Dear Constituents—

I want you to know what I’m up to. You deserve an explanation of the decisions I make and the votes I cast as I do my best to represent you. This is a simple blog, just a quick, periodic record of significant legislative activity, the role I play, my decision making process, and the things I consider as I endeavor to serve your interests as my constituents.

The 2012 general session has now ended fairly quietly. Very little of the controversy from 2011 spilled over into 2012.

I hope by now that you have a good idea of what district you are in. Bountiful precincts 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, and 28 have been added to House District 19.  Precincts 24, 26, and 27 have new boundaries. If you are not sure which district you belong to, check the new maps Davis County has posted at http://www.co.davis.ut.us/clerkauditor/elections/precinct_maps/default.cfm. You can enter the precinct you think you are in, then you will have an opportunity to enter your voter information and double check the map to be sure. 

(Or you can look at your voter registration card, which should have come in the mail earlier this year.)

As always, if you have comments, please email me at jimnielson@utah.gov.

April 13, 2012—County Convention

Conventions are another favorite time for me.  I did not draw a Republican opponent, so in convention this evening I received my party's nomination for re-election by acclamation. I felt very fortunate to have the opportunity to visit with most of the 132 county delegates in legislative district 19 through events leading up to the convention, through informal conversations at my convention booth, and through an extended report and Q & A session at our legislative district caucus during the first hour of the convention.  Conditions were a bit difficult for that meeting in a corner of the WX auditorium, and I should have my voice back in a day or two, but I want to say thank you to all of the delegates that participated in the electoral process in such a meaningful way! In my view, each of you is a true patriot.

March 15, 2012—Neighborhood Republican Caucuses

Attendancee this year was phenomenal. My son down at BYU said 170 people attended his precinct. He was elected a state delegate. We had well over 100 in ours. And the group represented a good cross section of Davis County Republicans. It defintely was not dominated by extremists. I think it will be more difficult this year than ever to make the claim that the caucuses and the delegates elected there don't reflect the political views of the party as a whole.

You might find this odd, but caucus night for me has always been a bit like Chrismas.  I am always thrilled to be in the middle of grass roots representative government.

March 8, 2012—Day 45 (Last Day)

Bills Passed by the Senate Today

H.B. 233, Political Party Registration Amendments

This Senate passed this tonight with just over an hour to spare. The bill makes it a little easier for smaller political parties to stay registered as political parties. See my write up from February 2nd for more details about the bill.

Including this one, three of my bills and a resolution for a constitutional amendment were passed this session.

H.B. 316, Divorce Waiting Period Amendments

This was Representative Val Peterson’s bill. It included the most significant aspect of my Divorce Orientation Class bill that was defeated. It reinstates the waiting period for all couples seeking a divorce. I spoke in support of it on the floor with true stories about children still in intact families after their parents decided to stay married due to a cooling-off period. It passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 5 at 11:35 p.m.

If just one couple with children reconsiders during the cooling-off period and decides to stay married, it will have been worth it. I’m confident, based on research, that the new law will have a positive effect on more than one couple.

Floor Time

Floor time began at 8:00 a.m. and ended after midnight. We had just a brief recess in the morning and our regular lunchtime break. With lots of bills still on the board, our dinner break was only an hour. Marilyn joined me then and stayed for the rest of the evening and into the wee hours for the post-session festivities. I’ll highlight just a few of the rush of bills we dealt with on this final day.

S.B. 81, Paraeducator Funding

This measure passed 63 to 3. I was one of the no votes. Now why would I vote against this? It’s a line item earmark. Except where there is compelling evidence that local school districts will not discharge their responsibilities appropriately, I would rather not have the legislature play super school board. Rather than a bunch of line item funds earmarked for specific purposes (Legislature knows best), I contend that we should combine all of the fragmented funding into the basic school program (through the WPU) and allow districts the flexibility to use the funds to meet the needs as they and their local constituents see fit. School board members are, after all, elected officials as well.

S.B. 97, Grants for Online Testing

This bill was amended several times and ultimately passed 51 to 21. I voted against it. I had two reasons. First, I generally oppose line-item earmarks. I would rather provide the money in the basic school program or as funding for State School Board initiatives, and let them exercise their constitutional supervision and control over our school system.

Second, these are matching grants and could possibly become a reason for some school districts to raise taxes. Our school district has said this wouldn’t happen here. However, I actually heard a similar reason put forth two years ago by the Davis School District as justification for a property tax increase. Our superintendent told me and other legislators than that the district was required to raise property taxes in order to maintain the level of effort necessary to qualify for certain state funding.

H.J.R. 22, Joint Rules Resolution On Compensation And Expense Reimbursements

This bill goes together with a report from a special compensation commission that makes recommendations for legislator pay. Based on my calculations, it would be a small raise for me, if implemented, so I voted no. It passed, but through a miscommunication, the Senate didn’t end up voting on it. So if we have a special session, I’m guessing the issue will be revisited. Whatever.

1st Sub. S.B. 66, Alcoholic Beverage Control Related Amendments

This bill includes changes to the management and financial structure of the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, but no significant policy revisions. It is needed to help bring greater accountability and financial controls. I voted for it. It passed 73 to nothing. Later in the day, I also voted in favor of a companion bill, 2nd Sub. H.B. 354, which passed unanimously.

S.B. 156, Elected Official Retirement Benefits Amendments

With this bill, member of the legislature will no longer have healthcare benefits for life after serving ten years. I’m not planning to serve that long anyway, but this change makes sense. I voted for it, and it passed 68 to 2.

S.B. 196, Software for Special Needs Children

Another funding earmark, this one for programs aimed at children with autism. Every single earmark seems worthwhile. I just don’t think it’s our job at the legislature to dictate precisely how our school system’s money is spent in every particular. So as you can imagine, I voted no. Only a few of us saw it that way. The measure passed 62 to 10.

H.B. 414, School Bonding for Seismic Purposes

This bill imposes a mandate on school districts when the bond for new construction. I don’t support imposing a state mandate without providing any funding to fulfill that mandate. I voted no, but we didn’t quite defeat the bill. It passed 43 to27.

1st Sub. S.B. 284, Concurrent Enrollment Amendments

I voted for this on final passage. This bill allows institutions of higher learning to charge a small fee for high school students to take concurrent enrollment courses from them. That will help keep the program operating. The bill includes provisions so that families with reduced ability to pay will pay a maximum of $5 per credit hour. The sponsors considered making it free; however they decided to include a small fee, considering a principle propounded by the Rev. Pamela Atkinson: everyone needs to pay something in order to value what he or she is receiving.

The bill passed 51 to 21.

S.B. 210, Process Server Amendments

This bill allows licensed private investigators to act as process servers for repossessions and evictions, along with a list of other legal notices that would need to be hand delivered. It has clear provisions that they may not be armed and that they cannot cause a disturbance when they serve process. And they must keep the Sheriff informed of their actions. This seems to be a reasonable approach. I supported it. It passed by only the narrowest of margins: 38 to 36.

5th Sub. H.B. 272, Pilot Program for Autism Spectrum Disorders Services

On final passage, I went ahead and voted to support the final compromise for this pilot program. It passed 7- to 5. Those in the medical community that had so opposed the autism mandate were fully in support of this bill. And the chance to gauge both the cost and the effectiveness of treatment options on a small case is also compelling.

1st Sub. S.B. 138, Health Insurance Mandate Accountability Amendments

This bill by Senator Weiler passed 71 to 0. I voted yes. The bill had a significant effect before it every passed. It required that any mandates on private sector health insurance companies apply to schools (K-12 and Higher Ed). And it required that we appropriate money to pay for the increased premiums so that the cost would not come out of their budgets. The effect of this bill was to discourage the 14 or so health insurance mandate bills we were facing at the beginning of the session. How many of those passed? Zero, I believe.

1st Sub. S.B. 217, Math Materials Access Improvement Grant

Another line item earmark. I voted no. It passed 47 to 27.

2nd Sub. S.B. 248, Smart School Technology Act

Hard to resist the temptation for yet another earmark. Again I said no. This one was more popular, though. It passed 57 to 16.

H.B. 3, Appropriations Adjustments

This bill passed easily. It had to in order to balance the budget.

Just a quick note on a proposed amendment, though. One of my colleagues proposed a switch he had discussed with just one other representative in order to move funding to a program he wanted to support. This amendment was last minute. It hadn’t gone through the process. It was new to everyone. And it was being advocated by only a couple of representatives—maybe only one. The amendment failed on a voice vote. Undeterred, the sponsor succeeded in forcing a recorded vote and lost, 17 to 56. I was one of the 56 no votes.

Sine Die

At midnight we stopped considering bills. We notified the Senate and the Governor that we were ready to adjourn sine die. The governor addressed us briefly, and then we adjourned.

Almost two hours of festivities followed, some of it touching, some light hearted. We had special songs and guitar ensembles, tributes to those leaving our number after this year, and silly gag gifts that had tie-ins to legislation or comments on the floor. I even managed to get one of my speeches on the floor lampooned in one of the songs. Perhaps not my proudest moment.

Perhaps the best was an entire song dedicated to fellow freshman lawmaker, Brad Wilson: “Tan by Me,” sung to the tune of “Stand by Me.” He, or course, was the sponsor of the bill that requires parents to come with a child each time he or she goes to a tanning salon.

It has been another wonderful session. What a privilege it is to represent you! In fact, I’m just crazy enough that I plan to sign up tomorrow to be a candidate for another two years!

Thanks for your support and your trust.

March 7, 2012—Day 44

Just one day remains after today!

S.B. 82, Equal Access for Education Employee Association Amendments

This bill reinforces the requirements of a bill passed about five years ago that establishes equal treatment for all professional associations. Districts and principals that do not follow the requirements of this law receive a fine. Floor debate focused on the fact that without some consequence, it was difficult to enforce the original statute. I still had concerns. Where would the funds for these fines come from? I voted no. It failed to pass on a vote of 18 to 51.

H.B. 420, Parent Education Initiative

I wrote about this when it passed the House the first time (without my support). It came back the Senate with amendments. The first motion (not from the sponsor) was to concur with the Senate amendments. That failed on a recorded vote 37 to 38 (with a call of the House to get the very last vote). The Senate amendments added instruction in Human Sexuality, something that would have made final passage more difficult. So I spoke and voted in favor of the Senate amendments in an effort to kill the bill.

The House Sponsor then moved not to concur with the senate. If we had defeated that motion, the bill would have remained in the House and likely died. So I voted no. There was confusion during the vote, which prompted one of my colleagues to ask “How do I kill this bill?” When that was clarified, votes started changing from yes to no, but not fast enough. When the vote closed, the vote total stood at 48 to 26, so the motion passed. Back to the Senate to request that they recede from their amendments. I figured that was unlikely.

At the time of this writing I have learned that they refused, and a conference committee has been appointed. We will see if this can make it through these delays on the last day of the session.

All of this is a fascinating lesson in the legislative process and the many ways a bill can face peril along the way.

S.B. 287, Core Curriculum Standards Amendments

This bill asserts the State’s authority to opt out of any “agreement, contract, memorandum of understanding, or consortium that cedes control of Utah's core curriculum standards” to an entity other than the State. If the Federal Government exerts control over these standards, we have the right to opt out. This appears to be a reasonable safeguard, in light of cautions that have been raised regarding possible Federal control of the common core, now or in the future. I voted yes. It passed 50 to 23.

S.B. 208, Healthcare Compact

I voted with the majority to pass this bill. Many things have been fabricated about what might happen if anything ever comes of this compact. If the compact does accomplish something, it will change both funding and responsibility for Federally-funded healthcare programs so they are controlled by the State of Utah. Could funding be at risk? No more so than that funding is going to be at risk due to our Federal government’s heightened deficit spending binge in recent years.

We will manage it better in Utah. In implementing our Medicaid bill passed unanimously last year, our state approached the Federal Government about the possibility of increasing the co-pay for emergency room visits in certain limited instances from $3.00 to $5.00. The idea of charging a co-pay for items, even for those with limited ability to pay, was recently championed by Rev. Pamela Atkinson as something that enhances personal responsibility and judicious use of public resources. It’s a great concept. The Feds said no.

We can do better than this. I hope the compact builds up a head of steam and gets the attention of the Federal government.

1st Sub. S.B. 235, Clarification Of Stalking Injunctions And Protective Orders

When I first read this bill, I was concerned that it put parental custody rights on equal footing with protecting the safety of a person or child at risk. I spoke to the sponsor, who developed an amendment that required the judge to take into account custody while at the same time “ensuring the safety of the victim and any minor children.” With this clarification, I supported the bill. It passed 69 to 0.

Dance with the Senate

At one point during today’s debate, we spent more than an hour on a single bill. The conversation included instruction from a former English teacher on the difference between pro-rata and pro-rated (one of the words in a proposed amendment). There were references to the Book of Job.

What was happening? The House was slowing down intentionally as we waited for the Senate. If we stop, they generally stop. If we get ahead, it doesn’t seem to make them go faster. So leadership staged a work slowdown, and we heard lengthy and creative speeches.

