Salt Lake Tribune Opinion Piece December 3, 2011

Read my thoughts about the Caucus-Convention system in the Opinion section of today’s Tribune here. You may or may not agree, but this an important discussion to have. There are many positives we would lose if we scrapped our current system.

Interim Day November 16, 2011

Deseret News Presentation

We began the day with a presentation by the Deseret News. Our committee began at 8:30, so I couldn't stay for the whole thing. My understanding is the News got an earful from folks that thought their new brand of journalism, relying on substantial input from amateur sources and the blogosphere, was not so much a progression as a (giant) step backwards. I share the concerns that Deseret News coverage seems more superficial today than it once did.

Education Interim Committee

We heard a presentation from Davis School School District regarding successes in online education. We also learned more about Washington District’s tried and true online program.

The report on the performance-based pay pilot program outlined the things that contributed to the success of these programs and what did not. They were not able to show a correlation between these programs and student performance. Of course, a two-year pilot may not represent the kind of linear study that would be necessary to reveal the existence of a real trend with any statistical confidence. It is refreshing that teachers generally found ways to make such these programs into positive experiences for those that participated.

We also got a good progress report on implementing the new school grading system. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) has done an admirable job of implementing this program and will have it online very soon. One other thing from the USOE: Larry Shumway made an extra effort to point out that reading scores statewide showed significant improvement over the past few years. Good to know we’re making progress in one area.

The last thing I want to mention is Senator Osmond’s report on the terms of employment for public school employees. He had been talking about running a bill to modify or eliminate the state’s orderly termination law for school employees. State Superintendent Larry Shumway has voiced his support and the support of the state school board for changes along these lines. But after getting an earful from teachers in packed meetings in many communities, Senator Osmond now speaks of putting the effort on hold for a time. He recommends that we focus in the mean time on improving teacher morale.

Now I want to share an analogy from my experience in the private sector. I would say we’ve had our share of morale problems at CRSA where I work. Some time ago we cut everyone’s salary by at least 10% (more for those further up the food chain). We slashed benefits. And we had to let more than a third of our workforce go. All these things affected company morale deeply. But we did it to stay in business. Today things look to be improving somewhat, and we’ve begun increasing salaries. During the darkest times, however, we had a couple of our best employees leave. When asked why, a common theme emerged: in an effort to be supportive of our employees, my partners and I may have sometimes been a bit slow to deal with sub-par performance on the part of a few. The perception is that we were too good-hearted to deal with them or let them go. But inaction on our part with respect to underperformers was demoralizing to those that strove to do their best. They felt their efforts to help the firm were being undermined, so they chose to leave.

There’s a pretty good lesson there. Inaction or inability to deal with poor performance can make top performers feel there’s little point in continuing to excel. I submit that this concept has application in our schools as well. I hope Senator Osmond or someone else will bring the issue of teacher tenure forward during the upcoming session. It should make for an animated debate. I particularly look forward to Superintendent Shumway’s testimony on the subject during committee.

Majority Caucus Discussion of the National Popular Vote Movement

In our caucus during lunch, Representative Noel invited visitors supporting the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement to make a presentation. I thought I heard him say the Conservative Caucus was supporting a junket to Southern Utah December 9th to learn more about it. Other lawmakers heard it that way as well. He later emailed me that the Conservative Caucus was not supporting it financially, but that expenses were being paid by the (well-financed) NPV group. However, he still sent out an invitation on Conservative Caucus letterhead.

These are the comments I sent Representative Noel in opposition to the NPV movement:

I will work vigorously to oppose the popular vote initiative in Utah. If the conservative caucus makes adoption of that initiative a priority and spends resources to support it, I believe it will have stopped being a conservative organization and I will no longer participate with that caucus.

You deserve an explanation.

Reasons to keep the electoral college and the winner-take-all rules in place as they currently stand (in almost all states):

1. Less populous states are over-represented in the electoral college. These states tend to be more conservative than the nation as a whole. Winner take all provisions accentuate that advantage for conservatives. I am not interested in anything that would reduce or eliminate that advantage.

2. Winner-take-all provisions are responsible for a significant portion of the strength of a maximum of two national parties. With few exceptions, in order to get any electoral votes at all, a party's nominee must command a majority in at least one state. A quick check of history shows that electoral votes going to third parties have been quite rare in the history of our current winner-take-all approach. Having two predominant parties, bolstered by winner-takes-all rules, means that a candidate from a single party will be able to garner a majority of electoral votes outright. If multiple parties earn electoral votes, the inevitable result is that the major parties will be weakened and a candidate will have to assemble electors from a coalition of parties in order to win. Welcome to Italy. It is possible that this approach would send all future contests to the House of Representatives for a final decision. A president and a government put in place by a coalition would be extremely vulnerable to the potential of losing its power base when one of the parties in the coalition becomes disaffected, as inevitably happens. I am not interested in anything that would contribute to that sort of instability. (I contend that the Electoral College cum winner-takes-all is a key reason for the stability our government has enjoyed over the past 224 years, making it now the oldest form of government on earth.)

Responses to comments made in caucus today:

Yes the RNC opposes this because it would take away some of its power. As noted above, I believe reducing the power of the party is a terrible idea.

It was stated that some overwhelming percentage of the public opposes this. I doubt that a reliable poll that outlined pros and cons, phrased the question neutrally, and then asked for a response would yield that result, but even if it did, public opinion (particularly when it has been molded by consistent media campaigns in a single direction) should not be the basis of conservative policy. If a poll were to show overwhelming support for redefining marriage or for abortion on demand, would we jump on board the bandwagon? I hope not.

To me it is not about whether presidential candidates come to Utah. What matters to me is that we elect conservative Republican presidents. Our current system favors that.

It is also not about whether all the money we contribute to presidential campaigns is spent out of state. I don't donate to presidential campaigns with in-state economic development in mind. Again, the goal is to elect conservative Republican presidents, first and foremost.

In conclusion, I see no reason whatsoever that Utah should do anything other than instruct its five electors (soon to be six) to vote for the Republican ticket (which as has been pointed out will surely gain the majority for the foreseeable future). For the reasons outlined above, I believe directing some of them to cast their votes some other way would be damaging not only to our conservative ideals but also to the stability of our nation as a whole.

Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

We reviewed several pieces of draft legislation that are likely to come before the legislature in the coming session. The one I want to focus on has to do with property taxation of business personal property. Our goal with this legislation is to provide an exemption that will reduce the burden on small businesses. By increasing the amount businesses can exempt several fold, not only will businesses have their tax bill reduced a bit, they will—more importantly—have their paperwork and auditing burden lightened substantially.

The fact that we dispatch state auditors to count and assign value to each printer and desk owned by each small business is evidence of skewed priorities in my view. One of the members of the committee told me about a state auditor traveling to St. George to audit a small business there. The auditor spend the day and came up with something like $400 of additional taxes due. Of course that auditor's time and expenses far exceeded the resulting paltry tax bill.

That’s all for this year’s interim. We have an all-day Republican caucus December 20th. There should be appropriations subcommittee meetings in early January. And the session begins on the 23rd.

Interim Day, October 19, 2011

Compared to the special session on redistricting, today was a bit more predictable:

Education Interim Committee
Republican Caucus/Lunch
Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

That's better.

Education Interim Committee

Our committee meeting featured great reports on ongoing initiatives and great discussion on upcoming legislation. We received a report on a study analyzing successes raising the bar on student achievement in Montgomery County, Maryland and the State of Florida. It is heartening to see the State Board of Education pursuing this avenue. We can always learn from innovative approaches used elsewhere, however, not every situation is the same. What works one place does not always work somewhere else.

