Conversation Stopper
I just received an email from Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State Office of Education, to Sen. Howard Stephenson, Co-chair of the Legislative Education Interim Committee. It says:
Although Superintendent Harrington initially may have indicated some availability to attend the Education Interim Committee meeting this coming Wednesday, after due deliberation, I, representing the State Board of Education, respectfully decline to send a representative to that gathering.
It is unclear what role the committee has in relation to what essentially is business to be conducted confidentially, if at all, between the Attorney General and the state board. It is clear, however, that any further politicization of the relationship between the Attorney General and the state board is unwelcome to the board, if not to Mr. Shurtleff, and would be ill-advised in any event.
This is tragic. In the way our State has structured education policy there always will be – and always has been – tension at the margins between the elected Legislature and the elected State School Board. The way the process works these things out is through meetings and discussions.
Despite the Chair's decree, as independently-elected members, I would hope that some school board members would choose to show up and discuss what we have learned or should learn from recent events. No one can dispute that we've been in some uncharted territory recently. The Utah Constitution remains intact, the Utah Supreme Court has provided a ruling that gives definition to the upcoming election, and I haven't noticed any rioting in the streets. Why not sit down as duly-elected officials and discuss matters?
Although Superintendent Harrington initially may have indicated some availability to attend the Education Interim Committee meeting this coming Wednesday, after due deliberation, I, representing the State Board of Education, respectfully decline to send a representative to that gathering.
It is unclear what role the committee has in relation to what essentially is business to be conducted confidentially, if at all, between the Attorney General and the state board. It is clear, however, that any further politicization of the relationship between the Attorney General and the state board is unwelcome to the board, if not to Mr. Shurtleff, and would be ill-advised in any event.
This is tragic. In the way our State has structured education policy there always will be – and always has been – tension at the margins between the elected Legislature and the elected State School Board. The way the process works these things out is through meetings and discussions.
Despite the Chair's decree, as independently-elected members, I would hope that some school board members would choose to show up and discuss what we have learned or should learn from recent events. No one can dispute that we've been in some uncharted territory recently. The Utah Constitution remains intact, the Utah Supreme Court has provided a ruling that gives definition to the upcoming election, and I haven't noticed any rioting in the streets. Why not sit down as duly-elected officials and discuss matters?
posted by steve u. at 6/18/2007
Subscribe
17 Comments:
A legislative committee room is hardly nuetral territory and the construction of the rooms where legislators sit "on-high" in judgement of those who come before them is VERY intimidating.
Meh. I've been in front of a committee and it wasn't scary at all.
I agree that it's a sad day when an office of government will effectively boycott legislative hearings. Didn't their momma ever teach them that avoiding the problem doesn't make it go away?
I agree that "The way the process works these things out is through meetings and discussions." However, a Capital Hill inquisition would not qualify as "meetings and discussions."
Perhaps a more appropriate arrangement could be found if you really are interested in "working things out."
By the way, why are you complaining about the actions of the board? All they did was NOT follow very bad advice from the AG. In hindsight, they did exactly what they should have done and you all can't seem to accept that. Why don't you call the AG on the carpet and find out why he can't give better legal advice?
Anon.,
I think you're right about the setting being too "on high." We probably should do something to change that. Ideas? Some committee chairs do a great job of making people feel welcome; others, not so much; and a few do seem to get their kicks dictating to the masses.
However, the setting is where we do business for the time being.
That I recall, I have never turned down an invitation to present to any body of elected officials. If I did, it would have been a scheduling conflict, and I would have asked for another opportunity. Even if I know it's a lion's den (like the school board is for reform ideas), I still go, give my best presentation, answer their questions, endure the vote, and thank them for their service.
Curt,
I'm not complaining about the actions of the Board (other than the action of cutting off dialogue).
We do ask Mr. Shurtleff to speak with us often. Though he knows some of the conversations will not be pleasant, he always obliges.
I can definitely understand why the State Board of Education would want to avoid the bullying tactics that have become modus operandi for pro-voucher legislators. (If you don't believe this to be true, please see Sunday's Tribune story about legislators' "two drastic (and retaliatory) proposals" to make school board elections partisan affairs and to strip the state school board of its authority over the state schools superintendent).
I do think the presumed intent of any legislative committee meeting at this time would be retaliatory, because that is what the legislature is famous for. (Whether it is a fair characterization in particular circumstances is not always clear, but I don't think you can deny that it is often on target.)