Whether important bills will die because of this slowdown, I do not know. Perhaps keeping some bills from passing is not such a bad thing. Maybe this helps House negotiations with the Senate somehow. I would think the best thing would be to get far ahead and let them catch up if they choose. Be all of that as it may, I’m learning that this is the way the game is played.

March 6, 2012—Day 43

3rd Sub. H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

This will probably be the last thing I have to say on this key measure I sponsored. The House voted to concur with the Senate changes. The vote on final passage was 54 to 17. Next stop: the November ballot. This makes my day and my session.

1st Sub. S.B. 68, New Automobile Franchise Act Amendments

This measure and the underlying statute are about involving ourselves in contracts between private parties—franchisors and franchisees. I prefer letting the market work, but that’s not a view shared by many, apparently. There were only three Democrats and three Republicans (including me) that voted no.

S.B. 173, Utah Fit Premises Modifications

To me this is another intrusion in the marketplace. This one deals with renters and landlords, and it goes to far in mandating just how things should be done. I voted no. It passed 48 to 24.

S.B. 98, Amendments to Prohibition on Using a Handheld Wireless Communication Device While Operating a Vehicle

This bill clarifies a statute that was passed a couple of years ago. I do believe the clarifications made it easier to enforce this law. One can argue that we should not prohibit texting and driving, that this goes beyond the role government should play. To me this is more like speeding—an obvious safety risk that merits legal consequences. I voted yes. The bill passed 39 to 32.

1st Sub. S.B. 64, Public Education Employment Reform

This was a very important bill covering performance compensation for both administrators and teachers. I proposed an amendment to enhance the return and report accountability aspects of the bill. Even though that effort got little support, I still liked the bill. We passed it 73 to 1.

Budget Bills

We passed all of the budget bills today. The budget will be balanced. We will fund new growth in Public Education plus over $40 million more.

S.B. 223, Pledge of Allegiance Amendments

I talked about this bill with a friend that teaches jr. high school this evening.  He does not look forward to the requirement to recite the Pledge once a day.  I wasn’t being unpatriotic when I voted against this bill.  For one, I don’t think we should make this decision for the schools. And I don’t think you engender patriotism by forcing kids to recite the pledge with ever more frequency. The bill passed anyway 48 to 25.

1st Sub. S.B. 178, Statewide Online Education Program Amendments

This bill had some unfortunate impact on the Electronic High School, but I lost that battle last Friday on H.B. 336. I liked other aspects of this bill, though, particularly the revised (significantly reduced) amounts districts will turn over to online providers for different types of courses. This bill will go a long way toward resolving concerns that have arisen about the statewide online education program since it was created last session. So I voted for the bill. It passed 68 to 4.

1st Sub. S.C.R. 10, Concurrent Resolution Supporting Utah's Interconnected Ski and Snowboard Industry

The best part of this debate was Mike Noel’s satire inviting the jet set from the Wasatch Front that wanted to interconnect our ski areas in spite of sensitive watersheds to bring those ideas down to Southern Utah and help him deal with sensitive watersheds and protected species in his neighborhood. It was hilarious. If you want to listen to his speech in the web archive, it happened just before the end of today’s floor time.

Now I love skiing. I believe it will be possible to find a responsible way to forge the connections between our resorts in the Park City area and the Cottonwood Canyons. I voted yes. The bill passed 58 to 16.

March 5, 2012—Day 42

3rd Sub. H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

The big news for today is that my resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that will ensure that we put a good portion of our severance taxes away in an endowment for the future passed the full Senate unanimously!  My dad and step mom were in the Senate chambers with me when they debated and voted on it. 

I mentioned the Senate outcome to each of the small group of House members that voted against it.  I pointed out that the Senate made minor changes, so it will be back tomorrow on concurrence for another chance to vote on final passage.  Maybe we can pick up a few more votes.  I’d sure like it to have bipartisan support from both chambers, not just the Senate.  We shall see.

Tomorrow should be the final step in the legislative process. I am thrilled at the prospect of taking this proposed amendment to the voters in November.

2nd Sub. H.B. 75, Property Taxation of Low-Income Housing

I didn’t like adding a financial penalty to this law, so I would have voted against this when it came before us the first time.  I missed that vote for some reason, but I voted against it for final passage.  It still passed 56 to 16.

H.B. 513, Early Intervention Program

I spoke against this briefly and voted no.  I would rather put more funding in the basic school program and less in narrow line-item programs.  Until we’ve got the basic program covered, I am not in favor of additional programs.  The bill passed anyway, 57 to 15.

H.B. 514, Public and Higher Education Technology Amendments

Same story as above.  Put the money into the basis school program (the WPU). My no vote was one of only 12, so it passed easily.

1st Sub. H.B. 224, Political Subdivisions - Report of Receipts of Federal Money

Planning for when the Federal government money tree withers and dies is a good idea for counties, cities, and towns, but I don’t think it’s something we should mandate.  Unless there’s a clear abuse of power, I don’t like legislature-knows-best bills. I voted no, but it passed 57 to 17.

H.B. 424, Museum Appropriation Amendments

I had a meeting to go to, so I left for lunch just one bill ahead of time.  This one came down to the wire, and they had a call of the House.  So they came looking for me.  I was at the cafeteria, which is where they would have looked next, but they lifted the call before going that far.  They were also looking for Rep. Brad Dee who was probably in the House building across the quad from me working on the budget. 

The bill failed by a vote of 36 to 37.  I would have voted no because this bill was an earmark. So that wouldn’t have changed the outcome.  Rep. Dee couldn’ t have changed anything with or without my vote because a 37 to 37 tie would not have passed the bill.  I had several people ask what my vote would have been just to be sure nothing would have changed.  Sorry about that.

1st Sub. H.B. 123, Education Savings Accounts

The idea behind this bill is to give the money we spend on public education to parents to be used in the public school venue of their choosing, a traditional public school, an online school, an applied technology college, or an institution of higher education. 

This is a bold idea, perhaps, but the ramifications are immense.  There is no question that it would increase parental engagement.  For that reason, I voted yes.  It’s clear, though, from the weak support the bill received (26 in favor to 46 against), that it will take a lot of work before an idea like this has a chance of success.

H.B. 413, Product Liability Amendments

One attorney after another got up to debate the merits of this tort reform measure. At one point in the debate a Representative who is not an attorney got up and wondered whether every last attorney in the body would have to speak to the bill before we were finished.  The remaining two obliged.  We had a motion to move it back to Rules for interim study.  That failed.  Then we voted 43 to 32 to pass it.  I voted yes.  I wonder how the attorneys in the Senate will deal with it.

H.B. 172, Vote by Mail Amendments

This sets up some rules that expand opportunities for voting by mail under certain circumstances.  It also establishes a study to review the feasibility of rolling out the idea more widely.  I lived through two election cycles with vote-by-mail in Oregon.   It’s convenient, has had experience almost no instances of potential voter fraud, and just about doubles voter participation. What’s not to like? I said as much on the floor.  I voted in favor.  The bill passed 54 to 21.

H.B. 461, Abortion Waiting Period

We allow three-days to reconsider a mortgage obligation.  And that isn’t something irreversible.  The courts disallowed a three-day waiting period for another state in the Midwest, but one of those speaking in favor of this bill reported that it resolves the issues the court raised with the measure recently struck down.

I support informed consent.  I voted in favor of this bill.  It passed 59 to 11.

H.B. 433, Expanded Uses of School District Property Tax Revenue

I voted in favor of this.  It allows a few districts continued flexibility to use capital facilities funds for operations in some instances.  I voted yes, in the interest of encouraging local control.  It passed 42 to 32.

1st Sub. H.B. 132, Premarital Education and Counseling Amendments

This bill also deals with a three-day wait.  With limited exceptions, a marriage license isn’t valid until three days after it is issued.  If you participate in pre-marital education or counseling, the wait is reduced.  I like the idea, but I was in the minority.  The bill failed 31 to 42.

That’s it for House bills

We wiped the board clean and loaded up the Senate board.  I know there will be exceptions, but we’re going to be dealing with Senate bills (plus items coming on concurrence) from here on out!  We went until about six this evening.  We’ll see how the next few days go.  I know Thursday will be very late.  We’ll see about tomorrow and Wednesday.

March 2, 2012—Day 39

Today was another whole day of floor time. The pace of considering bills is picking up.

2nd Sub. H.B. 216, Political Subdivisions Residential Rental Amendments

I was the only no vote on this bill. My reading of the bill is that it is a mandate to local governments. In the information presented during the floor debate, I didn’t find compelling evidence that local governments are misusing their power to such an extent that the state needs to step in and take over.

There are many things that seem to be worth doing. There are many wrongs that seem to need redressing. When bad things happen, we want to be seen as doing something. But if there is no compelling need to step in, I believe the power of the State should be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.

H.B. 336, Electronic High School Amendments

I received an email only a few minutes after casting this vote asking why I had voted against this bill. Here’s what I wrote:


Note, the courses EHS will offer under H.B. 336 are limited to core curriculum courses. No electives. I think EHS should be able to offer electives as requested.

In addition, I think the Electronic High School should have the same opportunity that school districts and charter schools have to participate in the online education program. That’s how we set it up last year, and I don’t think it would be wise to eliminate this option.

H.B. 501, Youth Suicide Prevention

This was another mandate on schools. I must sometimes sound like a broken record when it comes to directing the business and curriculum of schools from the State Capitol. I don’t like one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from Capitol Hill (without any funding).

As we were debating the issue, one of my colleagues stood up and told in moving terms about the death of his son by suicide. According to a newspaper report, when this good Representative rose to speak, several others had their lights on looking for an opportunity to speak to the bill. By the time he finished, every light had been turned off.

I think after hearing this touching story, we all wanted to do something to fix it. The central challenge of policy making is resisting the desire to respond emotionally—to jump at any opportunity to be seen as responding to a problem—whether or not the response is really within our authority or will do any good. We just want to make it better. Sixty-five of my fellow representatives voted in favor of this new requirement for schools. My heart goes out to those that suffer through a self-inflicted loss of a loved one. My mind tells me this bill was not the right response. Only three others joined me in voting no.

H.C.R. 3, Concurrent Resolution on Airport Security

This was only a non-binding resolution, but two of the three “Now therefore” clauses at the culmination of the statement took direct aim at the full body scanners at airports. I have never shared the elevated concerns about these machines that Congressman Chaffetz does. In fact I remember, when they were first introduced at the Salt Lake Airport, that the Deseret News published images of a volunteer model taken by one of these machines. Those images were not obscene. The other concern noted was radiation. I am not aware of data that are conclusive, or even suggestive, of heightened risk factors related to such radiation.

I will be open to new information, but for now, I am not willing to sign on to a resolution decrying their use. The other clause did have some useful language about moving away from the relatively new invasive pat-down procedures. But that was only one of three major paragraphs. On balance, I voted no. The measure passed 44 to 20.

1st Sub. H.B. 417, Education on Process For Electing Public Officials

Another proposal that we get into more detail about the specific curriculum we require of schools. Require them to teach about our caucus/convention system. We already go too far in my mind. Chapter 13 of Title 53A in Utah code goes on and on about curriculum requirements set by the legislature, some way too specific in my view for the role the constitution grants us in overseeing Utah’s schools. One of those provisions includes these words:


I’d say that easily has it covered. Most of my colleagues agreed. The bill failed on a vote of 28 to 40.

3rd Sub. H.B. 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments

This bill, which was about to get watered down before it got circled in yesterday’s floor debate, came back today with a substitute that eliminated one more safety inspection (between years 10 and 12). After being substituted, the bill passed 52 to 18. What a difference a day makes! As I’ve written before, I voted to reduce the burden on vehicle owners and put the public safety resources on the road that are currently going into inspections.

H.B. 337, Open Government Amendments

I was the only vote against this bill. I know this measure was popular. To be honest, after last year I have a bit of a tendency to look over my shoulder to make sure no one’s after me because of this vote.

Although I acknowledge the main idea of this bill is a good one, I voted against this bill because from what I know right now it seems extremely unlikely it will be funded in the final budget this coming week. I couldn’t get myself to vote for something when I was almost certain it wasn’t real.

The idea at the center of this bill if a comprehensive website where public documents are accessible to the public without having to file a GRAMA request. Great idea, but very expensive and probably not in the cards financially, at least not for this year.

March 1, 2012—Day 38

New month, new format. The last of our committee meetings happened yesterday. Now it’s floor time all day long for the rest of the session.

To start out the day, I quote the following from the House Journal:


Representatives get the chance about once every two years to provide the prayer and pledge. This was my first opportunity to do so.

1st Sub. H.B. 354, Alcoholic Beverage Amendments

The biggest thing this bill does is to take the slush fund derived from profits the State makes on alcohol sales and remove it from DABC’s control. If this bill passes those funds will be under the control of the State Tax Commission and will be treated like other state revenues.

