to budged constraints, would appropriate money to pay for the nonresident portion of tuition for Utah Students enrolled at Washington State. This bill will require an ongoing appropriation subject to future budget constraints and an appropriation of $1,700,000 from the general fund in fiscal year 2011-2012.

The bill passed, but I spoke against the measure and voted against it. In the survey responses I’ve have received, constituents have stated emphatically that they are not in favor of adding new programs. I agree. I would love for Utah to have a veterinary program at some point in the future. To do so now would require us to make cuts somewhere else, deeper than what we otherwise may have to do. Even if the Senate passes the bill, there is a good chance this bill will not gain an appropriation. Refusing to fund the bill prevents any action from taking place in the upcoming fiscal year.

January 27, 2011

H.J.R. 1

On this bill, I agreed with Representative Wimmer. (See yesterday's post when I didn't.) We had just one item on the agenda of the House Committee on Revenue and Taxation this afternoon: House Joint Resolution 1. It took the whole time. The bill proposed to require a two thirds majority of the members of any body that levies taxes before taxes can be raised or a fee can be increased beyond the actual costs for which it is charged. Governing bodies with only five or fewer members were exempted.

This would be an amendment to the state constitution. It would apply to the state legislature and any city or county governments and special service districts or school boards with enough members.

We heard discussion (from the minority party, no less!) that it was improper in issues such as this to allow the will of the minority to prevent a bare majority from working its will. My question was: Why, then, did our framers build supermajority requirements into our constitution for amendments, impeachments, and the like if such hurdles are a fundamentally flawed idea?

I believe it should not be easy for any subdivision of government to raise taxes.

Several opponents of Representative Wimmer’s measure suggested that a supermajority threshold for raising taxes was at the root of many states’ current fiscal crises. If we take that on face value, I can only conclude that they are in such dire straits because they considered their only way out of trouble to be a tax increase. They didn’t have the political will to cut costs. In the private sector, we can’t tax, so if our revenues are down in a tough economy, we have to cut our expenses. Period.

The bill failed on an 7-7 tie. Two probable yes votes were not in attendance at the time of the vote.

When the committee meeting was over, I found myself wondering if the folks that thought it such a bad idea to require a two-thirds majority for a tax increase would, on principle, also reject the idea if one of their colleagues proposed a two-thirds threshold to cut spending. I think an impediment to economize would be ill conceived, but many who rejected a two-thirds threshold on today’s bill would likely love one if it ensured that spending couldn't be reduced. So today the arguments were all about procedure—bad process, tyranny of the minority, and so forth. In reality I think the underlying goal of many of the opponents of H.J.R. 1 was to eliminate potential impediments to raising taxes.

Can you imagine legislators using the phrase tyranny of the minority to decry a proposed supermajority requirement? That's exactly backwards. The whole idea behind a supermajority (or a concurrent majority as John C. Calhoun called it) is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority! I call on all engaged in public policy discourse to base their arguments on the merits of the proposal under consideration; don’t take cheap shots at a bill based on backwards logic!

Yes, we fell one vote short, but what an energetic and substantive (and sometimes creative) discussion! Gotta love it.

And of course, Representative Wimmer promises to be back.

January 26, 2011

H.B. 219

H.B 219 is Rep. Carl Wimmer’s bill to designate the the Browning model M1911 automatic pistol as the state firearm. I voted against it. For one, I question the value of adding one more thing to our long list of state emblems. But more importantly, I think it is a divisive issue for some. I don’t think our state symbols should draw us apart. I would favor a proclamation honoring Mr. Browning. He was a pioneer in incredible ways and contributed mightily to the development of this great state. His genius has helped protect the cause of freedom in times of war and has provided invaluable tools for hunting and protection. A few on both sides of the aisle spoke out against the bill, but it passed with a comfortable margin and is now on its way to the Senate.

That bill stood out among the others, which were mostly procedural.

Legislative Pay

One other quick note on a measure coming up soon regarding legislative pay: The independent commission (I don’t care for those!) recommended that the current salary and expense structure be rolled into a lump sum amount for service regardless of how many days each legislator works on special committees. Any actual expenses for lodging and food could be submitted for reimbursement.

The total amount they are talking about is something like $15,000 per year for the approximately 60 days we serve. The commission calculated the amount in a way that they figure will be revenue neutral. It will be a slight raise for some, a slight decrease for others, but overall, no added cost.

I don’t like this for two reasons. For me (since I have fewer extra responsibilities than more senior legislators) it would likely be a small increase in pay. That doesn’t seem right when we are still talking about cuts in other areas. The proposal a couple of us freshmen legislators came up with and forwarded to those running the bill is to go ahead with the single, consolidated flat rate, but don’t make it revenue neutral. Cut it at least 7%, just as we are proposing for other parts of government. I could support that. Otherwise no.

January 25, 2011

Here's an update on a couple of interesting bills we voted on today:

H.B. 25, Mineral And Petroleum Literacy

Of the bills we passed today, most were procedural and uncontroversial. But I didn’t like one we passed (H.B. 25, Mineral And Petroleum Literacy) and I spoke out against it. The bill uses fees paid by oil and gas producers to produce educational programs for about the mineral and energy extraction industry.

I had three concerns:

1. If the fees producers are currently paying exceed what is needed for basic government purposes, should we not reduce fees & allow private industry to keep more of its earnings to benefits shareholders and customers?

2. Could the private sector not choose to prepare such educational materials on its own?

3. Shouldn’t we focus public spending for schools on the basics such as math, science, English, history, and civics? Each new thing we suggest teachers do tends to take away from these fundamental academic subjects.

Nineteen representatives voted against it. Not enough to defeat it, but at least we got a conversation started.

By the way, I imagine my next speech on the floor will be easier. I’ll get the hang of it.

H.B. 206, Special Group License Plate Amendments

Then there was this bill, in the House Committee on Transportation (AKA License Plate Committee, as some called it today). It reduces the number of special license plates. Only those that are quite widely used will continue to be issued. I spoke in favor of the bill, questioning whether assisting with favored causes was the proper role of government. I suggested that there were other ways to express our passions besides the license plate itself—i.e. a special frame around the plate or maybe even a bumper sticker.

During debate it was noted that the late Rod Marrelli, former Executive Director of the State Tax Commission (and former resident of Bountiful and a friend of the family), opposed the ever-expanding list of specialty license plates offered by the state. So the bill was affectionately dubbed the Rodney Marrelli Memorial License Plate Bill, or something like that.

I voted in favor of the bill. Most members of the committee did likewise. So it’s on it’s way to the House Floor for debate.

Closing words for today: May God bless our Republic and all of its citizens! Thank you all for your support.

January 24, 2011

We had our ceremonial swearing in this morning. What choked me up was saying the Pledge of Allegiance together as a body. My wife and father-in-law were with me on the floor. Three of my children and two of my siblings were in the gallery. My father and step mother are out of the country and couldn't attend. I posted a photo with my arm to the square on Facebook.

I had my first opportunity to vote on a bill. In the Revenue and Taxation committee, we reviewed a bill that decreased the penalty but increased the interest rate on delinquent personal property taxes (HB 190). The fiscal note said the net effect was something like $300,000 more revenue to counties and the same amount extra paid by taxpayers. I suggested in the committee that this amounted to a tax increase and questioned why we were making the change. Apparently something similar was done with real property last year and county officials want uniformity.

I don't like the idea of taxpayers having to pay more, even if they are delinquent. A reasonable interest rate (currently 6.25%) should be enough. I voted no along with three others, but the measure had enough votes to be passed out of committee. We'll see it again on the floor.

I'll keep you posted.