I'm glad to see you eliciting comments about improving the atmosphere of committee meetings. I attended several in the last session. Sen. Walker ran a good, respectful meeting. Others acted as if public input was just an inconvenience. Apart from the "on high" structure, the attitude of a few chairs may be the only thing that needs reworking.
I hope Mr. Burningham reconsiders. The actions of the State Board could be better accepted as valid if a representative takes this public opportunity to explain their recent actions. Whether the setting is neutral, welcoming, unfair, or miserable, the voucher debate is too important for our educational leadership to stay home and pout. We need a Daniel in that lion's den. Please keep the dialogue between our policy makers open.
Due to the bullying and misinformation (propaganda) that has come from the Republican legislature on vouchers I would advise the Utah State Ofice of Education should stay as far away as possible.
Let's not lose sight of the agenda item. The relationship between the AG s office and USOE doesn't seem to be a proper discussion for a legislative committee hearing. Shouldn't these two agencies be discussing their legal relationship in private, not before the legislature? When was the last time anyone had to explain their attorney client privileged relationship to a legislative committee?
The relationship between the AG and the USOE is partially statutory.
Kim clearly knows that. But don't lose sight of the fact that he, too, is a politician.
So would you rather have the School Board meet with the legislature behind closed doors? The legislature is limited to open and public meetings, as is the board, in conducting the business of the citizens.
I agree that some legislative hearings can be vindictive, but this is the process. The board should send a representitive, even if only someone to sit in the hot seat and listen to the legislators vent.
A lion, huh? Well, I guess I've had worse metaphors applied.
In the "grapevine", I've heard Kim was planning to be out of town that day already. The invitation was extended even after making that fact known.
More importantly, there is the perception that the setting is designed to be confrontational--in part, committees are and always be confrontational. It comes along with power brokers sitting in a ring around a single presenter. It's part and parcel of having opposing sides present to a "third party" rather than to each other. It goes with the unspoken threat of a legislative subpoena. And it's implicit in the wording of the revised agenda, as if some of the issues that deserve to be discussed have already been decided.
Kim's letter highlights that the issue should be dealt with "confidentially". I think "intimately" is a better word--provide a setting where antagonistic viewpoints can be aired without repercussions outside of the meeting room. Problems like these are better solved by relationships than committees. From what I read in the letter, it sounds like Kim would be open to a smaller meeting. I certainly would be.
Feel free to call me; I'd love to chat about it.
The USOE is avoiding a meeting because they don't want a public dialogue with people who disagree with them.
The public-opinion makers in the media are totally on their side and will print anything they say without scrutiny. Why would they want to put their arguments to a test?
They're avoiding the meeting for the same reason some politicians will avoid public debates.
And if you don't think the press gives them a free pass, how come no reporter or columnist during the whole voucher-legality saga ever questioned (let alone mentioned) Kim Burningham's conflict of interest?
Here he is the Chairman of the body charged with implementing vouchers while at the same time, leading the organization that is doing everything it possibly can to destroy vouchers.
How can anyone trust his motives in fulfilling his duties as the Chairman? Even as the press questioned the motives of the AG (who by the way has gotten campaign money from both PCE and the UEA), not one of them questioned those of Kim Burningham.
This goes back to my first point, which is this: WHY WOULD MR BURNINGHAM WANT TO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY WHEN HE'S BEEN GIVEN A FREE PASS BY THE PRESS?
It's in his self-interest to skirt any hearings or any public forum that might question his actions, and unfortunately, we are all worse off for it.
So what I'm hearing is that it's okay for the State School Board to do the people's busines behind close doors (like when they met with the AG for over an hour in their last board meeting), but heaven forbid the Legislature ever do the same!
What's Kim afraid of? He already has the press eating from his hands. What's the worse that could happen?
Sorry, I misspelled "Business."
It's a sad day when government officials begin playing the passive-aggressive games of avoidance you'd expect in a bad marriage. Burningham's team is worried about bullying? Honestly, they need to start acting like adults. This is hardly a third world dictatorship where showing up to a meeting could cost you your life.
Dave,
Kim Birmingham has been honest and open about his position on vouchers which is more than can be said for the Attorney General. Who is the real "chicken"?
Your accusations of scuttling vouchers are unfounded. Read the original administrative rule that the USOE published to implement vouchers. They were fully prepared to begin the program.
I agree with Tom that a discussion between the actual interested parties (the AG and the State Board) would be better than a partisan legislative tribunal. Besides, even if a board member was present they could not speak for the board so what would be the point?
Post a Comment
<< Home