This represents one step toward reforming the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. I supported the bill. It passed 68 to 3.

H.B. 420, Parent Education Initiative

This was a well-intentioned mandate requiring school districts to offer a course to parents to help prepare them for some of the challenges they and their students may face.  It mandates the course. It provides no funding for them to do so.  It’s a one-size fits all solution from our legislature that thinks it’s a super school board. I spoke against it, along with several others, but to no avail. It passed 40 to 30. The bill had a strong emotional appeal that we were unable to overcome.

3rd Sub. H.B. 350, Payroll Deduction Amendments

This bill puts professional or trade organization membership fees on the same footing as Union dues with respect to payroll deductions. The employee must request such a deduction in writing. I supported the measure as a way of treating all organizations equitably if they are going to have access to payroll deductions for their dues. The bill passed 48 to 13.

H.B. 155, Drug Screening For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Recipients

Rather than being punitive, this bill sets aid recipients up for counseling or intervention if they fail drug tests. In our Common Sense Caucus meeting at noon, we talked about the bill with the sponsor, who is a member of our group.  It passed easily, 62 to 10. I voted with the majority.

1st Sub. H.B. 173, Transportation Funding Modifications

Two things about this bill:  It reduces the total amount of road bonds already approved by $130 million.  That will drop us below the statutory bond limit, which we currently exceed.  (We’ve gone over our credit limit.)

This bill also outlines the projects that will be funded through bonds already approved.  Among the projects include is $7 million for interchange modifications at the 2600 South exit in Woods Cross (next to the K-Mart and Slim Olsen’s).  That interchange is in failure mode during much of rush hour each work day, so it’s nice to see that on the list.  They’re going to change it into a modified diverging diamond interchange, I am told, which is UDOT’s latest trend.

I voted for the measure.  It passed 70 to 1.

Leap Year Day—Day 37

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 158, Student-Based Budgeting

Representative Butterfield presented a proposal that would distribute a large share of state funding directly to individual schools and empowers the principals to determine how to use the available funds. Most of us on the committee considered this a very intriguing concept. The committee voted unanimously to hold this bill for interim study.

S.B. 31, Classroom Size Amendments

If we had the resources to reduce class sizes significantly, I would consider it a good thing to be able make that happen. This would not be a panacea, but it would likely improve instructional quality in many cases. The challenge with this bill is that it would have mandated reductions in class sizes, but we are not in a position to provide the funds to make those reductions happen. What we’re looking at this year is maybe 1% more funding than last year, plus money to fund new students coming into the system. Fixed personnel expenses such as added retirement and benefit expenses will likely eat up most if not all of the 1% increase.

So we are mandating that school districts hire more teachers or aides, but we’re not providing any money to help them do so. That’s called an unfunded mandate. It will force districts to raise taxes in order to comply. In future years it will likely be used as justification to push for massive increases in state funding as well.

I don’t support unfunded mandates in general. This one is particularly egregious because the amount of money we’re talking about is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The committee voted to table the bill. That is as dead as bills get.

Floor Time

H.C.R. 15, Concurrent Resolution on Obesity

This non-binding resolution recognizes obesity as a public health and economic risk. I mention it only because one of the, um, larger members of the House stood up during debate and announced that he had a conflict of interest on the subject, because . . . It took a few moments before the chuckles started.

H.B. 325, Motor Fuel Marketing Act Reauthorization

As expected, this bill came back to life. The motion to reconsider, which I opposed, passed on a vote of 44 to 29. Later in the day, this bill passed by a vote of 41 to 31. In my view, the passage of this vote is testimony to the power of lobbying.

Note that I was absent when then came up for a final vote in the afternoon. I went to the ribbon cutting for the new Agriculture Building at Utah State University. I attended together with members of my family and colleagues from our architectural firm that worked with me on this wonderful project. Several of my colleagues here in the House worked hard to stem the bleeding on H.B. 325, but from the size of the vote margin, it is clear that my vote wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

5th Sub. S.B. 41, Regulation of Tanning Facilities

This was a tough subject. We prohibit minors from purchasing and consuming alcohol and cigarettes. We also require them to wear helmets when they ride motorcycles. As written, this bill would require a parent to come with a minor child and consent to their use of a tanning salon, effectively shutting down the activity in many (perhaps most) cases.

On the one hand, we have something that is a known carcinogen (exposure to light and non-visible radiation that is more intense than sunlight). On the other hand, we have a minor additional incursion of government into decisions that are currently made by individuals (whether they should or not). I come down on the side of restraining the growth of government control of our lives. There were not enough with similar feelings to stop the bill. It passed on a vote of 39 to 32.

As we were debating the bill, discussion was going on at great length, and I expected it to continue for quite some time. So I accepted the invitation from a Davis County constituent to visit with him briefly at an exhibit in the rotunda. When I heard the chimes for the vote, I hurried back but was too late to cast a vote. As you can see from the vote total, my no vote would not have changed the outcome.

4th Sub. H.B. 272, Pilot Program for Autism Spectrum Disorders Services

This was the compromise that should demonstrate what the real costs of an insurance mandate covering autism would be. I understand it takes the place of the earlier insurance mandate for autism. I might still have opposed it because of a statement made by one of the chairs of Executive Appropriations that went something like this: “If you get started with a pilot program, you’ll never get the lid back on it.” As noted above, I was in Logan for the afternoon session, and didn’t get a chance to vote on this measure. The bill passed by a vote of 67 to 3.

Extended Floor Time

We re-convened in the evening for almost three more hours of floor time to take care of more bills before the deadline for wiping our reading calendar clean and sorting bills into priority order to get us through the rest of the session. Starting time for these extra innings was 8:00, so I had plenty of time to get back from Logan in the snow in order to participate.

H.J.R. 3, Joint Resolution on Federal Transfer of Public Lands (+ three other related bills)

We’ve been criticized for spending time on this issue. Let me share with you my response to a constituent, who emailed me, claiming that our efforts along these lines were a waste of taxpayer money and would be useless:

“I do not believe these efforts will be futile.

“As I believe you are aware, the current efforts are are not message bills. They are significant policy choices that may well lead to litigation. At least I consider it likely that litigation will be required in order to get the Federal government to honor its agreements when Utah was founded. When I was in Washington, I still remember hearing Michael Horowitz, Reagan's OMB General Counsel, say (paraphrasing Carl von Clausewitz's comments on war and foreign policy) that "litigation is the continuation of public policy, by other means." Unfortunately that may be what it takes, and I don't believe we should give up that fight.

“I want to point out that during the last week Congressman Rob Bishop [added his voice to that of] both of our Senators, [giving] public statements of their support for the actions this legislature is considering on public lands. They have made these statements in personal appearances before the House of Representatives. . .

“The governor has also offered public support for this approach.

“Our proposed policy approach is also supported by many other thoughtful, informed individuals, including elected officials, private citizens, and professional staff members in our government. But even if no one believed it could succeed, that would not excuse a lack of trying.

“So my response to your assertion that these would be futile attempts, I say:

“Just watch.”

This bill passed 62 to 13. The three related bills all passed with at least 53 votes in favor.

2nd Sub. H.B. 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments

This bill went through multiple attempts to substitute and amend with varying degrees of success. See my blog post for February 9th (several screens further down on this same page) for background on the bill itself from our discussion in committee.

After debating this bill for about an hour, the Majority Leader moved to circle the bill to allow the sponsor to regroup. The motion passed. We will see within the next few days if this lifeline offered to the sponsor clears the way for the bill to proceed.

February 28, 2012—Day 36

Let's Make a Difference

Before the session began, I sent an email to several of my fellow freshmen Representatives with the following subject line: Let’s Make a Difference. I proposed pooling our resources and creating a Political Action Committee and a Caucus that we could use to study legislation and help ourselves and our colleagues be better informed about the implications of the key bills we vote on. 

As some of us had discussed during the interim, the idea was to seek out volunteer subject-matter experts that could help us gauge the impact of legislation on families and on businesses, as well as the consistency with principles of limited government. Last year our group had been dubbed the “reasonable rookies,” or something like that, by Paul Rolly, so we decided to build on that idea. We created the Thomas Paine Common Sense Caucus. We registered a PAC with the same name. And we hired a full-time assistant during the session to coordinate with all the members of the caucus and orchestrate the work of the volunteer experts we’d signed up.

So I mention all this as background for an important bill we debated and voted on today. Our caucus meets briefly at noon twice each week. Today there were 15 of us that gathered in the small conference room behind the House chambers to talk about the bills we are tracking, the ones coming up, and who was going to speak to them as they came up. The sponsor of H.B. 316, Divorce Waiting Period Amendments, who is a member of our caucus, told us he was going to uncircle the bill at the beginning of our afternoon floor time. We discussed the bill for some time, aired our thoughts, and crafted a strategy.

I may be wrong here, but I think we made a difference, at least with respect to this one bill. More on the subject below.

Floor Time

H.J.R. 13, Joint Resolution - Tax Opinion Question

This bill proposes a non-binding ballot question this November, asking voters whether we should make a slight increase in sales taxes “to support and enhance heritage, arts, culture, and museums throughout the state.”

I might have thought it useful to ask the question if it had been about taxes for education, roads, or law enforcement. But asking about the equivalent of a statewide ZAP tax doesn’t seem to me to be worth the $14,700 it costs to put the question on the ballot. I voted no. The resolution passed 38 to 32.

H.B. 325, Motor Fuel Marketing Act Reauthorization

We killed this reauthorization today on a very close vote: 35 in favor to 36 of us against. I am quite certain it will be back tomorrow for reconsideration. If we’re able to hold it at bay, this act will be allowed to sunset.

The Motor Fuel Marketing Act prohibits gasoline retailers from selling fuel below cost. It is intended to eliminate any possibility of predatory pricing, through which large retailers would reduce their price so low that they would drive smaller retailers out of business. After having eliminated their competition, large sellers would then be able to raise their prices at will. Such is the thinking behind this act, which has been in place for decades. 

If we allow the act to expire, we’ll join a host of other states in allowing the free market to dictate prices. And we’ll know within just a couple of years whether the concerns underlying the act are warranted. If, without the act, anti-competitive forces reign supreme, we’ll have to revisit the issue then. I doubt it will come to that.

H.B. 316, Divorce Waiting Period Amendments

We had an extended and energetic debate on this bill. This bill includes the most significant aspect of my Divorce Orientation Class bill that failed so miserably a couple of weeks ago. With only that one aspect and no other baggage, several of us felt this bill had a better chance.

We were able to counter the emotion from those opposing the bill (because it puts the adult parties to the divorce thru hell, having to hang around and wait instead of just being done with it, particularly for the partners that are wronged) with emotion about children who are being raised in intact homes today because of waiting periods. I shared three such stories. “All I have been hearing is about the adults,” I said, “but what about the children?” Someone else added later, “who will speak for the children.” (I was looking around for the Lorax.)

All light-heartedness aside, I was thrilled as the vote came in 43 in favor to 26 against. Once again, I am grateful for second chances.

House Transportation Standing Committee

H.B. 506, Martin Luther King, Jr. Special Group License Plate

I don’t think I have yet voted in favor of a special group license plate. I don’t like the State of Utah providing the structure for private fundraising. Private groups have, by right, their own agendas that may or may not be consistent with the priorities of voters and taxpayers.

A quick vignette from the committee hearing. The sponsor and one of the people supporting the bill talked about wanting to have better representation. The gentleman looked carefully at the committee and suggested that we as a committee were not all that representative. When I had an opportunity to comment, I said I hoped when he scanned the committee to determine that we were not representative that he was only considering “the content of [our] character!” (Just a little Martin Luther King, Jr. reference there.) He assured me with a smile that of course “the content of [our] character” was the only consideration.

The irony was pronounced.

The Road Home

This evening we had the opportunity to tour the Road Home on Rio Grande Ave, just south of the Gateway Shopping Center. I was impressed.  What an amazing, challenging job they do for so many that fall through the cracks in our society.

And the majority of their funds are raised privately!  But they also rely heavily on local, state, and Federal funds. What they will do if and when Federal funds are reduced (which seems inevitable for all Federal funding), I cannot imagine. Will the State be in a position to fill the gap. With more than $4 billion of our budget coming from Washington, we’re likely to be in a world of hurt across the board, so I can’t see the State being able to backfill. Local governments? Private donors? I don’t think any of us know.

February 27, 2012—Day 35

I learned today that a second bill of mine had passed through the Senate and is now on its way to the governor for signature.  That was H.B. 82, Architect Licensing Revisions, which was a minor change related to continuing education requested by the state architect licensing board.  This makes two bills passed, which is two more than last year.  I did act as House floor sponsor for a Senate bill we got through on the last day of the session in 2011, and I helped stop a few things that needed stopping, but that was it.

Floor Time

1st. Sub. H.B. 511, Eminent Domain of Federal Land

This bill builds on a law passed two years ago before I was in the legislature. It clarifies that the state government can exercise eminent domain over federal land unless the land was acquired by the federal government with the consent of the legislature. And it has a constitutional note because it challenges the Federal government.  Tilting at windmills is how someone described it after the vote (even though he had voted in favor).