We were also briefed on the rule proposed by the State Board of Education regarding teacher evaluations.

We heard discussion on several interesting bill proposals we’ll be considering in the upcoming legislative session. These include Howard Stephenson’s Student Opportunity Scholarship program, which will provide a tax credit for individuals and businesses that provide funds to allow underachieving students to attend private schools. It’s being called another voucher bill, but I don’t think that is a fair assessment. At the same time, the details give me cause for concern. For example, since it’s a credit against state tax, I’d like to cap the amount of the scholarship at the average amount the state gives school districts per student—no more. I brought that up during the hearing. The bill needs additional fine-tuning, and it sounds as if Senator Stephenson is willing to discuss some of these areas. So we’ll work to make it better.

We looked at a bill on college and career readiness assessment, one on statewide adaptive testing ($$$), and a proposal by Senator Osmond on public education employment reform. Newly appointed to replace Senator Buttars, he’s decided to use a simple (not) piece of legislation as his first foray into sponsoring a bill. A man after my own heart.

Senator Osmond’s discussion ran up against the clock and will continue next month. After giving homework assignments to review a spate of required reports, we adjourned.

Republican Caucus

We kept our caucus open today. A chance for leadership to vent a bit at one of the reporters that was in attendance, I suppose. The Utah Highway Patrol had set up a use of force training simulator in the majority caucus room. Legislators and staff took turns with a laser gun trying to kill the bad guy on the screen before the image went dark, signifying that the one doing the training had just bit the dust. Congressman Chaffetz attended the beginning of the meeting and took a turn. From the way he did, it looked as if he’d shot a gun quite a few times before. I’m sure he has. Representative posted a photo on Facebook showing the Congressman, weapon in hand, addressing the caucus “Washington Style,” as he put it.

Last week I’d phoned every member of Utah’s Federal delegation and left word asking the Senator or Representative to contact me about anti-discrimination legislation. You may recall I wrote a column in the Tribune on the subject a month or so ago. So I took the opportunity to bend his ear on the subject just a bit. I had sent letters to each of them, but I will follow up by emailing it to a member of his Utah staff.

I also got a phone call from Senator Lee on that subject today, and we had a very stimulating exchange of ideas. Out of the box thinking and so forth. Imagine that! Of course he thinks my basic premise would never stand a chance of being enacted, even if there are some fundamental positives about it. He said he’d like to think about it some more and maybe working together we could develop an approach that had slightly more than a snowball’s chance in . . . It sounds as if we’ll be discussing it further in the next few weeks.

Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

The meeting got a late start because the Senators were involved in a judicial confirmation after lunch.

We reviewed our policies about refunding sales tax mistakenly paid on delivery services (not taxable). The Utah Supreme Court has just put up a barrier to these refunds. We are considering legislation to roll things back to where they were before the Supreme Court changed the ground rules. We would grant taxpayers by statute more ready recourse, just as they previously had in practice.

Then there was our presentation on sales tax distribution. It did not go well. Somehow I had gotten the impression that Senator Bramble was on board with our idea and that this might conceivably emerge as a committee bill. Not even close. Charman Bramble was one of the biggest detractors. He didn’t go easy on me. Representative Greg Hughes, House Majority Whip, was beside me, and Senator Stephenson was on board as well, but that wasn’t enough to carry the day. Rather than vote, we moved on, and I asked to be on the agenda next month.

We’ve got work to do if we’re going to have it ready by then. By the way, the bill changes the formula for distributing local option sales tax revenues to communities. Currently the distribution is based 50% on population and 50% on point of sale. This bill would change that to 50% population, 25% point of sale, and 25% gross wages. It would provide an incentive to communities for job creation, something they currently do not have.

So I’ll spend the next little while reaching out to members of the committee.

We were late to begin with and our conversation on tax distribution went long, so we dealt with just a couple other bills and required reports and adjourned at about 5:30. Using my phone’s camera, I took a picture of the State Capitol in the waning daylight, posted it on Facebook, and headed home.

Final Day of Redistricting Special Session, October 17, 2011

We arrived in the House chambers at 9:00 Monday for day 3 of the special redistricting session as scheduled, only to learn that discussions were ongoing with the senate while we waited. Finally, around 10:30, Speaker Lockhart called the House to order, and we moved immediately into caucus. There were so many members of the press and public in the room (including the head of the Democrat party) that there wasn’t quite enough room for all the Representatives to sit.

I stood along the edge of the majority caucus room. We’d just talked about getting started with serious discussion when Rep. Morley moved to close the caucus. I spoke against it. The gist of my comments were that the media had created a false impression that we were drawing maps behind closed doors (in smoke-filled rooms, no less), and we should leave the meeting open so they could see that no such thing was happening. We shouldn’t take action that would perpetuate that erroneous impression. At least three newspapers picked up my comments.

The suggestion was made that we should close the caucus because of the threat of pending litigation. Democrats have, in fact, said they will sue regardless. I guess there is some merit to that argument if all we were going to discuss was the potential litigation and our response to it. But if we’re discussing policy, as was the clear intent of the caucus, then the litigation comment seems weak to me.

A couple others spoke, more opposed to the motion to close than in favor. But when we voted, the motion carried. I walked out, along with all the press and public. The Democrat chairman had a heyday making accusations on camera right outside the caucus room door. Another person that left was Representative Wimmer. There have been a lot of accounts of him getting a district made just for him, and he didn’t want to be part of that conversation.

Again, it’s all about impressions. We seem to be losing the public relations battle.

Mid-day, Rep. Hughes and I had an appointment to speak at the League of Cities and Towns about a sales tax distribution bill we are proposing. He wasn’t able to make it, so it was just me making the presentation and answering questions. I’ll write more on this topic Wednesday, but let’s just say there is opposition.

Back at the capitol, our discussions on the floor began with a motion to adopt substitute 14, followed by a motion to substitute map 15 over the top of that. Map 15 failed on a voice vote, then we were back to 14. The next step was a move to substitute map 17 instead of 14. Energetic discussions continued. The common question was, “Where is the opportunity for public input?”

Substitute 17 did represent a substantial deviation from the base map approved by the committee in a public process. It seemed like a new map. The very legitimate concern with a totally new map is that the public has had no time to review and comment on the entirely new concept. If we had proceeded with this approach, we might have had the votes to pass the bill, but there would likely have been a very potent public outcry. We might well have won the battle and lost the war.

So one of my objectives coming into the session today was to avoid a totally new map. Of course since the beginning of this special session, one of my other objectives has been to represent my constituents’ wishes either to move the split out of Davis County or (if we had to live with a split) move that line far enough north so that there would be enough of us in south Davis to make a difference in the second Congressional district. Our Davis County delegation had agreed a week and a half ago that if we had to have a line, we wanted it at the boundary between Farmington and Kaysville/Fruit Heights, or at least in that general area.

Balancing those two objectives, I couldn’t ignore the fact that this substitute was the only one to that point that addressed my constituents’ concerns about the line in Davis County. Before I had time to resolve that dilemma, the majority moved to circle the bill for some reason, and we moved to caucus.

I suspect part of the discussion behind the scenes had to do with how different substitute 17 was from the base map. Maybe not. Regardless, we decided to go back to the drawing board, figuratively. Actually, Representative Hughes had been working on another approach, much closer to the base map the committee and the senate had already approved. After much discussion, we broke for dinner, and redistricting committee members went to work to finalize Hughes’ plan, which was finally ready for review around 8:00 PM.

This map was more clearly a minor modification of the original bill. Not a completely new map. Check. The new map also keeps the Davis County line roughly at the north border of Farmington. Check.

