Editorial Boards Turn Negative for a Change
The editorial boards for the Deseret News and Tribune didn't like the outcome of the special session. Dang. I was sure they'd give the Legislature a gold star. Maybe next time.
Both editorials stated that one reason the County Council postponed a decision on the district splits issue (a.k.a., "punted") was that a provision in the law needed to be "corrected," allowing all residents of a district to vote on the split, instead of just the voters in the area wanting to split off. Um, no. That issue was debated at length in establishing the law on district splits, a decision was made, and a law was enacted. Like it or dislike it, that is the law.
If the Council thought the law was unfair, rather than punt, it could have voted "no." But taking positions tends to displease some group or other. So, if a governmental entity that represents an extremely small percentage of voters (4% in the Jordan school district) refuses to make a decision, you bet the Legislature will make the call for them. Someone has to govern.
Both editorials stated that one reason the County Council postponed a decision on the district splits issue (a.k.a., "punted") was that a provision in the law needed to be "corrected," allowing all residents of a district to vote on the split, instead of just the voters in the area wanting to split off. Um, no. That issue was debated at length in establishing the law on district splits, a decision was made, and a law was enacted. Like it or dislike it, that is the law.
If the Council thought the law was unfair, rather than punt, it could have voted "no." But taking positions tends to displease some group or other. So, if a governmental entity that represents an extremely small percentage of voters (4% in the Jordan school district) refuses to make a decision, you bet the Legislature will make the call for them. Someone has to govern.
posted by steve u. at 8/24/2007
Subscribe
9 Comments:
What did the Governor hope to accomplish by putting the animal cruelty bill on the special session agenda, when there was obviously no broad consensus on it?
I'm madder at SL County than anyone else. If they'd had the guts to make an unpopular decision it wouldn't be an issue. I'm also a bit peeved that the Governor decided that a task this big should get the whole of a day to be taken care of (and on a week's notice no less).
All that said, I don't much like the end result either.
Scott: My inner cynic says "good PR". He likely put the issue on the docket and got brownie points for doing it even though he had to know it wouldn't have any action taken on it. Brilliant maneuvering.
Scott and Jesse,
I'll go ahead and assume the Gov put the animal issue on the call because he thought it was more important than just about any other issue the State currently faces.
The next question, then, is why his people didn't work the bill -- to help put it in good shape and get the votes. It's extremely puzzling that something would be put on a special session call and then be completely, 100% neglected by the executive branch.
The animal cruelty bill was tacked on by Huntsman to appease a vocal group of animal rights advocates that thinks the bill can't wait for a general session. Huntsman knew it wouldn't pass. But now, he can wash his hands of the failure and blame it on the Legislature (who, according to the animal rights activists, don't care about animals being tortured by the Michael Vicks of the world). If he is pressured or hounded by animal rights advocates he has cover.
Politics is the answer.h
PS- There is a significant (if not majority- clarify Rep U) number of folks in the Legislature that will vote "no" on any bill in a special session if the bill is not an emergency, regardless of the issue.
Huntsman knows this. Sometimes I wonder if he puts issues like animal cruelty and dental care into the special sessions to make the Leg look bad when they kill the proposals. The Leg ends up looking like they hate kitties and your grandma. But that's just open speculation.
Tom,
As I've written elsewhere on this blog, special sessions often are an insider's dream -- no committe hearings, no public input, little real discussion. That's why, in my first term, I ran a constitutional amendment that now requires 48-hours advance notice to add an item to a call. Just a few years ago, items would be added to the call after the session commenced. It could be a matter of minutes before an item was added to a call and turned into law. A little surprise party for the public.
Some special session issues come that way -- packaged by insiders for insiders. Some issues, like the animal rights bill, simply show up on a call with little dialogue having taken place since the last general session; someone simply pulled the right strings to move to the head of the line.
Some issues, though, come to a special session with lots of focus having been brought to the issue since conclusion of the previous general session. After a lot of input, a concensus is reached, and it's time to turn it into law.
I believe we are developing a tougher attitude toward not simply passing whatever is placed before us just because we might look bad if we don't. As my post indicates, the papers will scorch us no matter what we do; so, I think we worry less about that pressure and more about finding comprehensive solutions.
For example, (a year ago was it?) the House Rules Committee stopped a Medicaid dental bill, not worried about bad press as much as it was worred that piece-mealing the complex issue would be a negative. Of course, we were painted as heartless and bad. But, the reality of the issue was that provider rates were so low that dentists simply wouldn't see patients -- no matter how much money we put into the program. (Unspent money already existed in the program). The next general session, we raised provider rates and funded the program. A little bad press is worth making sure things get done correctly.
I'm glad that bad press doesn't keep some people from doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents. My eyes are now a little more open regarding the various political ends that can be achieved via a special session. I will be watching more carefully in the future.
How much do special sessions cost the state? This one may have been somewhat of a two fer since many legislators were here visiting Salt Lake anyway. It would be interesting to know--thanks.
We have a failing public school system
We have a failing public school system which continues to suck down more and more money while delivering less in terms of well educated graduates.
We continue to fall behind the rest of the world in both the quality of our educational output and the quantity.
Tanya Clay House of the ultra-liberal People for the American Way recently declared, "We've never seen a shred of credible evidence that shows school vouchers actually help students learn. While all public schools must demonstrate success under No Child Left Behind, private schools are not held to the same level of accountability for their performance."
But lets ask the question another way, speaking of those same shreds of evidence, we've not seen many that point to those now in charge of that public school system having the ability to turn that around. In fact, there seems to be more evidence than not that they're incapable of doing so.
So the question becomes how competition could be any worse than monopoly? How could allowing the consumer of the education product to choose that which they find to best fill their own childrens needs be any worse than the arbitrary standards and needs of the monopoly?
From the side of the political spectrum which claims to be for "choice" this should be an issue for which they are fighting for the choice vouchers bring, not against.
Jason Bourne
Post a Comment
<< Home