I think you have to try.  If we just continue to roll over, the Federal government will never honor the commitments it made to Utah when we became a state. The sense I have from our Federal delegation is that we’re making steady progress and may one day wrest control of some of the land that by right should not remain under control of the Federal government.  I voted with the majority in support of the bill.  It passed 57 to 14 with two Democrats joining the Republicans in favor.

Motion, under suspension of the rules, to lift H.B. 300 from the Rules Committee

This motion was accompanied by more drama than anything we’ve seen in floor debate so far this year.  H.B. 300 is an immigration bill that aims to change some of the policies adopted last year.  Rep. Herrod complained that debate on the subject was being squelched.  Clearly, leadership does not want to go there.  Representative Dougall countered with a substitute motion to recess.  He spoke almost angrily about being lectured on the proper legislative process.

The motion to recess succeeded, and we wasted a great deal of time.  The delay may have cost us a couple of bills for this session.  Maybe that’s good.  I voted against the recess because I agree with Rep. Herrod that we should not artificially limit debate, even on topics that are difficult.  Also, I didn’t want to waste floor time.  I was on the losing side of that vote.  The motion was to recess for 15 minutes.  Instead, it was almost an hour before we resumed.

H.B. 283, State Stores Pilot Program for Days of Sale of Liquor

This bill is an attempt to try opening a few state liquor stores on holidays such as Martin Luther King Day, during which they are now closed. I oppose policies that would lead to an increase in alcohol sales.  Utah is in the business of retail alcohol sales, like it or not.  I don’t suggest we treat this as a business decision.  Instead I see it as a moral question.  So I voted no.  The bill passed, however, 42 to 30.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 427, Tax Law Modifications

If a taxpayer inadvertently overpays, this bill says the starting point will be to construe the situation strictly in the taxpayer’s favor.  It takes us back to where things were before a Utah Supreme Court decision that pretty much said the State Tax Commission keeps overpayments and taxpayers are out of luck.  I voted with my colleagues to pass this out favorably.

H.B. 354, Alcoholic Beverage Amendments

The major feature of this bill has to do with the way DABC uses the funds it earns marking up and then selling alcoholic beverages.  Currently the money goes into a fund DABC controls.  This moves the funds to the treasury. 

There are many reforms and possible changes to DABC being considered.  This one is both needed and relatively uncontroversial, as evidenced by the fact that we voted unanimously to pass this bill out to the full House for consideration.

February 24, 2012—Day 32

After today, excluding weekends, we have nine more days to go. I imagine we’ll pass more bills in those remaining nine days than we have so far. Of course we won’t have any more committee meetings after Wednesday the 29th, so it will be all floor time from then on.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

1st Sub. H.B. 299

This was a bait and switch. The original H.B. 299 was a very large tax cut. The substitute bill was a tax credit against future earnings for tuition paid to Utah’s public colleges and university. Under this bill, if a student attends one of our state institutions of higher learning and has taxable income in Utah over his or her lifetime, the student could take a small tax credit each year until the total credits added up to the amount of tuition paid.

The idea is to provide an incentive to stay in Utah for the students whose postsecondary education we subsidize through our tax dollars. Hmm. Reduces revenues very little the first year but by tens of millions of dollars after it’s fully implemented a few decades later. A spokesperson for a social services advocacy group addressed the committee and questioned whether this was a wise use of Utah’s funds. When I had a turn, I wondered rhetorically how we could consider funds we refrain from taking from our taxpayers as Utah’s funds. I think they are the taxpayers’ funds.

I voted with the majority to pass this bill out favorably. I think it’s a good debate to have on the floor. I also want to review the financial impacts to individuals and to our system of higher education over the many years it will take before the full effects of the policy are in place. With the substitute now adopted, we should be able to have a fiscal note completed before it comes up on the reading calendar. I will evaluate carefully whether to vote in favor of the bill when it does come to the floor. And I’ve been thinking of a possible amendment that would target the credit to the early years of a graduate’s income-earning years when they are typically making decisions about where to take up residence and build a career.

H.J.R. 18, Joint Resolution on Personal Property Tax

This bill would amend our state constitution to make it easier for businesses to comply with personal property tax requirements. The challenge is the multiple sets of books businesses have to keep on all the personal property they must declare for the purpose of paying local personal property tax. Believe me, it’s very burdensome. This resolution and an accompanying amendment suggest that we allow businesses to use, as a schedule for these assets, documentation they already must prepare for Federal depreciation and/or a standard ledger using generally accepted accounting principles. Instead, Utah requires fair market value.

At least one county assessor objected. Revenues might drop. Those approaches didn’t equate to fair market value. Then a small-business accountant stepped forward and testified that even without the state’s separate requirement, he already had to account for these incidental items of personal property in four different ways. The state’s rules mandated a fifth set of books.

This is a valid point. Time was short, however, and floor time was set to begin, so we adjourned the meeting. This topic should be back on our agenda at one of our two remaining meetings of this committee.

Floor Time

H.B. 198, Growing of Food

In his summation, sponsor Chris Herrod said he was disappointed that floor debate on this bill didn’t turn into a philosophical conversation about individual rights vs. government regulation. Instead, most of my fellow Representatives and I simply agreed with him. The bill passed 53 to 16. This measure is supposed to ensure that you can grow food for yourself and your family without being subject to Federal regulation.

H.B. 104, Local Highway Authority Regulatory Powers

The most significant part of this bill is that it overrides the ability of local governments to create anti-idling ordinances such as the one Salt Lake City enacted last year. I would never have voted for an anti-idling ordinance if I had been a city councilman; however, I don’t see such local action as crossing the line to the point that it seriously threatens individual property rights, legitimate business operation, or public health and safety. So I can’t come up with a legitimate reason for the state to intervene.

Yes, we have the authority to do this. No, I don’t think we should micromanage, absent a threat such as those I’ve outlined above. So I voted no. Most of my colleagues, however, perhaps not wishing to pass up the opportunity to poke Salt Lake City, passed the bill by a vote of 42 to 28. For most representatives, it seems that the idea of local control is used as an argument only when it supports our point of view. I sometimes will vote to insert the state into a local issue, but I do my best to ensure that it is only in cases of compelling need as outlined above.

A member of Mayor Becker’s staff came up to me afterwards and thanked me for my vote. She said she appreciated the fact that I voted on principle. That is code for saying I showed courage by being one of only a few Republicans that voted against the bill along with most the Democrats. (I’ll probably get bonus points on some lobbyist’s score cards for this vote, but as noted above I didn’t vote against H.B. 104 for the reasons their scoring system might assume. It’s about trying to keep the legislature from doing things it would be better to stay out of, not because I like anti-idling ordinances.)

H.B. 266, Driver Education Amendments

This bill pertains to adults over age 18. You may remember the amendment Rep. Val Peterson tried to add in the House (adding a requirement for three months minimum learner’s experience prior to testing), which I substituted with a more stringent requirement, clumsily killing both ideas for improvements. Fortunately, the senate added the three-month learner’s permit amendment. So the sponsor moved that we concur, and we approved a much-improved final bill. This is another example of the fact that, by and large, the legislative process winnows and improves policy initiatives as they progress from beginning to end.

2nd Sub. H.B. 76, Pharmacy Audit Rights

I was the only Representative to vote against this bill, which sets some requirements for health insurance policies related to pharmacy audits. I didn’t speak against the bill or make too much of it, but my reading of the bill was that it inserts the government unnecessarily into private contracts. Sort of a mandate. . .

1st Sub. H.B. 107, Joint Custody Modifications

This was a thoughtful and important bill establishing a good starting point for courts to use in custody disputes. The reason I mention it is that the entire debate, other than the presentation by the sponsor, consisted of three very good speeches with well thought-out material and diverse points of view—all by freshman lawmakers. I wasn’t one of them, but I was proud of my fellow members of our Thomas Paine Common Sense Caucus. (More on that some other day.)

H.B. 187, Agricultural Operation Interference

The question this bill attempts to answer is whether it is legal for someone to plant a camera/recording device in an agricultural operation surreptitiously. Such devices have been used to sway public opinion against animal agricultural operations by depicting animal abuse. Farmers and ranchers point out that recorded material can be doctored and taken out of context.

The bill makes it illegal to record such images or sound without permission. The sponsor, a veterinarian, argued convincingly about the standard of care in the industry and the damage that can be done to a legitimate business when people obtain images secretly, manipulate them with unrelated soundtracks and/or careful editing, and publicize them to promote animal rights agendas. Another representative, a farmer, talked about shocking a cow when necessary to prod it back onto its feet. Seen on video, that could look brutal; however if he didn’t do it, the animal might remain on the ground, stiffen up, and die.

These two representatives live in the real world this bill deals with. They know a great deal more about it than I do. And I have come to trust both of them as straight shooters. I voted in favor of the bill, and it passed 60 to 14.

Senate Transportation and Public Utilities and Technology Standing Committee

3rd Sub. H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

This is my constitutional amendment that would require us to invest some of our severance tax revenues for the future rather than spend all of it each year as we do now. This bill passed the Senate committee unanimously. It was late on a Friday, and I was last on the agenda. Maybe that helped. Even the one member of the public that testified against it (the same spokesperson for a social services advocacy group our House committee heard from this morning), muted her criticism and applauded the current compromise, even though she still opposed setting anything aside.

The one Democrat on the committee said she voted to send 3rd Sub. H.J.R. 6 to the floor but she may not support it there. We need a minimum of 20 votes in the full Senate. I think we can get that many from Republicans, but it would be nice to get at least one vote from the other side of the aisle. I’d love to have the decision to send this to voters be a bipartisan one (even if only slightly).

As of earlier today, I have spoken with each of the 29 senators (from both parties) about this resolution and have left them with a packet of information. I’ve reminded them that we got 54 votes in the House. And of course now that the committee vote coming in is unanimous, the onus is on the upper chamber to follow through on what have so far been very compelling mandates.

Can I just say that I am thrilled at the progress of this resolution! My wife Marilyn will tell you that I was in a very up-beat mood at the Davis County Lincoln Day Dinner this evening. I’m sure it was due to the success of this measure in the Senate committee. There is nothing I’m working harder on this session. I’ll continue to work to get it through the full Senate—the last legislative hurdle. Then if we make it that far, I’ll put my heart and soul into the campaign to voters to approve it in November. When we’re all finished, if we get this constitutional amendment passed, it will have an impact for generations to come.

February 23, 2012—Day 31

House Transportation Standing Committee

1st Sub. H.B. 327, Operation of Bicycles on Highways

We’ve had this bill before our committee twice already. Today there were multiple attempts to amend the bill, taking out the major features. Most of these attempts failed. But in the end, the bill didn’t get enough votes to make it to the floor. I supported it. For me it was about reducing the unnecessary burden of government on cyclists. The bill applied a much greater amount of common sense than I often see in legislative proposals. Maybe it made too much sense to have a chance.

Floor Time

H.B. 140, Vehicle Checkpoint Amendments

This is a watershed bill. When we balance ease of law enforcement against infringement of civil rights, where do we draw the line? To me, randomly stopping vehicles just in case the driver might be under the influence (irrespective of whether there is anything about how the vehicle is being operated that would suggest probable cause) runs afoul of the Fourth amendment of our U.S. Constitution (unreasonable searches and seizure). It also seems to violate the related provision in Article 1, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution.

The end does not justify the means. If it did, we would be well along the path to becoming a police state. Freedom and civil rights would be just hollow, meaningless concepts. J. Edgar Hoover would be our idol. I voted for this bill, which limits the ability of law enforcement to conduct checkpoints. It passed with 41 yeas and 33 nays. Congratulations to Representative Butterfield, my good friend, for running this thoughtful and important bill and for carrying the debate off so effectively on the floor.

Special Citation For Utah's Fallen Soldiers

Families of the six Utah soldiers killed in action last year (all in Afghanistan) joined us in the House chamber at the end of the morning’s session.  A special citation for their sacrifice, a moment of silence, and many moist eyes followed. Because so many have paid the last full measure of devotion, to use Lincoln’s words, we are free to debate and vote on subjects involving rights, freedoms, public safety, and security, such as the intense debate on checkpoints that immediately preceded this citation.

The six fallen soldiers we remembered today were:


I posed a photo of the family members on my Facebook page. Click on this link to see the photo.

H.B. 139, Department of Community and Culture Amendments

This bill streamlines the executive branch just a bit. It is supported by the Governor. It appears to be a logical and effective way to implement management efficiency. It was about a year and a half in the making. It was opposed by some, who claimed that the consolidated agency would not be able to fulfill its mission under the new administrative structure. The debate on the floor was that we needed to study this for a couple more years. Go slow. Don’t try to save the taxpayers any money until we’re absolutely sure here.

So how long will that take? And why is changing from the status quo always so scary, even when the change is supported by careful analysis? Even when it makes good business sense? I favor implementing well-thought-out efficiencies. So I voted in favor of this bill. Forty-four others also voted yes.