Back on the floor, the first order of business was to vote on a measure (SB 3005) allowing minor corrections by the Lieutenant Governor for houses that are found to be in two districts. I voted yes. It passed overwhelmingly.

Then came the debate on the congressional map. We had an energetic debate, first on whether to adopt this substitute. The biggest objections had first to do with how many cities were split. Of course every map, including those submitted by the minority party, splits communities. After this first portion of the debate, the motion to adopt the substitute passed by voice vote. I voted yes because it met both my objectives.

The debate continued, and the focus moved to public lands. This map, along with many of those submitted, includes a mix of rural, public lands, and urban areas in each of the four districts. While the map it was based on did that less well in District 4, this new version improved that substantially. The idea behind this approach is that with about a third of the State owned by the Federal government, we need all of our Congressmen representing rural areas and public lands. We need as large a voice as possible in Washington trying to get the Federal government to honor its commitments to Utah.

And one more thing I’ve said before: Every change that moved more Republicans into one district, took them away from someplace else. Democrats may claim that redistricting will contribute to the loss of a seat. The truth is, more than one seat in the new map could be competitive for either party. And as Bill Orton showed us in 1990 and several elections thereafter, under the right conditions a strong candidate from either party has a chance in any one of the districts.

The map, as substituted, passed by a vote of 50 to 19. I voted yes.

We had a brief wait to see if the Senate would go along with the substitute. They did. We went through the ceremonial notifications to end the session, but not before Majority Leader Brad Dee bundled up the maps he had in his files, put them in a brightly colored Dora backpack his granddaughter had offered, and presented them to Minority Leader Litvak with a request that they be delivered to the head of the Democrat party in compliance with the GRAMA request the Democrats have filed. Rep. Litvak accepted it with a smile.

We have been put on notice that the Democrats intend to sue; our counsel says we’re on solid ground.

We don’t know if the governor will veto the map; the vote total in both houses was enough for an override, if necessary.

A few final thoughts:

Perhaps the best indication of whether the final congressional map was a good compromise was the fact that people on all sides had reservations. None of us got exactly what we wanted. I am extremely disappointed that Congressman Bishop will no longer represent me. Yes, communities and adjacent cities were split. Every alignment we looked at split communities.

And as I mentioned above, every Republican voter and every rural voter added to one district had to be taken from another district. Gerrymandering to create a district tailor made for Democrats could virtually ensure that we would have three Republicans and one Democrat representing Utah. Carefully balancing districts with rural and urban voters on the other hand may increase the chances that Republicans sweep all four. However, depending on the candidates and the kinds of campaigns they run, it may at the same time put any or all of the seats within reach for Democrats.

You can decide whether we ended up with Fair Boundaries. There will be numerous claims one way or the other. Editorial statements will continue. (See the Daily Herald's editorial for particularly strong words.) The next two or three election cycles will tell the story with more clarity, I suppose. I think the result is a compromise we can live with. You may feel otherwise. The advantage voters have with the constitutional system we use for redistricting (by elected representatives rather than independent commission) is that if you don't like the way we did it, you have the ability to vote us out of office. Let me know if you think the boundaries are fair. Find my email address under Contact Me above.

Second Day of Redistricting Special Session, October 4, 2011

A quick note from Day 1: Tuesday morning’s Tribune dubbed Monday's 74-1 adoption of the House redistricting map a Kumbaya moment.

2nd Sub SB 3001 (Senate Map)

In presenting this map, Rep. Sumsion said he thinks the map is much improved from earlier senate maps (but he still thinks the House map is better). We passed the Senate map with no debate by a vote of 69 to 5. (Later on we passed the same map once again with minor revisions—3rd Sub SB 3001—by a vote of 60 to 9. Somehow it was a bit less popular this time around. Maybe we were tired.)

Suspended Animation

This day was characterized by 15 minutes in chamber voting on bills followed by hours of meetings and caucuses trying to work things out, then repeating the process. It felt inefficient, but that’s really a core characteristic of policy making in our participatory form of government. The key sticking point, of course, was the congressional map.

To the best of my understanding, the following describes the reasons and general course of the many behind-the-scenes discussions: (Warning, Skip the next few paragraphs if you’re not interested in a blow by blow discussion.)

Monday morning House Republicans voted in caucus to support a map that was different from the one passed out of the redistricting committee last Thursday. That decision was partly in response to objections raised by Governor Herbert that one of the districts did not contain as much public land as all the others. It also responded to criticisms that one district had been tailored specifically for a current House member that has already announced his candidacy for Congress. In spite of the fact that the new map was well received in the press later that day, it was not well received by the Senate. It wasn’t so much that they opposed the new map as they preferred a full public review before considering it. Looking back, we should have had better communication with the Senate.

To provide an initial public hearing on the new map, the redistricting committee held a regularly-scheduled meeting Monday. House committee members presented the new map. Senators voted it down. Senators then introduced their own new map, drawn by Senator Ben McAdams, D-Salt Lake. House members voted that down. Perhaps the Senate’s hope was that we would abandon our new map. I imagine they would then have abandoned theirs. That would have taken us back to the one passed out of committee last Thursday, which we could have modified and then finished our work.

So it appeared that the McAdams map was just a ploy to counter the new map proposed by the House. We wondered whether to call their bluff. Leaders and committee members spent much of this second day huddling and devising potential compromise maps. It was clear that Davis County would have to be divided under any congressional redistricting scenario, so Davis County House and Senate members huddled to come up with a consensus on where to draw that line. At this point, we’ve all settled on the north border of Farmington. That’s better than how things started Monday morning with the line running right through the middle of Bountiful. It creates a bigger critical mass in south Davis County, providing enough clout to have an impact on the 2nd district, of which we will likely become a part.

Late in the day, having dealt with just about everything other than the congressional map, we spent a long time debating another approach and a possible new map. For that to happen, we agreed, the redistricting committee would have to meet at least one more time, with a few days for homework first. Ultimately, we decided to adjourn until October 17th to allow time for a compromise map to be developed and get plenty of public comment first. Maybe by then we’ll be on the same page as the Senate or at least know what they intend to do.

6th Sub HB 3001 (House Map)

It was almost 9:00 PM when we reconvened to pass the final revisions to the House Map. With that, everything was completed except the congressional map, so we adjourned to let the committee do its work. As noted, we’ll try again starting on the 17th.

Final Notes

At one point in the day while waiting a few moments for something from the Senate, we enjoyed a couple of outrageous videos in the House Chambers about home fireworks gone awry. This brief entertainment came courtesy of Rep. Jim Dunnigan, sponsor of Utah’s new fireworks law.

And for the record, it seems that just about all of the speakers at the protest Monday at the Capitol were Democrats or had made substantial donations to Democrat candidates. That was the non-partisan rally protesting our redistricting efforts and painting the process as un-American.

Non-partisan?

First Day of Redistricting Special Session, October 3, 2011

Today we began by adopting new boundaries for the 15 state school board districts by unanimous vote and taking care of a handful of technical, procedural, or ceremonial bills. Interestingly, the school board map was based on one submitted by a citizen on the state's website. Topics covered in the cleanup bills we reviewed include:

• Clarifications about what constitutes ownership of limited liability corporations (LLCs).
• Definitions related to rural representation on the State Board of Regents. (Who knew that Juab county wasn’t rural as defined by the existing statute?)
• A resolution honoring the 75th anniversary of the Welfare Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
• A resolution calling on the Federal Government to authorize a land swap protecting title to lands near Scofield Reservoir that have been owned privately for 70 years but are now threatened with confiscation by the Federal Government.
• A rules change regarding internal procedures for state lawmakers to establish which bills are their top priorities, including revised timelines.
• Some date corrections related to a new driver license statute adopted in this year’s general session.
• Rules that set Utah’s presidential primary date as June 26, 2012, the same date as all other primary elections in Utah. We had moved it earlier for the Western States Primary last election cycle. It seems that isn’t happening this time around.

