Checks, Balances, and Progress
The first draft of an idea isn’t always the best. Many times, revisions and input from other sources help improve a product, decision or service. By constitutional design, state policy mostly is set through such give-and-take. When one body rebuffs the agenda of the other (Senate v. House, Governor v. Legislature), it sends the topic back to the drawing board. As the Governor points out, it typically is not that anyone is playing politics with serious issues. It is simply the process at work. Two recent events illustrate the process.
Legacy Highway – Legacy Highway posed the first significant disagreement between the Legislature and the Current Administration. The Administration had done a very good job of negotiating the broad outlines of an agreement to end the tremendously expensive and wasteful stand-off with environmental groups. Because any legal agreement over $1 million requires legislative approval, the Governor and Lt. Governor met with House and Senate Republican Leadership to explain the agreement. After a robust discussion, Leadership voted unanimously to not accept the agreement as it then existed but, rather, to work to improve a few elements of the agreement.
This created a very sore spot with the Administration and – even though everyone other than the plaintiffs would have to concur that the agreement subsequently was significantly improved – the topic remains a tender point. But, for the citizens, the give-and-take paid great dividends. Without it, we would have lacked finality. We would have been tied to the litigious groups through a consent degree and been subject to the whims of the judge without democratic recourse. Also, the very plaintiffs that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and years of delay would have enjoyed a “super seat,” greater than that of other citizens, on future planning issues. Davis and Weber County Legislators took tremendous heat from many of their constituents for not rubber stamping the first Agreement, but their strength paid off greatly and a proper balance was struck in the final Agreement.
Concurrent Enrollment – Concurrent enrollment allows high school students to receive college credit while taking certain high school courses. This year the State considered whether some of those costs should be paid for by the student receiving the credit or whether the costs should be recouped from the tuition of existing college students. The Legislature passed a bill that would allow the colleges to recoup some of their costs from the beneficiaries of the credits. The bill was vetoed. (My prior posts here and here).
While the veto means that fewer concurrent enrollment credits will be offered to high school students and that college students will pay higher tuition to fund the credits that are offered this year, the sun will still come up. I made my points in the debate. Others in the Legislature and higher education made their points. This issue simply went the other way. Supporters of the veto also have their strong reasoning to oppose the bill. But, everyone involved appreciates concurrent enrollment and wants the program to succeed. We simply did not hit on the best way to get it done. (I easily could have said the “feasible way” to get it done, but I believe deeply in representative democracy; these disputes typically lead to better solutions). We’ll take it up next year with an increased knowledge base and even greater involvement by the interested parties.
I believe in our system of government. I've seen it work. Struggles and disagreements are part of the process. The good news for all of us is that the public's ability to participate in the process is growing rapidly. And, that should lead to better results.
Legacy Highway – Legacy Highway posed the first significant disagreement between the Legislature and the Current Administration. The Administration had done a very good job of negotiating the broad outlines of an agreement to end the tremendously expensive and wasteful stand-off with environmental groups. Because any legal agreement over $1 million requires legislative approval, the Governor and Lt. Governor met with House and Senate Republican Leadership to explain the agreement. After a robust discussion, Leadership voted unanimously to not accept the agreement as it then existed but, rather, to work to improve a few elements of the agreement.
This created a very sore spot with the Administration and – even though everyone other than the plaintiffs would have to concur that the agreement subsequently was significantly improved – the topic remains a tender point. But, for the citizens, the give-and-take paid great dividends. Without it, we would have lacked finality. We would have been tied to the litigious groups through a consent degree and been subject to the whims of the judge without democratic recourse. Also, the very plaintiffs that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and years of delay would have enjoyed a “super seat,” greater than that of other citizens, on future planning issues. Davis and Weber County Legislators took tremendous heat from many of their constituents for not rubber stamping the first Agreement, but their strength paid off greatly and a proper balance was struck in the final Agreement.
Concurrent Enrollment – Concurrent enrollment allows high school students to receive college credit while taking certain high school courses. This year the State considered whether some of those costs should be paid for by the student receiving the credit or whether the costs should be recouped from the tuition of existing college students. The Legislature passed a bill that would allow the colleges to recoup some of their costs from the beneficiaries of the credits. The bill was vetoed. (My prior posts here and here).
While the veto means that fewer concurrent enrollment credits will be offered to high school students and that college students will pay higher tuition to fund the credits that are offered this year, the sun will still come up. I made my points in the debate. Others in the Legislature and higher education made their points. This issue simply went the other way. Supporters of the veto also have their strong reasoning to oppose the bill. But, everyone involved appreciates concurrent enrollment and wants the program to succeed. We simply did not hit on the best way to get it done. (I easily could have said the “feasible way” to get it done, but I believe deeply in representative democracy; these disputes typically lead to better solutions). We’ll take it up next year with an increased knowledge base and even greater involvement by the interested parties.
I believe in our system of government. I've seen it work. Struggles and disagreements are part of the process. The good news for all of us is that the public's ability to participate in the process is growing rapidly. And, that should lead to better results.
posted by steve u. at 6/12/2006
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home