H.B. 197, Grants For Math Teacher Training

This sounds like a great idea, but it is an earmark. I don’t agree with the notion that we should be doing the general control and supervision of public education. Our state constitution assigns that role to the State School Board. I wish the legislature would stop trying to be the State School Board. So I voted no, but the bill passed 54 to 17.

February 22, 2012—Day 30

This was a big day. I was fortunate enough to get my top priority measure through the House. And I also had a bill crash and burn. More on all that below.

Senate Business and Labor Standing Committee

H.B. 82 Architect's Licensing Revisions

I presented this minor bill to the senate committee. It was voted out unanimously. And it went on the Senate consent calendar. That means it should go through the Senate quickly. My Senator (and quite possibly your Senator as well), Todd Weiler, will be the Senate sponsor.

Floor Time

H.C.R. 4, Concurrent Resolution Honoring Weber County Law Enforcement Officers

This morning we honored the families and associates of fatally wounded Agent Jared Daniel Francom of the Ogden Police Department, along with five other officersinjured while serving a search warrant January 4th. The room was filled with professionals that routinely put their lives on the line to protect you and me and all that we hold dear.

Each honored officer (along with Francom’s wife) received a state flag and a copy of the proclamation.

1st Sub. S.B. 115, Historical District Creation Requirements

I didn’t like this bill’s predecessor last year. And I don’t like it now. It establishes a moratorium on any action that the city will do anyway. During floor debate I asked the sponsor whether there was anything enacted by the bill that Salt Lake City could not choose to do on its own. No. So why does the state need to be involved. There is no good answer. “Because we can?”

It’s a local control issue, and the city is not overstepping reasonable authority. I voted against the bill, but there were only six of us that did.

Senator Lee

As part of our morning floor time, we enjoyed a report from Senator Lee. He told about the times he gets mistaken for a staff member or even an intern when he is in the capitol. Now the only members of our Federal delegation we’ve not heard from are Senator Hatch and Congressman Bishop.

2nd Sub. H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

This is the measure I’ve been focusing my attention on more than anything else this session. I am convinced that if we pass this through the senate and get it approved by voters in November, it will be the most significant thing the legislature does this session (with help from the voters). The Salt Lake Tribune already has a nice writeup posted.  See http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53569017-90/future-amendment-nielson-saving.html.csp.

As the debate progressed, I wondered for awhile if things were going south. I figured even if we didn’t get the 50 votes we needed, it was important to go ahead with the vote to get people on the record. But going in, I thought we had at least 50.  As the votes added up, they were running more than two to one in favor right from the beginning. As soon as I saw that trend, the statistician in me (bestowed by my dad) took over, and I breathed easier. The vote total stuck briefly at about 46 yes votes, and there were a group of Republicans that held back before voting. Ultimately they all came in under the yes column, and we had a total of 54 votes. There were two that didn’t vote, and I know both would have also voted in favor if we had needed them.

A friend of mine told me that a group of lobbyists were gathered outside the chambers watching the vote as the total added up. Apparently, most were not pleased and expressed their displeasure somewhat coarsely. “I didn’t expect to hear people talk that way in the capitol,” she added.

I guess if I’ve got most of the lobbyists upset, that’s a good thing. Right?

H.B. 119, Study on Signing Petitions Online

This bill failed yesterday, but the sponsor worked people intensely and got it to pass today upon reconsideration. Nice piece of work on her part. I supported it both times. Welcome to the 21st Century.

H.B. 363, Health Education Amendments

We went into overtime on this one. Committees after floor time were at least a half hour late getting started. Consideration of this bill included impassioned debate, a condescending lecture by an opponent of the measure, and a whole bunch of proposed amendments, some friendly, some unfriendly. The friendly ones passed. The one unfriendly amendment failed. The bill then passed 45 to 28. I supported it. Why? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe teaching kids about sex is a parental responsibility. If schools teach about it, I want them teaching abstinence. Those are my values. I think those are our values as a community.

Let me use a simple analogy I read in a book by Ora Pate Stewart years ago: A little child is looking through a fence at a farm into a large pen filled with mud. The kid thinks he wants to climb the fence and cross through the mud either because it looks like fun to play in the mud or because it’s the shortest path to where he wants to go. Does the boy’s mother tell him not to get into the pen, but if he does to be sure to wear boots (and here’s how to wear them properly)? Or does she warn him in the strongest terms absolutely never to go into the pen because behind the shed (still inside the pen) is a raging bull that will severely injure or kill her child?

For me the answer is NO. Not now, not ever. Anything else is a mixed message that won’t convey the fact that there are much bigger dangers involved in pre-marital sex than may be immediately apparent.

House Education Standing Committee

1st Sub. H.B. 135, Focus on Front-line Teachers Program

Last year, this bill, as a data-collection effort with no fiscal impact, passed through committee and through the House floor. It died in the Senate on the last day.

This year I included both the data-collection piece along with the funding (incentives for school districts that put more of their resources into the classroom). With funding ($5.04 million), it didn’t do so well. I only got two votes to pass it out favorably. Everybody else voted no. Dead (for this session). I still think this is an idea we should consider, so I’ll consider carefully how to deal with this in a future session (assuming I’m fortunate enough to be re-elected).

February 21, 2012—Day 29

House Transportation Standing Committee

Ist Sub. H.B. 327, Operation of Bicycles on Highways

This bill could be in trouble. After a lot of testimony for and against, Rep. Kiser proposed a substitute bill that gutted what the sponsor was trying to do. Then another member of the committee moved that we instead hold the bill and move to the next item on the agenda. That motion carried.

Before we got that far, I spoke against the substitute. To me it is about reducing the burden of government and common sense, and as you can imagine (if you know the principles I stand for), I’m there. I have a minor tweak I’d like to see, but it’s not a make-or-break issue. I shared my sentiments with the sponsor afterwards. We’ll see how this goes on the third go-round, which is now scheduled for Thursday.

Floor Time

We had a spectacular flag ceremony (complete with fife, drum, and muskets) in belated celebration of President’s Day this morning. It included a spectacular rendition of our National Anthem and a choral reading (from memory) of the Declaration of Independence by some precocious students from Paradigm High School. What a country!

We also heard from Congressman Jim Matheson later in our morning session. So Rob Bishop is the only Congressman that has not yet addressed the body this session.

H.B. 108, Internet Gambling

This bill generated quite a bit of debate but ultimately passed comfortably. I was happy to support it in order to make it absolutely clear that we will not allow gambling of any kind in Utah.

I don’t know how many of my colleagues noticed the irony, but just after the vote on gambling was concluded, one of my colleagues introduced a new superintendent of schools in one of the districts in Salt Lake County. He noted that she had previously been an administrator in Las Vegas.

1st Sub. H.B. 49, Firearms Revisions

Before we voted on this bill, Rep. Sandstrom passed an amendment that improved it considerably. It established clearly a reasonable person standard for evaluating whether “the firearm or other dangerous weapon was carried or possessed unlawfully or with criminal intent” and it also made it clear that nothing in this legislation would “prohibit a law enforcement officer from questioning an individual.”

I had had conversations with Bountiful’s Chief of Police about this bill. I felt the proposed amendment addressed his concerns quire well. I also asked the sponsor specifically during the floor debate what, if anything, this bill would require police officers to do differently from current practice. His statement was that officers would still be able to ask someone questions and assess whether they are a threat just as they can currently.

Some people suggested this was not a gun rights bill but rather that it was a disorderly conduct bill. Yes and no. Fundamentally, it is about reaffirming 2nd Amendment rights. Since it appeared to me that the concerns raised by our local police chief were adequately addressed through Rep. Sandstrom’s amendment, I made the decision to vote in favor of the bill. It passed 50 to 21.

3rd Sub. H.B. 245, Amendment to Definition of Smoking in Utah Indoor Clean Air Act

If you feel society should regulate smoking, even in private establishments where people can choose to frequent or not, then you might part ways with me on this one. I think this is an issue of private property rights. I don’t believe it is the proper role of government to regulate what people do in a private club or bar.

We had two attempts to substitute—each from different directions (one more restrictive, one less so). Both failed. After all that, I voted against the bill, but it passed 42 to 31. Interestingly, both parties were split fairly evenly on both sides of the vote.

H.B. 119, Study On Signing Petitions Online

The function of this bill is clear from the title. I favor making use of technology to allow people to be more involved in the political process and to improve accuracy in validating the signatures affixed to petitions. So I voted in favor of this bill. I didn’t have that much company, though. The bill failed on a vote of 32 for, 38 against.

February 17, 2012—Day 26

Today I received a copy of a letter on my desk from the State Superintendent of Schools. The letter made the case that the actions of our Public Education Appropriations Committee this past Wednesday were in violation of the open meetings law because many of the things we deliberated on were not noted specifically on the agenda. It called on legislative leadership to discard all of the the recommendations and input of our committee as they make decisions on final appropriations.

That would be the nuclear option.

We've already seen press reports on how that meeting was conducted. Sounds as if we will be hearing even more. This is the second meeting I've been in this session that has resulted in this type of complaint. If anything, I guess I'm guilty of assuming that the folks that are many terms my senior know what they are doing. I guess a healthy dose of skepticism about that notion is in order.

As in all walks of life, there is always a lesson to be learned.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 385, Sales and Use Tax - Seller Notice Requirements

Yesterday I was lobbied vigorously by someone representing Wal-Mart. She wanted me to support this bill. Of course the folks at Overstock.com testified strongly against the bill this morning. They were not affected by it directly, but they opposed the bill on principle.

Here’s the deal: Remember use tax? There is a line on our state income tax form that asks us to calculate how much tax we owe on things we purchased online or by mail order (for which no sales tax was charged when we made the purchase) and remit what we would have paid in sales tax if we had purchased these items at a store here in Utah. This is called use tax. The state has never done anything to collect this tax. And it hasn’t done any kind of outreach to educate citizens about our responsibilities here. Total use tax receipts in recent years have been well below $1 million.

Now this bill would require anyone from outside the state selling products to Utah taxpayers to post a notice saying that use tax on the purchase may be due. This effort to educate people about the requirement should increase compliance, one would think. The problem is, our own attorneys believe the bill will likely lead to a court challenge. How can we make independent commercial entities from around the world subject to Utah law? And of course as Overstock.com pointed out, as more states put such notice requirements together, each slightly different, it will be an administrative burden that will constitute a barrier to entry for small start-ups if they want to pursue e-commerce in Utah. These are legitimate concerns in my view

But I focused on a different issue. To me it’s a tax increase. As I’ve said, we’ve never tried to collect this tax. If we start now, we’ll soon be raising more total revenue through our aggregate sales and use taxes. We will be broadening the tax base. In the hearing, I referred to it as a stealth tax increase. Given where we are right now economically, I would not begin to consider broadening the base unless we couple it with a reduction in tax rates so the overall amount of revenue stays the same. So I voted against sending it to the floor.

For the second time in committee, a motion to move this bill to the floor failed. This time convincingly: 5 in favor to 10 against.

H.B. 174, Sales and Use Tax Allocations for Water Resources Construction Fund

Earmarking a portion of future sales tax growth to go into a fund that provides and secures loans for water projects? No. I am opposed to subsidizing water projects through tax dollars. To me the best water policy is to build the full cost of water into water rates. When ratepayers pay the full cost in their water bills, they will experience the true cost of the resource they are using, and they will make decisions about how they use it accordingly. The free market is a strong thing and ought to have a chance to work here. (It was nice to hear environmental activists expressing their allegiance to the free market in committee testimony. Can I hold them to that?)

I voted to move this to the floor because the debate needs to continue. I will vote against it there, and I said as much before I voted.

H.B. 41, Property Taxation of Business Personal Property

In its final form, this bill simply increases the tax exemption for Business Personal Property from $3,500 to $15,000. As a business owner, I welcome that. Paying taxes every year on each shredder, computer, waste-paper basket, and so on, is onerous. I don’t know how much paperwork or auditing this bill will actually save, if enacted. I hope county auditors figure out a way to reduce that burden accordingly.

I supported the bill and we passed it out favorably by a large margin.

Floor Time

H.B. 115, Peer Assistance and Review Pilot Program

If this bill works as I believe it might, it could lead the way toward fundamental changes in the way we help teachers improve and how we evaluate their performance. Its sponsor is a thoughtful Democrat. It attracted a large number of Republican votes. It might not have had a chance if a Republican had brought it forward. I will watch the progress of this bill through the session with interest. If it becomes law, I look forward to seeing how it is implemented.

I was pleased to support this pilot program. The bill passed 51 to 18.

1st Sub. H.B. 81, City or Town Option Sales and Use Tax Amendments

I wrote about this when we saw it in committee January 30th. I didn’t like it then. Instead of extending the extra taxing authority for Riverdale and South Salt Lake forever, the substitute bill extends it to 2030. That sunset is way too far in the future for me to accept. The bill was run by the Republican Majority Leader. It passed comfortably in spite of just a few of us (13 to be precise) that voted no.