Caucuses

Behind the scenes several of us worked on minor corrections to house boundaries and more significant revisions to congressional maps. We worked in small groups and in the majority caucus.

An area of concern for my district was our north border. My efforts were to have that border follow the municipal boundary between Bountiful and Centerville, as it has for the past 10 years. The idea was to avoid having people on two sides of the same street (in Bountiful or in Centerville) belong to different legislative districts. This evening we adopted a substitute that takes care of that almost completely. I’m still working on the last piece—a small area where census data appear to show the boundary in the wrong place. We should be able to fix that when it goes to the Senate in the morning.

Regarding the congressional map, several of us expressed concern about the map adopted by the committee in their final meeting last Thursday. That map includes a sliver of south Davis County with a large portion of Salt Lake County and other areas of the state in Congressional District 2. It splits Bountiful and the Legislative District I represent down the middle. We felt that such a small portion of our county would never have much say in District 2. The consensus of Davis County lawmakers was that if Davis County must be split, the division should happen at a line further north so that Davis County voters would be in a position to influence the outcome of that race. We haven’t seen the revised map yet, but in our last majority caucus, the group agreed to an approach that would move the line further north—somewhere around Farmington.

One pitfall I mentioned in a caucus early in the day was what I thought was an attempt to balance all four congressional districts politically. My sense was that an attempt to balance these districts might make it more likely to elect four Republicans but that it could also have the effect of putting all four seats in play for a strong candidate of either party. The likelihood of that outcome would be increased if the public became incensed at the district arrangement and felt that the process was politicized.

I was pleased to find out that the four districts had not been precisely balanced. In their last iteration, the proposed boundaries had two districts that lean more strongly Republican and two substantially less so. I would have preferred that neither Davis County nor Utah County be split. Also, Salt Lake County is split four ways. As it was explained to the body, the desire to minimize splits in other counties and the interest in having both urban and rural components of every district contributed to the final layout.

I came to the session this morning ready to vote against the Congressional redistricting map, but the way things are shaping up, I am more inclined to vote yes. We’re told that vote should happen tomorrow.

4th Substitute HB 3001 (House Map)

Rep. Ken Sumsion presented this map and outlined the process by which it was developed. He choked up at one point when he described the decision (for which he took personal responsibility) to consolidate the districts of two of his closest friends and allies, both of them founding members of the Patick Henry Caucus, of which Ken is also a founding member. People on both sides of the aisles talked about the process and were highly complimentary, saying that it was impartial and unbiased. Everyone complimented Ken for his professionalism and mastery of the numbers. Some noted his increased number of gray hairs.

One humorous note during the presentation, which went until well into the evening:
 “As a representative of all the rural Democrats. . .” said Rep. Christine Watkins at the beginning of her remarks.

 (She's the only Democrat representing a rural district.)

The House redistricting plan passed the House by a vote of 74 to 1. When the speaker announced the vote for the record, we all rose to give Rep. Sumsion and his colleagues on the committee a standing ovation.

We adjourned a little before 9:00 PM.

Interim Day September 21, 2011

Redistricting Caucus Meetings

Top of Utah group early and Majority Caucus at midday. It appears that the Utah House map is almost set. A few minor adjustments will happen between now and the special session beginning October 3rd. It seems the proposed map puts two Republican incumbents against each other in three districts—one in Box Elder/Weber, one in the south end of Salt Lake County, and one in Utah County. There is also one district in Salt Lake County with two Democrat incumbents, and one that is split—with both a Republican and a Democrat incumbent.

Sure there will be criticism, but the map looks awfully equitable, if you ask me. After recent revelations about who actually drew the Fair Boundaries group’s maps, I don’t think any of their complaints will get much traction.

Then there were congressional maps, which we looked at over lunch. They are not finalized, but I think some sort of pizza is the likely outcome. (No that was not on the menu.) There may be howls from the minority party, but it is worth pointing out that if this arrangement puts all four seats in play for Republicans, the flip side is that with the right candidates, all four are also potentially winnable by Democrats. Seriously. (Remember Bill Orton, who was elected in the reddest of the red districts after my father retired. Orton managed to be reelected from that district again and again. Not one of the four balanced pizza slices likely to emerge would be as strongly Republican as that seat was.)

Family Law Reform

Before our committee started, a group of us listened to proposals from BYU professor Alan Hawkins for family law reforms. I’ve already got a bill underway to require that the divorce orientation course (currently required by law) occur at the time of filing. Currently it usually happens at the very end of the process. Having that information so late in the process has been shown to have little or no impact on the decision making process. Professor Hawkins presented information suggesting that taking the course earlier will lead to more deliberation on the subject of whether to dissolve a marriage and ultimately more informed choices.

Education Interim Committee

We learned about a lot of good things going on in the areas of public transparency and accountability for our state’s schools. Years in the making, there is now an online portal on the State Office of Education website (www.schools.utah.gov) giving performance data on schools and allowing robust comparisons between schools. Try it out. The links (Public School Data or PSD Gateway) are on the lower left hand corner of the home page.

Also, beginning with 2011 data, to be published in December, high school graduation rates will be calculated the same way for all states, establishing valid benchmarks to see how we stack up nationally. Varying methodologies of the past have made comparisons essentially meaningless.

Progress on school grading is underway. In the very near future, grades will be posted on the data portal mentioned above. We received status reports from the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind and from the Utah Futures Steering Committee.

Finally, we talked about education governance. The proposal before the committee is the make the Utah Office of Education a Department of Education with the State Superintendent appointed by the government. According to Utah Supreme court interpretation of our constitution, the State School Board and State Superintendent currently operate under the direction of the legislature. This responsibility would be transferred to the governor. The idea is that the governor could then take the lead, and a forceful leader could make things happen.

Two thoughts: our constitution establishes a special governance structure for public education, which currently represents more than half of our state appropriations. I believe the reasons for granting public education its own elected executive body go far beyond the separation of church and state concerns usually cited as the original motivation. Education is the most significant thing we do in state government. It is tremendously complex, both in terms of management and funding. It deserves to be in a class by itself. I am not keen on undoing what the framers of our state put in place; I am particularly not interested in making the executive branch stronger than it is already. I believe the executive is already much stronger than the founders intended. I don’t believe we should further that trend.

And finally, much of the discussion centered on the notion of getting someone in place, appointed by the governor, that could just get things done. But consider this: both the Utah and the Federal Constitutions were established to make it difficult to achieve rapid change. Requirements for debate and majority or super-majority votes, for layered governance, and for separation of powers are designed to make change slow and deliberate. These requirements are manifestations of the ultimate conservatism—keeping things as they are unless there is a preponderance of public opinion in favor of change. Sure, dictators are efficient, but they can easily run roughshod over the values on which we are founded.

I believe we reform education by electing the best possible school board members and legislators and building consensus within the bounds of the governance established in our constitution.

(I didn’t say it in quite that much detail in committee, but that was the essence of my objection. Rep. LaVar Christensen raised similar concerns.)

Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

Business Personal Property tax continues to be a concern. How do we reduce the burden on small businesses here? Even if we clarify the exemptions, the burden of recordkeeping and audits remains. Lots of discussion. No good solution.

Senator Stephenson, Representative Hughes, and I had a presentation scheduled about sales tax distribution (this time using total wages in a community in the place of a portion of point of sale transactions. The idea is to provide an incentive for economic development--creating jobs.) Representative Hughes was unavailable, so we got postponed to next month.