February 16, 2012—Day 25

House Transportation Standing Committee

H.B. 87, Billboard Revisions

This bill sets standards of fairness cities must meet in the way they treat outdoor advertisers. I am a consistent supporter of local control. When, however, cities and counties treat legitimate businesses in ways that are patently unfair, I believe the state has a duty to step in and lay out reasonable ground rules. So I supported this bill.

H.B. 327, Operation of Bicycles on Highways

This bill cuts bicyclists some slack and gives them a more equal footing with motorists in terms of how they use the roads. It’s a bicycle-friendly set of clarifications and accommodations I found it easy to support. One simple for-instance: current law doesn’t allow a vehicle to cross a double yellow line in order to give a bicycle sufficient room when passing. This bill allows vehicles to cross the double line, leaving the cyclist plenty of room, if they can do so safely. (If not, they need to wait behind the bicycle until they can pass safely.)

Floor Time

H.B. 290, Divorce Orientation Class

This bill went down hard. I felt I had the facts to rebut the arguments that would come in opposition, but I didn’t have the stories ready to counter the personal, emotional experience brought to bear in opposition by one of my colleagues. As I’ve observed before, facts don’t matter; emotions carry the day. The bill was defeated with only 14 in favor and 56 opposed.

The most important aspect of this bill—reinstating Utah’s 90-day waiting period—is the sole focus of another bill by Rep. Val Peterson we’ll be considering in a few days. The opponents of this family-centered reform have already shown their hand. When Rep. Peterson’s bill comes up, I will be ready.

H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

I’m going to make another run at reforming the way we use our severance taxes. We need to be investing for the future. This constitutional amendment was put on the reading calendar in late January along with its companion bill H.B. 210 (defeated 36 to 39 on February 6th). I circled it February 3rd, and it’s been there ever since. Today I substituted a compromise bill and then circled H.J.R. 6 again. I want people to have the long weekend to study the proposed compromise. And I’m still counting votes.

H.B. 90, Public Meetings During Party Caucuses

This bill requires cities and school districts not to schedule meetings on the night of party caucuses. The argument on the floor was whether it was appropriate for the government to mandate such a thing with respect to political parties, which are ostensibly private organizations. To me it’s a matter of practicality. Does the government have an extraordinary interest in ensuring that public activities do not interfere with these pivotal events staged by our political parties? I say yes. I voted in favor of this bill, along with 37 others. Thirty-four voted no.

H.B. 116, Probate Code Amendments

Lowry Snow, the new Representative from Washington County that replaced Dave Clark, ran this uncontroversial legislation that passed without opposition. Not having been a member of the body during our late-night debates on immigration last year, he might not have recognized the full significance the following comment made during floor discussion to this bill:

Bill Wright (sponsor of last year’s H.B. 116, the controversial and comprehensive immigration/guest worker bill): “If I vote against this, I’m just doing it so I can say I voted against H.B. 116.”

(Bill pushed his NO button initially but changed it to a YES vote just before voting was complete.)

February 15, 2012—Day 24

A little trivia I learned in a recent discussion on the house floor: There is no chemical test to make sure the illegal synthetic drug, spice, has been cooked up properly. The only way to test it is by trying it out to see if it makes you high.

Think about it. One of the reasons this homespun drug is so dangerous is this: Continuous, rigorous, and consistent quality control is simply not possible. The result of a bad mix can be fatal, but if someone is testing the brew, he may have developed far more tolerance to the toxins than a new user. Plus, he’s likely too stoned to notice anything.

(Of course there’s no evidence that spice producers even care about quality control, but even if they did, it would be impossible to achieve.)

House Education Standing Committee

I was on the agenda to present H. B. 135, Focus on Front-line Teachers Program, which is my proposal for providing school districts financial incentives for putting more of their resources into classroom teachers (and less into administration). Rep. John Dougall had a very significant and controversial bill up before me, and he ended up taking the whole meeting. I’ll be up first at the next committee meeting.

Floor Time

1st Sub. S.B. 21, Department of Environmental Quality Boards Revisions

I received several emails encouraging me to oppose this bill and a couple afterwards asking why I had voted in favor. Here’s what I told them:

“I did my best to vote on principle. I appreciate the opportunity to explain.

“As I see it, things are [often] not exactly as they seem or as they are portrayed.

“First let me note that the bill has changed since it was first introduced. My sense is that some of the comments I received were based on the initial version of the bill not on the legislation on which we ultimately voted on the floor of the House.

“The core issue for me is this: I have greater trust in decisions being made by our elected officials and their immediate appointees than I do in independent boards or commissions. Which is more likely to be responsive and accountable to the public? I believe it is the one that will have to face voters periodically, either on a direct or indirect basis.

“I would ask you to consider it this way: which group is likely to be more accountable to the public (voters), those that are elected and their immediate appointees, or an unelected group of individuals? What I'm saying is that so-called independent boards tend not to be independent at all. To put it another way, if such boards take action that the public considers to be contrary to the public good, how do we vote them out of office?

“This bill focuses responsibility for DEQ policies more squarely on the shoulders of the Governor's cabinet member that heads DEQ than it was previously. I reject the notion that this bill weakens the ability of these boards to protect the interests of the public. On the contrary, I think it strengthens it. Note also that the Executive Director is a non-voting member of these boards. She may only vote to break a tie. This change was made in response to some of the early criticism of the bill. It had been incorporated by the time the bill made it to the House floor.”

Some of you may feel that I am going against the grain with this position. Based on the way this bill has been portrayed publicly, that may be so. But I always vote based on my best understanding of the legislation actually before us, comments received from all interested parties in advance of the vote and on input I get during debates and committee hearings, and on my understanding of the issue that emerges.

I do my best not to base my vote solely on the way things are portrayed publicly. Yes, I listen to public input, just as I listen to everything else. And as with all of the feedback I’ve mentioned above, I listen critically in order to sift through the bias of special interests and the spin that often gets added by well-intentioned participants in the public process. Do I always get it right? I’m sure I don’t. But by listening to as many points of view as possible, it’s possible, by a sort of triangulation, to get a pretty good fix on what’s really going on with the issue. And from there, I do my best to apply the principles I stand for.

H.B. 82, Architect's Licensing Revisions

This was one of my bills. It makes a minor change to the statute the governs licensing for my profession. The change will enable the State to join a nationwide effort to standardize continuing education requirement for architects. Developing a consistent requirement from state to state will make it easier for design professionals to maintain licenses in multiple states, thus reducing barriers for Utah architects if we want to practice regionally or nationally.

I have previously discussed this bill in my post for the day I presented it to the House Political Subdivisions Standing Committee (January 30). Today it passed the full House 66 to 1. Our Senator, Todd Weiler, has agreed to be the Senate sponsor.

H.B. 68, Powersport Vehicle Franchise Act Amendments

In that same post for January 30th, I explained my reasons for opposing this bill in committee. I voted against it on the floor as well, but it passed 40 to 30. I got quite a talking to from a couple of lobbyists both before and afterwards, but I still can’t find a proper role for government in this bill.

H.B. 233, Political Party Registration Amendments

I wrote about this bill on Groundhog Day when I presented it to the House Government Operations Standing Committee. It’s a matter of basic fairness. I presented it. There was no debate. It passed 66 to 4. Senator Jerry Stevenson has agreed to carry the bill for me as Senate sponsor.

H.B. 101, Tax Credits for Employing a Homeless Person

See another part of my Groundhog-Day post for the reasons I supported this bill. This was one of the rare occasions when Rep. Brian King (D-Salt Lake) and I voted on the same side of an issue. The bill passed 42 to 28.

H.B. 305, Construction Code Revisions

I made some structural engineers angry when I voted for this bill. The bill says that when a building owner is doing a complete reroof or similar repairs without affecting the structure of a building, local building officials cannot force them to make structural upgrades to the building at the same time. Without this relief from current law, people simply decide not to put on a new roof, and the building deteriorates.

During the floor debate, I sensed momentum building against the bill. So I got up and spoke in favor. I was later blasted for not caring about safety. I do care about safety. But I do not concur with the notion that we cannot compromise on safety. Saying we cannot compromise on safety means that there is no expense that would be too great, even if it only brought us a marginal increase in safety. I’ve heard people say we cannot compromise on our children’s education. Others say we cannot compromise on caring for the poor. Stack up enough urgent public concerns regarding which we cannot compromise, and we will have governments mandates that cost many times what we can afford.

(Plus there is this pesky concept in the U. S. Constitution about ex post facto laws. The way I see it, requiring an old building to comply with a new code [unless you are totally repurposing the building or making major structural changes] is a variety of ex post facto law.)

The bill ultimately passed the House by a vote of 48 to 23.

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

This meeting began at 5:00 p.m. and ended at 9:00 p.m. It was the last meeting of this committee and the very first time we had serious policy discussions and committee votes. At the end of the meeting, some committee members expressed serious reservations about the process. Much of what we were asked to consider we seemed to be seeing for the first time.

When this marathon meeting was over, the pervasive sense was that our deliberations were not going to have much of an impact on what was ultimately appropriated. It felt as if the committee chairs and staff had come to an agreement, and this final meeting was an effort to validate that. And of course whatever goes forward from the committee may or may not have much to do with what Executive Appropriations ultimately cobbles together for the overall budget. It will be informative to see how the rest of the process unfolds. I will be watching closely.

February 14, 2012—Day 23

Toward Earning a Living and Serving in the Legislature at the Same Time

I had a commitment to my business partners to attend a couple of meetings out of town, so unfortunately, I could not also be present on Capitol Hill today. This is the only time that will happen this session. Fortunately, I ended up with no committee meetings. My morning slot was open because it was the other cluster of appropriations subcommittee meetings’ turn. And both of my afternoon committee meetings were canceled. So all I missed was two hours of floor time.

In an effort to represent you on the floor today, anyway, I did a few things:

• I spoke first on a bill that we started debating at the end of floor time Monday so that my objections were on the record.
• I had concerns about another bill that was sure to come up today (and did), so I reviewed it with my good friends and fellow freshman legislators on either side of me.  One of them agreed to watch it closely.  It turns out that the bill (HB 75) was amended on the floor and improved somewhat.  I would likely still have voted against it, but it probably wouldn’t have mattered; it massed easily.  At least it wasn’t quite as bad in its final incarnation.
• In the event that any of my bills found their way to the top of the calendar, I asked the Majority Leader to circle them (or put them on hold).  One did come up, as I thought it would, so I should be able to uncircle it and (I hope) get it passed toward the beginning of floor time tomorrow.
• And I let the appropriate parties know I would have to be absent so that I would be noted as excused.

I hope you have had a wonderful Valentine’s Day.  As I write this, I am in an airplane heading home.  I look forward to being with loved ones for a small portion of this day. I also look forward to a busy and productive day representing you on Capitol Hill tomorrow.

(Oh, and as of today, we're more than halfway through our 45-day session!)

February 13, 2012—Day 22

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

One more quick review of the overall public education budget and a great deal of discussion of how to prioritize the millions and millions of dollars of funding requests we’ve received.  Rep. Ken Sumsion and I had met with the fiscal analyst for pubic education last Friday morning and worked on a proposal to consolidate line items into a simpler, more flexible funding formula.  We proposed to continue what we started last year and combine several additional program items into the Weighted Pupil Unit formula.  We also proposed giving the State School Board a sort of block grant and tasking them with making funding determinations for a number of initiatives for which the legislature has earmarked one-time money in the past.

Floor Time

H.B. 68, Powersport Vehicle Franchise Act Amendments

This bill adds the following provision to Utah’s franchise statute: When a franchisee (local dealer) loses or discontinues a franchise agreement, the franchisor must buy back the dealer’s inventory at cost, rather than leaving the dealer with a bunch of unsold product. (Since the former franchisee would no longer be an authorized dealer in this situation, the unsold inventory would no longer be backed by the manufacturer and would not carry an original purchase warrantee. It would thus be difficult to sell for any price, and it would make it impossible for the dealer to recoup even his wholesale costs for remaining inventory,)

I get that. But I have to ask why the state must insert itself into private contracts. We have a situation where private dealers choose to sign very one-sided contracts in order to gain a franchise. I’ve heard many people argue that without statutory provisions such as this national powersport vehicle manufacturers engage in anti-competitive behaviors. The logic is that we must use the state’s anti-trust tools to ensure they do not drive independent dealers out of business. 

In my business, we’re asked to sign one-sided contracts all the time. We always try to modify them. Occasionally we walk away. When we choose to sign a bid contract, we do so with our eyes wide open, and we do our best to work within its confines.

Anyway, I have fundamental reservations about continuing to insert the state into contracts in this manner. This bill came up near the end of floor time (after several proclamations and personal privileges). After the sponsor introduced it, I spoke against it. With time running short, the sponsor circled the bill for consideration another day.

House Government Operations Standing Committee

H.B. 219, Use of Public Buildings

I came back to the committee once again, having responded in a meaningful way in the latest version of this bill to every suggestion made by the League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) the last time this bill was before the committee.

The League still spoke out against the bill. I appealed to common sense. Can’t we find a way to let political parties save money and provide their own cleaning services when they use public facilities? 

Apparently not. The bill only got three votes and didn’t make it out of committee. I won’t try a third time, because it appears no change other than deep sixing the bill will satisfy the ULCT.

Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Standing Committee

H. B. 277, Graffiti Paraphernalia

This one sailed through the committee unanimously.  I said the same thing this time that I did on the floor of the House:  This is one graffiti bill that should not lead to anyplace getting hacked.  I even got a chuckle from Senator Ben McAdams, whose day job is working for Salt Lake City (where the police department’s computers were hacked, apparently in response to a different graffiti bill). 

Our own senator Todd Weiler, the newest member of that august chamber, made the motion to pass my bill out favorably.

February 10, 2012—Day 19

This morning Rep. Sumsion and I got together with Ben Leishman, the fiscal analyst for our Public Education appropriations subcommittee, to begin developing a proposal for public education funding that builds on what we started last year and continues the move toward local control and less micromanagement of the State and local school boards by the legislature.

The goal: fewer line item earmarks and more flexibility for the school board to exercise its constitutional mandate to provide “general control and supervision” of our public schools. Along with that, we hope to encourage all of the groups that come parading to the legislature each year in search of earmark funding to instead approach the school board, who will have both the resources and the discretion to make those determinations (if we give these things to them, which several of us believe we should).

One interest group or vendor after another comes to us and says if the legislature doesn’t fund their initiative through a dedicated line item, something of critical importance to our children simply won’t happen. Again, I turn to the constitution, which says we (the legislature) are responsible for the “establishment and maintenance” of the school system. We make sure it is in operation. We fund it. And we do that on an ongoing basis. As noted above, the State School Board has responsibility for “general control and supervision.” In my view, decisions about specific programs to fund fall under the school board’s purview. If we let that legislative body do its job, allow it the resources to do so, and hold the board accountable as voters, I believe we’ll be better off.

We hope to be able to present a proposal to our appropriations subcommittee Monday morning.

Floor Time

H.B. 65, College and Career Counseling for High School Students

This bill sounds like a good idea.  How can you argue with its basic premise? But the problem is that it would create a line item earmark for a special program most school districts are already doing and all ought to be doing. It’s another case of the legislature playing school board. I am a firm believer in local control unless local elected bodies are taking actions that are blatantly improper. Our job is to provide the funding, not dictate exactly how the school board is to supervise and control the educational process. Rep. Butterfield spoke out eloquently along these lines in the floor debate, and enough of us agreed to defeat this bill by a vote of 42 against to 31 in favor.

February 9, 2012—Day 18

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

We continued to slog our way through the public education budget, receiving testimony from the Utah State Office of Education and from other interested parties.  We heard more than a dozen different requests for appropriations (increases or new programs).  I had a chance to present my Focus on Front-Line Teachers program (1st Substitute H. B. 135), which is similar to the bill I ran last year (which passed the House but died in the Senate three from the top of the Third Reading Calendar at midnight on the last day of the session).  This time it has funding attached.  I had maybe 90 seconds to present.

Floor Time

2nd Sub. S.B. 19, Voter Information Pamphlets

This bill, which I’ve blogged about previously, finally came together in a form the House sponsor was able to support. In fact, one of the Representatives asked the sponsor during floor debate whether he would now support it enthusiastically. And he did. With the changes, we have at least one foot firmly planted in the 21st century.

H.B. 277, Graffiti Paraphernalia

This is one of my bills. It updates the definition of graffiti to include the use of etching agents that use chemical action to create permanent damage on a surface. It’s a fairly new thing in some areas, and the bill was supported by law enforcement and juvenile justice organizations in order to get out in front of the issue before it becomes a problem.

I told the body that this graffiti bill would not likely create controversy, nor would it be likely to result in anyplace getting hacked. And I had previously offered Senator Mayne the chance to be the Senate sponsor so she can do a graffiti bill (since her much more controversial one didn’t make it).

The bill passed 68 to 0.

H.B. 266, Driver Education Amendments

This bill makes it a lot easier for someone 19 years old or older to get a driver license. We just take their word for it that they have had 40 hours of practice (including 10 at night), and we don’t require any waiting period between when they get their learner’s permit and when they can take the driving test. I thought the bill made it too easy. Representative Val Peterson made a motion to amend. His amendment added a 3-month waiting period. I had an amendment ready that set the bar higher yet (including a six month waiting period).

From the events that followed, I learned the following: When Val got the microphone first, I should have held off. People rejected my amendment as being too restrictive. Some of the feelings regarding my amendment got transferred to his, and his amendment failed also. So the sponsor should tell me thank you, because I beleive I contributed inadvertently to getting the bill through with no amendments. I would say if driving is something society has an interest in licensing, then the bill as passed is too lax. All but one other member of the body didn’t see it that way.

Coming right after getting a bill passed unanimously, this effort to amend was clearly not one of my finer moments on the floor. I do my best to learn from experiences like this.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments

This bill, by Representative Dougall, started as an effort to eliminate safety inspections entirely but ended up as a measure to reduce the frequency of inspections required. After purchase of a new car, it would need to be inspected after four years, eight years, ten years, then every year thereafter. The Department of Public Safety and UDOT were part of the negotiations and signed on somewhat reluctantly.

The reason for the proposal is that 33 states no longer require safety inspection–including all of our neighboring states. And no data show that Utah highways are safer because of our inspection programs.

A long list of people testified against the measure. Only two (including a gentleman representing the Sutherland Group) testified in favor. A Jiffy Lube owner testified to the job losses it would cause. He talked about the problems such a sudden change would make to their business model, which includes assumptions about market conditions and demand, upon which equipment purchases and fairly long-term leases are based.

In consideration of this fact, I asked this small-business man whether delaying the effective date by a year would be beneficial for their business planning. He said it would. When it became time, I was successful in adding an amendment to the bill extending the effective date by a year to July 1, 2013.

And the bill passed quite handily.

H.B. 200, Individual Income Tax Credit for Use Tax Liability

I was up next, and I wasn’t able to marshal one bit of support for this bill.  The idea was to offer some relief ($50 max) to taxpayers who, when completing income tax forms, are faced with a requirement that we declare the amount of use tax (tax on purchases from out of state on which no sales tax was paid) we owe.  In order to do so accurately, we must keep careful records. Since the information is self-reported, and since the state has never engaged in any audits or enforcement of use tax on personal income tax returns, we rely on the honesty of taxpayers to declare and pay the full amount of use tax owed.

So the consequence of keeping careful records and being honest is (as one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle put it) that we have the privilege of paying more taxes. To me that’s a pretty perverse incentive.  It seemed like a perverse incentive to the constituent that wrote me a letter complaining about the position it put him in. In the end, beyond assuaging the conscience of the vast majority of taxpayers that choose not to report and pay their use tax, this was a tax cut amounting to about half a million dollars overall. A tax cut for the honest.

My colleagues were not in the mood to cut taxes, even just a little. Other than my own vote, I didn’t get a single yea. Rep. Dougall was outside doing a media interview. I would have gotten his vote. (He confirmed that afterwards.) Maybe he would have been able to help sway the debate. Things can be unpredictable that way.

So that bill is dead for now.  Maybe some other year.

February 8, 2012—Day 17

Conservative Caucus

H.B. 140, Vehicle Checkpoint Amendments

My good friend David Butterfield wants to get rid of police checkpoints except in cases of fugitives, Amber alerts, and such. Dragnets in search of DUIs, expired vehicle registrations, and so forth, would no longer be allowed. Not too long ago a DUI picked up at a checkpoint was thrown out on constitutional grounds. There is that pesky unreasonable search and seizure provision in Amendment 4. And according to Rep. Butterfield, there is no evidence of lower DUI rates, for example, in jurisdictions that use roadblocks as compared to those that don’t.

David presented the idea during our Conservative Caucus meeting, looking for support. He had a rough time with it, apparently, in committee yesterday.

Article V Convention?

Representative Daw presented the bill he’s going to bring forward calling for an Article V Convention to amend the constitution. The purpose of the convention as set forth in his bill would be to propose the Federal Debt Limit Amendment, which would require the Federal government to get authorization from the states in order to increase the Federal Debt Limit. 

A convention to consider an amendment to the constitution is of huge concern to many thoughtful conservatives. Other conservatives feel we’ve run out of options, and it may be worth consideration. On the one hand I trust the legislatures of the 50 states more than the Congress, which potentially sits in Article V convention every day. On the other hand, the unknowns of how a convention would be structured, who the delegates would be, and what ground rules would emerge, are sobering. 

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Floor Time

Our bills were generally routine and uncontroversial during floor time today. We began with items on the Consent Calendar (ones that passed their committee unanimously and then were deemed by a second unanimous committee vote uncontroversial enough for expedited passage) and then went through most of the items on the Senate 3rd Reading Calendar. Most bills that have already been vetted by a Senate Committee, by two sets of votes in the Senate (they have to do everything twice!), and by a subsequent House Committee usually get pretty strong support.

"Leave of the Body to Open a Bill FIle"

The fascinating floor exchange of the day came after several Representatives asked leave of the body to open a bill file (since the deadline without saying “pretty please” had passed last week) on this subject or that. After several such request had been approved, Rep. Sandstrom asked for permission to open a bill file on the subject of E-Verify requirements for businesses. This request generated a lot of debate.  It became more of debate on the merits of the bill Rep. Sandstrom reluctantly outlined for the body than on the motion to allow a file to be opened.

The crazy part of this is that Rep. Sandstrom had a bill file open last week but then abandoned it. The scuttlebutt is that he was pressured to abandon it. "By whom?" you may ask. I have the same question, but I don't know the answer. Over the weekend, I understand Rep. Sandstrom had second thoughts about walking away from the issue this session; hence today’s request. The idea behind his bill seems innocent enough on the surface: change the penalties from a monetary fine to action against the business license of the company that violates the E-Verify law we currently have on the books. This change is necessary, according to Rep. Sandstrom, in order to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

But the people that got up to speak (from both sides of the aisle) would have none of that. A lot of Representatives and a lot of members of the public don’t want anything involving immigration to come up this session if they can avoid it. As we saw last year, debates on the subject generate mostly heat and very little light. The Representative’s request failed on a voice vote. Rep. Sandstrom called for division (a recorded, tabulated vote). The request still failed, 36 to 37. I voted in favor (on the losing side), because it makes sense to me to fix something in order to bring it into compliance with a Supreme Court ruling. But I understand the reluctance of the majority to bring it up at all.

February 7, 2012—Day 16

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

This morning we heard from art and science organizations that receive a direct legislative earmark to help fund their public school outreach programs.  Between them, these programs are asking for $1,000,000 in additional funding, or about a 20% increase.

Two concerns:

1. Why is the Legislature playing school board and dictating where this money is spent?  To me, making decisions about which specific programs to fund seems like “general control and supervision,” which is the role the Utah constitution assigns to the State School Board.  I’d rather provide a reasonable amount of unrestricted funding to the State School Board and ask them to do their job.
2. The consensus estimate is that as a state, we will have $280 million more in ongoing revenues for FY 2013 than we budgeted this year. Growth in education, paying down the overdraft on our bonding limit, and eliminating the structural deficit account for about two thirds of this additional money.  So that leaves about $100 million for ongoing funding increases or new programs.  Since this remaining $100 million in new money doesn’t even amount to one percent of our state budget, I don’t know how to justify a 20% increase for some individual programs, regardless of how deserving they may be.

We also had a good conversation about computer-adaptive testing.  Two things I understood from some questions I asked: 

1. The computer adaptive test questions have not yet been written.
2. The questions will be written to test competency in the specific standards.  They will not ask things that are unrelated to a student’s performance in comparison to those standards.

Superintendent Shumway said that there would be so many questions that it would be reasonable to release them for public review (since a student could not likely memorize them all, and if he or she did and could answer them correctly, then that would indicate mastery). I’ll work to make sure something happens along those lines so parents can satisfy themselves as to whether the test questions are appropriate.

Floor Time

H.B. 13, Offender Registry Review

This passed unanimously, but I thought about it long and hard.  Should there be a way for certain offenders to get off the offender registry?  My biggest concern was whether the bill dealt properly with offenses that had been plead down from much more serious charges.  The bill required that a judge take the original charges into consideration and that input from the victim’s family be taken into account as well.  Ultimately, this was about a second chance for a couple of young people that made a serious mistake that ended up categorizing one of them as a sex offender because of a technicality of the law.  They would have to satisfy everything the law requires in order to take advantage of the provisions of the law.  This is but one example, but you get the idea.

H.B. 70, Air Quality Task Force

A lot of people on both sides of the aisle stood up and declared their support for clean air and for this task force, an idea that has only a slim chance of getting any funding when budget decisions are made at the end of the session.  “Now breathe deeply,” the sponsor said in her concluding remarks, “and vote yes.”  It passed easily.