We also heard about the magnitude of the costs associated with future water projects. The assumption is that the state must provide the financing, but the communities that benefit will repay all the costs. Senator McAdams wanted to emphasize that the costs should be borne by ratepayers. Senator Stephenson agreed wholeheartedly. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen those two in lock step on an issue. Of course I agree as well. If the costs of water are borne by taxpayers generally rather than users, there is little or no incentive to conserve. This is a perfect application of the concept of user fees. Those using the resource can and should bear the cost.

Back to those staggering costs: three or four BILLION. The Lake Powel pipeline looks to be up first and will cost something like a billion and a half. I’ll bet design development and overruns will drive those costs much higher. If we open up our checkbook for that project, I don’t see how we will bond for any major road projects during the next 10 years or more. We would be right up against our statutory bonding limit for years. To put it another way, I have serious reservations about tying up so much of our bonding capacity for that project when we are just about maxed out on our credit card.

Maybe this is a good analogy: Suppose you or I co-sign a large long-term loan for a family member. A likely consequence of that decision is that when we subsequently try to take out a business loan or qualify for some other essential credit, we may not qualify. I’m hesitant to put our state in that position. What impact will decisions like this have on our reputation as the best-managed state? More importantly, what might it do to our AAA credit rating?

Tribune Op-Ed Piece

Oh, and I got a column published this past Sunday. Have a look at http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52569836-82/discrimination-protected-percent-classes.html.csp

Letter to Davis School Board Members and Superintendent Bowles

I took the occasion to write the following letter regarding the district's proposed tax increase and the truth-in-taxation hearing Thursday, August 11. (In the face of extended public comment, much of it opposed, the district went ahead with the tax increase!)

August 2, 2011

Marian Storey
Davis School Board President and Member, Precinct 4
Tamara Lowe
Davis School Board Vice President and Member, Precinct 7
Barbara Smith
Davis School Board Member, Precinct 1
James E. Clark
Davis School Board member, Precinct 2
Peter Cannon
Davis School Board Member, Precinct 3
David Lovato
Davis School Board Member, Precinct 5
L Burke Larsen
Davis School Board Member, Precinct 6
Dr. Bryan W. Bowles
Davis Superintendent of Schools
45 E. State Street
Farmington, UT 84025-0588

Re Proposed Tax Increase

Dear Members of the Davis School Board and Superintendent Bowles,

I write to ask you to reconsider your decision to propose a tax increase for the district once again this year. Added tax burdens in the middle of this severe economic slowdown will increase the strain on family and business budgets in Davis County. Ultimately, I am convinced it will cost jobs. While the school district budget is certainly also strained, many property owners are experiencing greater strain. I know our business, for example, is operating today on revenues that are less than half of what they were three years ago. As a result, we’ve had to let about 30 people go—thereby contributing to the job losses that plague our state. If we worsen economic conditions for businesses, more jobs will be lost, and income taxes that fund schools will drop further. Is this what we want?

I don’t have a magic bullet for how to get by without the tax increase, but I can share with you from a private businessman’s perspective some of the difficult choices my partners and I have had to make. We cut salaries anywhere from 10 to 25%. The higher paid employees (those of us that own the company) took the largest cuts. Most of us are still at the reduced levels. We eliminated virtually every benefit we had except health insurance. We no longer contribute to our employee retirement plan, not even for executives. To get through the most challenging months, we furloughed people either in full or in part. We eliminated educational benefits. The list goes on.

I don’t think our company’s actions to maintain solvency are all that extraordinary in comparison to the hard choices of other firms over the past three years. I would like to suggest that until the district has swept the corners to the same extent as the private businesses and individuals you are asking to pay more, the idea of a tax increase should not be on the table. My sense, from what I’ve seen of your budget and from my conversations with senior district officials in the past, is that there is more you can do to reduce the district’s expenses than is currently being done.

If I remember correctly, on the eve of your hearing last year, you reduced your requested increase. I strongly encourage you to rethink this year’s increase as well and in this case eliminate it entirely.

Sincerely,

Jim Nielson

Interim Committee Meetings and 2011 2nd Special Session, July 20, 2011

In order to accommodate the governor’s call for a special session, they changed the schedule on us, shortened committee meetings, started them an hour earlier, put them back to back in the morning, and scheduled the special session to begin at 2:00 PM. So my day began at 7:00 AM with a meeting of the conservative caucus and ended between 6:00 and 6:30 PM when we adjoured the session sine die. (That’s a Latin phrase we insist on pronouncing as if we were Englishmen. It seems to mean we're really done, or something like that, not just adjourning until the following day.)

Education Interim Committee

We really talked about just two things. First we discussed “Education of persons in custody of the Utah Department of Corrections,” particularly high school education. This was a sunset review, meaning that the authority will expire soon if we do not reauthorize the program. The data we have received indicate that the program is working as intended, and graduation rates are increasing. We would still like to see more data on recidivism, and we’re told there is a study underway that will give us even more evidence of the program’s effectiveness. We are going to propose minor changes to the governance of these programs and recommend extending them another five years. At that point there will be another sunset review. By then there should be more information available about recidivism. Also at that time the legislature can (and should) consider whether the governance changes are working as they should. So that is the direction for the bill the committee will pursue.

Next we talked about school board elections. That took the rest of the time. Representative Moss presented her bill. I presented mine. Senator Howard Stephenson then presented his. My nephew was passing off a scouting merit badge, so he and his grandpa (Howard Nielson) and parents (my brother Howard Jr. and his wife Mariko) were there, so I suppose I had a bit of a cheering section, which was nice.

The core issue in all this is the push on the part of some of my Republican colleagues to make these elections partisan. I’ve written extensively in prior blog posts as to why I think that would be a mistake, so I wont’ repeat too much of that here. I just want to underscore the fact that this is a fight we do not need, and it is a fight we cannot win. As my brother put it afterwards, “If you thought the public outcry over GRAMA was bad, that would be nothing compared to what would happen if we made school board elections partisan.” Now I have to note that my brother is nobody’s fool. He is a former US Supreme Court law clerk and is counsel on some of the most significant constitutional legal cases currently going on all over the country. His instincts are generally right on the money.

Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

So we talked about giving a property tax/registration fee exemption to non-profit entities (healthcare providers, specifically) for helicopters that don’t use airport facilities. This applies specifically to life-flight and similar helicopters. The fee is used for constsruction/upkeep at airports, so it makes sense not to charge it for aircraft that do not affect those facilities.

We also talked about personal property tax on businesses. How about if we find a way to eliminate it? Failing that, let’s give an exemption for the first one hundred or two hundred thousand. I wasn’t the only legislator to suggest that. We asked for information on what it costs the government to collect this tax. Then the question is what it costs businesses to comply. I’ve watched the accountants in our business scurry to count each chair and $100 desktop printer when we’ve been audited in the past. I quipped during the hearing that we had to count each waste basket. Well it’s not quite that extreme, but it’s close.

And we talked about taxes on hotel rooms when booked directly and when booked through a reservation service like Expedia or Priceline. Under the latter scenario, the state doesn’t tax the cut the reservation service makes off the top, but when the hotel deals directly and changes the same end rate to the consumer, the tax is higher. Does that make sense? There are a couple of proposed models out there, and we’ll be studying this item further.

Majority Caucus

I had lunch with my family, so I missed the first part of the House Republican Caucus. When I got there a few minutes late, I was pleased to discover that the caucus was open (even though I wasn’t even there at the outset to object). I hope we keep this trend going.

Special Session

We began by waiting a half hour for the House of Lords (the senate) to finish its caucus. Then we dealt with six bills in about as quick a fashion as the legislature is able. I had one colleague tell me he thought we’d be done by four. Another figured on a total of a half hour. I thought eight o-clock PM. We would have taken that long if we’d amended the one bill that generated the most passion. LaVar Christenson tried, but the vote to reject his amendment was fairly assertive.

So other than housekeeping to deal with unintended consequences of a couple of bills and resolve veto issues, the most volatile issue was the message bill on the federal balanced budget amendment. The legislature’s goal here is to show support for the balanced budget amendment currently being debated in Washington. Today’s passage of the bill makes Utah the first state to pass such a resolution in response to this specific proposal. Our hope is that many others will follow. We probably spend an hour debating the bill, including the one proposed amendment. Ultimately, it passed by a sizeable margin. I was proud to be one of the yes votes.

Let me add one thought about the budget conflict in Washington right now. Republicans are being roundly criticized for our unwillingness to consider tax hikes along with spending cuts in proposed budget deals. Why this position? Here’s my take: Republicans understand history. In the course of deficit reduction efforts throughout my lifetime, tax increases have almost always turned out to be larger and more permanent than promised. Conversely, spending costs have almost always tended to be smaller than promised or more imagined than real. So the net effect of including revenue measures in the mix doesn’t tend to reduce the size of government and its control over our lives. No. Give a little room on taxes, and congressional appropriators will have more breathing room. That extra breathing room means they'll be a lot less disciplined when it comes to cutting spending. It just about always works that way. I don’t have any reason to trust that the Congress will be any different today and in decades to come than it’s been in the past.

That’s how I wish we’d say it.

(BTW, if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?)

Oh, and there was one bill we got to vote on a second time (on concurrence) after we amended it and the senate rejected our amendments. I remained unconvinced, so I voted no. Mine was the only no vote. I understand why no one went along with me. We all do our best to stick to principle, but it was the end of a long day. Going along with the senate was the quickest ticket home.

And that was that. Once again it was a privilege to cast votes on your behalf.

Interim Committee Meetings, June 15, 2011

Another month's interim meetings are in the record book. It is a continuing honor to represent you. I continue to do my best to be worthy of your trust.

Conservative Caucus: Next Step for Family Impact Statements?

In conservative caucus this morning a couple of us spoke about an idea we’ve been hatching to use the caucus as a vehicle to evaluate, prepare, and disseminate the family impact statements I’ve been talking about along with impact assessments related to a couple of other important issues such as limited government and small businesses, as proposed by others.

The idea is to have subject matter experts from think tanks and academia volunteer their time to make assessments but have interns funded by the caucus do the pick and shovel work, including initial screening, and collating and disseminating the information.

Representative Butterfield and I took the assignment to flesh out the idea and bring it back for discussion at the next caucus on interim day in July. I am also working on legislation to require family impact statements, but we may be able do something along those lines through the conservative caucus right away. That could turn out to be an important step along the way.

Education Interim Committee

Our most significant discussion item was implementation of the Statewide Online Education Program. The central issue here is that in the past the state has paid the full-time cost of educating each student regardless of whether that student took online courses or released time. In contrast, the Statewide Online Education Program takes a portion of the funding away from schools for each online course a student takes.

The incentives schools had to promote such courses are no longer there; many schools (both public and public charter schools) have expressed reluctance to accommodate student plans to enroll in online classes. Of course we heard from the State Superintendent, from schools and from administrators. We also heard from a very disappointed mother, whose son ran into roadblocks from his school when he tried to sign up.

This program is a work in progress. There is no question we will be considering these issues and incentive structures and working to make it better in the 2012 session and beyond.

We also had great presentations on big changes in College and Career Readiness testing. The plan is to dump UBSCT (Utah Basic Skills Competency Test) and use the ACT, along with a couple of gateway tests leading up to it. Some of the statewide assessments will be computer-adaptive, so they’ll tailor the testing experience to the abilities of the student and do a better job of assessing abilities across a much wider spectrum. Very positive stuff.

A couple of my colleagues and I were on the agenda to present our (widely varying) ideas about school board elections. We were last on the agenda, but time ran out, so we’ll be up for our July meeting.

Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

We heard an amazing presentation on coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and tar sands technology and associated private-sector investment. Uinta County is the focus for this industry. The future of these efforts appears very promising.

Streamlined sales tax is another significant issue coming down the pipe. We had a great conversation about it. Streamlined sales tax involves is a collaboration of multiple states to address taxation on remote sales. This should lead to a very energetic debate nationwide and here as well. Actually, it’s a continuation of one that’s been going on since the advent of the Internet.

If Utah adopts the streamlined sales tax model, the committee is likely to offset any revenue increases with overall rate reductions so the effect is revenue neutral. That how I’ll vote. I am also preparing legislation that will offer an income-tax credit to offset up to the first $400 of individual use tax obligation. We’re working on crafting it so it does not run afoul of these multi-state streamlined sales tax guidelines.

And that’s what I have to report for today.

Interim Committee Meetings, May 18, 2011

I am privileged to serve on the Education Interim Committee and the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee. We had the Education committee in the morning and Revenue and Tax in the Afternoon. Other activities for interim day included a couple of caucuses and a lunchtime opportunity to congratulate Bountiful High School scholar, Crista Rasband on earning a $5,000 scholarship from Comcast.
Good job, Crista!

It was an honor to have my photo taken with you.

Education Interim Committee

I think the most significant policy issue to come out of the Education Committee (after we gasped at the sheer number of education-related bills passed last session) was to consider how school districts are responding to a bill we passed last year requiring that schools pass along pro-rated funding to an applied technology college (such as DATC) when one of their students enrolls in classes there. In an effort to keep as much funding as possible, many districts have begun notifying their partner ATCs that they will not be sending students beginning in the fall. We discussed a couple of ways this might be addressed, but there was a strong consensus that we need to take action. It looks like this might be added to the agenda for an upcoming special session that will likely be held as part of an interim day in June or July.
Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee

We got an update on economic conditions and revenue trends. (They are showing further improvement, but we won’t count our chickens until the end of the fiscal year in a month and a half.) We received some required reports. We heard a gentleman make a case for restrictive international trade policies over which we as a state legislature have no control. And I took a half hour of the committee’s time making a presentation on sales tax distribution, following up on the bill I trotted out during the general session (HB 135).

I’m well aware this is a contentious issue. As in the general session committee meeting, I got positive and negative feedback. The representative of the Utah League of Cities and Towns spoke out strongly against the bill but was friendly to me in private afterwards. My guess is that he was doing his job vigorously, sticking to the party line, but that he personally concedes I’ve got some valid points. I had a lot more data to present this time around. Anyway, he said in the hearing that this issue was dealt with several years ago and that was that. There had apparently been an agreement not to bring the issue back up.

“I guess I didn’t get that memo,” I quipped.

Well, if you are interested in tax policy in more detail, read on. Otherwise stop right here, because I’m going to paste in my notes from the hearing, in case you want to learn more about sales tax distribution and maybe get a better understanding of why I’m pursuing this issue. Again, do not read further unless you are really interested or are an insomniac in need of something that will help you fall asleep:

Sales Tax Distribution Committee Discussion—May 18, 2011

Recent History of Local Option Sales Tax

Until 1983/84, local option maximum was .0075 (three quarters of one percent). All proceeds were distributed based on point of sale.
Currently, the local option amount is 1%. Half is distributed based on point of sale, half on general population. Every taxing entity assesses the full amount.
The current hold harmless agreement is being phased out in 2016 and 2017.

Committee Discussion during the General Session:
When I introduced HB 135 on this subject to the House Revenue and Taxation Committee in mid-February, a committee member asked, “Why on earth would we want to change?”

My response:

• Currently, we distribute local option sales taxes unequally.
• Taxpayers from communities with a small retail tax base provide a subsidy for taxpayers in communities with larger retail tax bases.
• In many cases, net recipient communities appear also to be relatively more wealthy.
• I believe this is unfair.
• It’s not equal protection.

Whose sales taxes are they?
The central question is, “Where should the money you and I pay in sales taxes be spent?”

A corollary question: Does one community deserve better taxpayer-funded amenities and public services than another just because of where taxpayers outside those two communities happen to shop? In other words, is it fair that in Utah a substantial portion of sales tax revenues benefit populations other than those that pay those taxes?



Sound Public Policy
In that same committee meeting a couple months ago, I mentioned:

That the idea for HB 135 didn’t come from any interest group or constituent request.
That I was influenced by the example of a couple of our neighbors to the north:

I did some consulting in Idaho a couple of years ago.
They don’t have local option sales tax there.
Other than resort taxes, they have no point-of-sale distribution.
Wyoming is similar.
Interestingly, retail businesses still get built and communities still manage to fund the services associated with having them.

Working in Idaho, I saw firsthand the impact of distributing sales taxes based on population rather than point of sale. It made a subtle but significant difference. In comparison to how things work in Utah, it seemed that local public policy decisions in Meridian, Idaho where I worked were more likely to be made based on community input and the overall good of the community as a whole. They were less likely to be made based on a quest to increase the retail sales tax base.

When communities have a financial incentive to attract retail development, these communities are sometimes drawn to offer special incentives to attract businesses. Land use planning, zoning, and annexation policies tend to be driven by individual circumstances. Decisions are often made based on special cases. Sometimes ordinances are created that benefit one developer or one retail business. Established businesses often have difficulty competing with newcomers enticed to the community with these incentives. The sweetheart deals mean that businesses across the community don’t compete on a level playing field.

The best ordinances and statutes are ones that respond to the priorities of the community in general and have broad application. Public financial incentives, zoning for dollars and other public policy approaches that single out individual circumstances for favorable treatment, that pick winners and losers, as it were, are less fair, less defensible, and less conducive to quality communities. Reducing tax jackpots that reward communities for such behavior will lead to better, more equitable, more market-based public ordinances.

May I point out that I am in no way opposed to any retailer, large or small. I simply believe that any enterprise that comes to a community seeking to open up shop should play by the same rules as all the other businesses already there.

So I maintain that reducing point of sale distributions is sound public policy.

HB 135 Review
Let me share a couple of the concepts behind this bill from last session:

HB 135 would distribute:

50% of sales tax revenues based on population (same as current law, not considering hold harmless provisions,)
25% based on the population of school-age children,
25% based on point of sale.

Why school-age children?
As you know, many government services funded by sales tax are largely proportional to the concentrations of this younger cohort in a community. Examples that come to mind include parks and recreational facilities and public safety services. In addition, communities with larger concentrations of children face local public school funding tax burdens that can crowd out taxpayer capacity to fund other necessary government services adequately.

Often, such communities receive far fewer sales tax dollars than their citizens pay. Distributing a share of sales tax revenues to such communities in proportion to their school-age populations will help fund needed government services in these areas where taxpayers are already disproportionately burdened in comparison to the services they receive.


General Purpose of HB 135
In summary, I suggest we think of this issue in terms of equal protection; it’s a question of fairness for taxpayers in need of services that receive little benefit from much of the sales tax they currently pay.


Hold harmless provision:
A quick discussion of the hold-harmless provision from HB 135 is in order. It works like this:

If tax revenues stay where they are, communities get the same as the prior year. That’s the same thing that would happen without HB 135.
If tax revenues drop, communities get the same, pro-rated (again, same as they would get without the bill)
Any increased tax receipts will be distributed using the new formula.

So, if HB 135 is adopted, we will grow into the new distribution method as the economy improves and sales tax revenues increase.
Table and Charts

Data
Next I shared a detailed table and charts showing the impact HB 135 would have had, if adopted. Let me know if you would like me to email copies to you.

Background

The table was started by Tax Commission (Columns A – H)
The rest are my calculations based on the information provided.
Because of the hold-harmless provision included in HB 135, without growth, nothing happens. Accordingly, we asked the tax commission to simulate a modest growth scenario. In response, they reduced FY09 numbers to depict a 5.25% growth rate for FY10. That gives us a reasonable indication of what the first-year impact of HB 135 might look like.
So on the first chart, last year’s HB 135 is used as one basis for comparison
To see the impact of straight population distribution (with no hold-harmless), we’ve also calculated and compared equal per capita funding.

Notes on the Data

The information includes only a few outliers.
Per capita tax distributions range from a low of $75 to a high of $2,686. The next highest tax recipient entity falls comfortably below $1,000 per capita.
Average per capita distribution is $148.
For the vast majority of taxing entities, HB 135 has little or no effect.
In some instances, jurisdictions at the higher end in terms of per capita distributions would see an increase under HB 135. This appears to be due to inclusion of the school-age children cohort. That may not the result we’re looking for.

Conclusion
Under a fairer distribution system, the majority of communities gain (almost 2:1). More pronounced is the fact that for the vast majority of cities, towns, and counties, the effect of such action will be minimal.

Hold Harmless Extension
As a plus for communities whose distributions would be reduced, the current hold harmless provisions, slated to expire in 2016 and 2017 would be incorporated into the baseline and extended another ten years under HB 135.

Concerns often raised:
What about the costs of having retail in a community?

These costs are used as justification for point of sale—more public safety costs, more cost to provide infrastructure and services for the business and its customers, and so on.

I ask, what of the benefits?

More visitors (ZAP, RAP, hospitality taxes)
Property taxes paid by commercial establishments
Impact fees
Jobs for members of the community
Vibrant commercial destinations that attract businesses and opportunities for robust mixed-use developments

Retail in a community brings both benefits and costs. In most cases the benefits cover any added costs without having to rely on point of sale tax revenues.

What about costs of a large daytime population?
When a place like Salt Lake City has to provide daytime services to a community two or three times the size of its nighttime population, who pays for those costs? Currently this is part of the argument in favor of point-of-sale distribution, which provides a method for the daytime visitors to contribute to the cost of those services. We still see many examples, however, where states do not have point of sale distribution of sales tax, and yet communities still cope with a large influx of workers and shoppers each day and find a way to pay for it. The specific method of how we pay for the costs of a very large daytime population is an important topic for discussion as part of this conversation.

Summary
So once again, whose sales tax dollars are they? I believe tax dollars do not belong to the government. The government may have stewardship, but the funds originate with taxpayers. It behooves us as public officials to focus public resources in the neighborhoods and communities that bear the associated costs.

To reiterate:

Reducing point of sale makes for the best public policy
Population-based distribution is fair and equitable.
Tax dollars should be focused in the communities that bear the costs.
Retail development brings more benefits than costs to a community, even without point-of-sale tax revenues.

2011 Veto Override Session (May 6, 2011)

HB 328, State Government Work Week

As you know, I voted against this the first time. I was pleased to see that it was vetoed. Even though we were told there was a negotiated settlement with the governor on this bill, the sponsor decided to bring it up anyway.

The issue was cast as a constitutional, separation of powers issue. Let’s see, Article VI of the constitution gives legislative power to the legislative branch. Article VII gives executive power to the executive branch. So we set policy, the governor establishes the procedures by which those policies are implemented. I still can’t see how setting employee work schedules is anything other than an executive decision.

I spoke out strongly against the override on the floor and voted against it. You can read more about my position under my entry for March 1st, when we considered the bill during the regular session. The vote in the house was 50 to 18, the bare minimum required for an override. Later in the day, while we dealt with the next bill, the senate tried but failed to muster the 20 votes needed for an override of this one. So they ultimately decided to adjourn and try again tomorrow. (May 7 update: The Senate came up with the votes they needed to override. The final count was 21 to 6.)

SB 229, Transportation Funding Revisions

It was not until this morning that I decided how I would vote on this one. I voted for the bill during the regular session. Upon further reflection, perhaps I made a mistake on that vote.

At its core, the bill dedicates 30% of future growth in sales tax revenues to a transportation fund. The governor vetoed the bill because he felt that set-aside would limit the legislature’s flexibility to set future funding priorities.

I’ve come to the opinion that the original bill wasn’t necessary. There is nothing in this year’s bill that cannot be accomplished in each future year by a majority vote and the governor’s signature. A veto wasn’t really necessary, either, because SB 229 could also be modified by a majority vote and the governor’s signature. In effect, the bill just declares what the legislature plans to do in the future. In any given year, the same majority vote and executive signature that is needed for an appropriations bill could also be used to modify those plans.

All that being said, the bill does establish a transportation fund that could be built up over several years. History has shown that this fund is often used to fund other priorities. (That was done six times over the past decade.) It also encourages using ongoing funding for one-time projects, wherever possible. Both of those are sound budgetary approaches. It’s very sustainable to use ongoing revenues for one-time expenditures. And it is immensely reasonable mechanism to build up a reserve account (in addition to our rainy day funds) for times when tax receipts decline. Perhaps we could call this fund a partly cloudy fund.

Now I think if the bill had created such a fund and not designated it for transportation, I would have voted to override. If that had been the case, the governor might not have vetoed the bill in the first place.

There are larger issues at play here. On the question of how we fund our transportation needs, we face difficult choices on the subject in coming legislative sessions. I look forward to a vigorous debate on the subject next year and beyond. Some suggested that SB 229 was a good step in that direction. I’ve probably already written enough already, so without going into more detail, I would just say I’d rather begin that conversation about transportation with a blank slate, with everything on the table, rather than with SB 229 in place.

The senate voted to override the governor’s veto 21 to 3. We then debated the override in the house and opened voting. After a long delay waiting for one Representative to cast the final vote, the final tally in the house was also 50 to 18, the bare minimum required for an override.

With that the House had done all the damage it could. I voted for what I believed best represented the interests of my constituents, but I wasn’t on the prevailing side on either issue. We adjourned. For its part, the House is now finished with the override session. The fate of the four-day work week remains in the hands of the Senate until tomorrow.

P.S., The Republican caucus before the session began at 7:15 this morning. It was open from start to finish. We didn't even have a motion to close the caucus! I don't know if I dare to hope that we're witnessing the beginning of a trend.

2011 First Special Session (March 25)

Small Victory for Open Government

Near the beginning of our Republican caucus this morning before the special session to repeal HB 477, one of the representatives made a motion to close the caucus. I had previously asked Majority Leader Dee if he would allow discussion to any motion to close the caucus. If so, I told him I wanted to speak to the motion.

So when the motion was made, he called on me first. “The irony of holding a closed meeting to discuss open government Monday was not lost on the media or the public,” I began. “If we believe that much of the dismay related to the passage of HB 477 has to do with public perceptions, we are only making things worse by creating the perception that we make our decisions behind closed doors without public scrutiny.” I mentioned once again that I was fundamentally opposed to closed caucuses and since being elected I had always voted against them. I said further that if we voted to close the caucus, I would not be willing to participate.

At that point I fully expected that I would shortly be leaving the room. Instead, there was one more comment by Rep. Powell opposing the motion to close the caucus. Then we voted on and defeated the motion. The caucus remained open. I stayed. Slowly, members of the media and general public trickled into the room.

During that caucus and a subsequent majority meeting shortly thereafter, we had vigorous debate with cameras and microphones surrounding us. Clearly we need to work out some rules to accommodate a large media presence in the majority caucus room and keep reporters from shoving microphones in people’s faces, but overall I think keeping the meeting open was a huge plus. During our deliberations, Mike Noel delivered a first class oration about media overreaching that wouldn’t have been nearly so effective without media representatives in the same room!

H.B. 1001, Repeal of H.B. 477, 2011 Annual General Session

Once the Senate was ready, we convened and voted overwhelmingly to repeal. I voted with the majority; only three representatives voted no, two Republicans and one Democrat. We sent the bill to the Senate, where they amended it by adding the following intent language:

Section 3. Legislative Intent

(1) The Legislature intends and requests that the governor convene the Legislature into a special session no later than June 24, 2011, to consider changes to government records provisions.
(2) The Legislature intends and requests that:

(a) the Legislature refer government records issues to one or more interim committees for review; and
(b) those interim committees hold at least two meetings, both of which include opportunities for public comment.

Now one of the issues surrounding HB 477 had to do with the fact that it removed legislative intent language. I’m told we try to avoid that in bills we write today because the intent language doesn’t have the force of law, but judges sometimes allow it to influence their interpretation of specific code provisions. To use a comparison, in my limited and long-ago experience with computer code (as opposed to Utah law, which is also referred to as code), programmers sometimes include comment lines in complex subroutines to explain to a future programmer what the specific lines of code do. To the computer, comment lines are meaningless. In contrast to what public officials sometimes do, computers have enough respect for the process to execute only those lines of code that carry executable instructions.

So here’s my question: Given the inherent concerns about intent language, and knowing that intent language played a significant role in the HB 477 imbroglio, why would we want to insert intent language into the measure directing its repeal?

Well regardless of (or perhaps because of) that side note, the House voted to refuse to concur with the Senate amendments and requested that the Senate recede from those amendments. Remarkably, the Senate did just that! So (as soon as the Governor signs) the measure is repealed!

Now comes the work to build consensus toward a reasonable solution all stakeholders can agree on. Perhaps we can now turn a page and move ahead with some other pressing needs.

March 21, 2011—The H.B. 477 Story Continues

We had a quickly-arranged House Republican caucus this morning. Rep. Powell made a motion at the outset that all of our caucuses be open. Someone else moved that we close today’s caucus. Rep. Powell and I both argued against closing the caucus, but we were outvoted. At least this time I had someone else voting with me. Having a closed meeting to discuss open records policy decisions just didn’t seem right to me.

As noted, the subject of the caucus was HB 477, Government Records Amendments (the GRAMA bill). Most felt we should walk away from that bill and start over. Around 9:30, shortly after we had begun, Governor Herbert made a public announcement. He couldn’t wait for us to make our own decision. He made another course change and is now calling for HB 477 to be repealed.

If there was any doubt, Herbert’s change of heart made things pretty clear. In our caucus the majority voted to go along with the Governor’s idea and seek an immediate repeal (as soon as he calls us into special session), but still impanel a workgroup as planned. That workgroup would be tasked with developing a bill for future consideration that would address problems with the current statute.

A KSL editorial over the weekend acknowledged the need for changes to certain aspects of the existing GRAMA statute. (Click on KSL above to read it.) That was the first time any of us had seen substantive movement on the part of the media towards a compromise. Our hope is that with the urgency of the impending July 1 enactment of HB 477 removed, that willingness to come to the table will remain.

If we vote to repeal HB 477 on Friday, I have a prediction: The working group will get together and will hold numerous meetings. Compromise will be elusive. In the end, nothing will happen.

Now I learned later today that the Governor has called us into special session this Friday.

Later still, I learned that Senate President Waddoups claims the Senate will not agree to repeal the bill Friday. My sense from our discussions earlier was that the Senate would end up in the same place as the House.

The story of HB 477 has more plot twists than a Jane Austen novel. All I can say is, stay tuned . . .