House Government Operations Standing Committee

H.B. 219, Use of Public Buildings

This committee wasn’t in the mood to let anything onto the floor this afternoon.  They approved a Resolution Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts in the United States, but they held the two bills that came next and they did the same to mine, which was last on the agenda.  My bill didn’t have a chance once one of the Representatives made a motion to adjourn (which effectively holds the bill under consideration for a future meeting).

The goal of this bill is to build on the requirement we already put into statute that school districts and cities, towns, and counties do everything within reason to make their facilities available for political parties to use for caucuses, conventions, and other party gatherings.  That’s already in statute.  To keep costs down, I’m proposing that these political subdivisions allow the parties to do their own cleanup, where possible, rather than having to pay school employees overtime.  In Davis County, for example, the costs for the county Republican party to use a school amounted to three or four thousand dollars, the lion’s share of which was for janitorial services.  If the party could use volunteers for most of the cleanup, they could save whatever expenses the school district avoided, thus reducing the money needed to run the party.  People tend to decry the amount of money in politics.  This could reduce the need for just a bit of that.

During committee debate, people raised legitimate concerns both about liability and about cleaning in certain instances that has to be done professionally.  So it’s on hold and I have already drafted suggested revisions that I will review with all concerned before we put it back on an agenda.

February 6, 2012–Day 15

What a day!  An extended debate continuing from last Friday, but my severance tax bill fell just short of having enough votes to pass.

H.B. 210, Severance Tax Amendments

First we circled H.J.R. 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax, in order to consider H.B. 210 first.  We uncircled that and had a lively debate.  The Democrats moved to circle again so we could wait for them to get an amendment ready that would add a tax increase to the bill.  That failed.  The going got rough, and it appeared we didn’t have the votes.  Rep. Butterfield then talked with me and moved to circle so we could regroup.  That motion failed, so we carried through to the end.  There were still several lights on when another Representative called for the question, which cuts off debate.  After quite a bit of back and forth, the vote stood at 36 for to 37 against with two not having voted.  I asked for a call of the house.  The two remaining legislators came in and voted no.  So it failed 36 to 39.

My first instinct was to say that’s it for this session, but I have been mulling things over, and there may be another way.  I have a lot of people I need to talk to.  Some votes I thought sure I would get turned against the bill.  I may simply not have explained it to enough people one on one before the debate.

So I have the list of the 39 that voted no.  I’m going to visit with them one on one and in small groups.  I’ll see what might need to change in order to get their support.  H.J.R. 6 is still on the board, so there is still the opportunity to consider it on its own if we can muster the votes.  In fact one of the comments from an influential member of the body was that we should do the resolution (constitutional amendment) and only that.  Put it to the voters without having the statutory framework in place first.  That’s not what the attorneys drafting the bill recommended, but it may be worth considering.

At any rate, I won’t uncircle H.J.R. 6 until I’m pretty confident we do have the votes we need.  And since it’s a proposed constitutional amendment, for that we need 50 votes.  That’s a tall order.

So stay tuned.

Debate on H.B. 210 took the whole morning floor time, other than the uncontroversial items on the consent calendar we did first.  I didn’t have committee meetings this afternoon, and my early morning committee meeting just dealt with two simple bills providing tax benefits to veterans and those that employ them.

A lot of great debate today.  It just didn’t go quite the way I had hoped.  I’m saddened that with our strong conservative majority we were unable to see our way clear to begin putting some of our severance taxes aside for future generations.

February 3, 2012–Day 12

Floor Time

H.B. 210, Severance Tax Amendments

For background on this bill, read my guest editorial in the Deseret News published January 6th at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700212818/Spending-our-childrens-inheritance.html. We picked up the bill near the end of floor time today.  I spent almost my full 10 minutes presenting the concept before Rep. Newbold introduced her substitute bill (as planned), which created a five-year phase-in period.  With her substitute, the fiscal impact for FY 2013 goes down to $19,280,000.  The following year, it is $38,460,000. The amount we save then increases by just over $19 million each year until the full $96 million in estimated severance tax receipts is invested for the future instead of added to the general fund to be spent in the current year. This more gradual phase in (over five years rather than two in the original bill) reduces the immediate impact on our current budget and helps us ease into this savings plan.

The minority leader, David Litvak moved to circle the bill, or put it on hold.  He wanted to see the fiscal note on the substitute bill.  Normally fiscal note preparation doesn’t even begin until a substitute is adopted on the floor or in committee.  I responded to the motion by noting that the extent of the fiscal note each year could be calculated quite easily by looking at the numbers shown in the substitute and subtracting them from $96 million, which is the estimate for severance tax receipts in FY 2013.  You can see what I mean if you look at the bill text, lines 52 through 58: http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0210s01.pdf. The sanctity of the process, he insisted, required that we delay. A Republican colleague echoed his reverence for the official fiscal note, and the motion to circle passed. 

Amazingly, just five minutes after the body agreed to circle the measure, a hard copy of the fiscal note on the substitute showed up.  See: http://le.utah.gov/lfa/fnotes/2012/hb0210s01.fn.pdf.  I delivered it personally to Rep. Litvak.  So with that taken care of, we should take up severance tax trust fund reform again on Monday morning.

House Transportation Standing Committee

H.B. 92, Boating Revisions

I presented a substitute version of H.B. 92 that removed the rules about where you could ride on the boat and kept the provisions about leaving the scene of a serious boating accident. (See my post about this same bill for February 1st .) The bill passed out of committee easily.

House Judiciary Standing Committee

H.B. 199, Elimination of Daylight Saving Time

I'm sorry to report we fell one vote short in committee and this measure failed once again to get it to the House floor. See the following account: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705398742/Daylight-Saving-elimination-bill-sees-early-sunset.html. This article reports what went on in committee pretty well, but it listed the wrong vote total: the actual vote was 6 to 5.

Even though this was a close vote, I don't plan to pursue it further.  It is clear that it does not have sufficient support for further consideration, at least not in the immediate future. 

Looking further ahead, I believe now that the Federal government had extended the start and end dates so far into the spring and fall (early March now until the first week of November), the negative effects of Daylight Savings Time will become more evident over time. 

Until the day (or year) comes when there is more public evidence of these unfortunate impacts, we will not have the political will to overcome our preference for the status quo.  That awareness may depend on a persistent and coordinated PR campaign by those most negatively impacted by DST.

And maybe if we are not willing to lead out on this as a state, a few more will have to join Arizona and Hawaii before we will be able to overcome our desire in Utah not to make waves, but rather to be like most of the other states around us.

When that day will come, I can’t predict, but I think the conditions are right for it to change one day.

February 2, 2012—Day 11

I understand the Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow earlier today. So that means, if I've got this straight, that we have five more weeks of legislative session yet to go from today!

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

So from all of our conversations on the public education budget, I have two questions,

1. Why should the legislature earmark money for special programs like the one that helps pay that the Opera visits schools?  We could just appropriate money in an unrestricted account and let the State School Board do its job.  Maybe they would decide it was needed for teacher salaries instead.  Maybe it would be OK to let them make that sort of decision, since the Utah Constitution says that “general control and supervision” of the public schools is their responsibility (not ours).  It seems that everyone on the Hill wants to play school board.
2. Just how much will implementation of the common core have cost, in total, when all is said and done. They’re asking for $6 million more right now. But I don’t think that really covers everything. And I can’t tell you how much they’ve already spent.  Just sayin’.

Floor Time

S.B. 39, Gubernatorial Authority over Higher Education Officials

I didn’t like this bill at all.  It allows the governor to appoint the Commissioner of Higher Education and the President of the Utah College of Applied Technology (UCAT). I’m not in favor of an imperial governorship.  Every time we put more policy-making power in the hands of the executive branch, we weaken the separation of powers.  Slowly but surely, the executive branch is gaining disproportionate authority with respect to the other two branches of State Government.  That’s not healthy.

I also don’t like this bill because I tend to think of the boards that currently select our higher education officials like boards of directors of private companies that are empowered to choose CEOs.  If they don’t have that power, these boards lose much of the purpose and authority.  Just as a vibrant company needs a dedicated, experienced, and involved governing board, our institutions of higher education need the very best academic and business minds available to steer their policies and pick their leaders.  Instead we will now have political appointments to these positions.

This bill passed narrowly in spite of several floor speeches opposing it (including mine).  Regrettably, our colleges and universities will be the poorer for the change.

S.B. 19, Voter Information Pamphlets

Should the state continue to mail copies to everyone, or are we ready to enter the 21st Century and do some of it electronically?  That’s the question this bill posed.  A vote against the bill was a vote to keep things as they are.  The floor sponsor admitted towards the end of the floor discussion that he hadn’t decided whether he was going to vote for this bill or not.  The bill went down to defeat, and he voted against his own bill!  I think the Senate sponsor will think twice before turning a bill over to that Representative again.  (I was in the minority that figured it might be OK to take a step into this century.)

House Government Operations Standing Committee

H.B. 233, Political Party Registration Amendments

This afternoon I presented H.B. 233 before the House Government Operations Standing Committee.  The committee voted unanimously to pass the bill out with a favorable recommendation.  The bill makes it a little easier for smaller political parties to stay registered as political parties.  Under current law, they have to garner a certain percentage of all voters in the most recent general election. This bill changes that to in either of the two most recent general elections. With this approach, they just have to be sure they meet the test every four years—presumably in the presidential election cycle.

To me this is a matter of fairness.  Having to go through the process of recertifying is unduly burdensome for small parties.  Having more than just the two major parties involved in the electoral process improves the quality of the discourse.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 101, Tax Credits for Employing a Homeless Person

I like this idea. Good to see this kind of tax policy coming from a colleague on the other side of the aisle. If you hire a person transitioning out of homelessness for at least 20 hours per week, after six months of doing so you get a $1,000 tax credit. One of the Representatives suggested the amount was too generous. I wondered if it was enough. Letting businesses keep more of the money they earn and encouraging them to hire those that might otherwise not have employment opportunities sounds like a good thing to me.

The Utah Taxpayer’s Association spoke against the bill. I missed most of those comments because I was in the other committee presenting H.B. 233, but I think their concern is that we are adding another credit, making our modified flat tax ever so slightly less flat. Slowly the credits and deductions make their way back into the tax code!

Regardless of all that, the bill passed out with a favorable recommendation with only one representative voting no.

So far this session I have taken six bills to committee. All six have passed out favorably. I hope that trend will continue tomorrow afternoon when H.B. 199 (Daylight Savings Time) will be before the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Of course, that will be a challenge.

Also tomorrow, it looks like my Severance Tax bills will be debated on the floor. It will be a busy day!

Thanks to all of you that offer me continual support.

February 1, 2012—Day 10

Nothing controversial during floor time.  We passed the rest of the base budgets.  Each vote was unanimous.

After several other uncontroversial votes, we lost our computer systems about 10 minutes before we would have stopped anyway.  So we adjourned from the floor and had a couple extra minutes to prepare for committee meetings.

House Health and Human Services Standing Committee

H.B. 290, Divorce Orientation Class

This was day two in the committee.  The committee adopted three amendments that dealt with a couple of technical issues and a provision for divorce filers that might be at risk of domestic violence.  We had one more member of the public that wanted to comment.  Ultimately, the committee passed the bill to the floor with a favorable recommendation.  There were three dissenting votes, but it was still a win.  The yeas and nays cut across party lines.

After the committee hearing, several reporters interviewed me about the bill.  This is an important issue; I hope I did it justice on the air.

See yesterday’s post for more information about this bill.

House Transportation Standing Committee

H.B. 92, Boating Revisions

This bill adds to our laws a provision prohibiting boat operators from leaving the scene of a boating accident that causes serious injury or death.  The provisions are modeled almost exactly on laws for motor vehicle hit and run incidents. It was only a few months ago that a woman was killed on a Utah reservoir in a boating accident where this very thing happened.  When the operator left the scene the law didn’t provide much in terms of hit and run that could be used as the basis for a criminal charge. 

Tacked onto the same bill was a prohibition on riding on a boat anywhere other than a seating area designed and recommended by the boat manufacturer for passenger seating.  This bill would make it so you can’t ride on the bow and dangle your legs in the water.  Isn’t that common sense?  I asked whether we need to increase the reach of government to tell us one more simple thing we can’t do.  I was particularly concerned because we made it a Class C Misdemeanor, not just a civil offense like a moving violation.
 
The sponsor’s background is in law enforcement.  I asked whether we had a law about riding in the open bed of a pickup truck.  He reported that we don’t. That sealed it for me.

We voted to hold the bill in committee and move to the next item.  I’m working on an amendment to keep the part about hit and run but lose the restrictions on just where you can sit on a boat.

H.C.R. 7, Concurrent Resolution Designating Veterans Memorial Highway

This is a resolution that will add the voice of the legislature to an initiative to publicize the fact that I-15 is known as Veterans Memorial Highway.  Private funds will be used for a public awareness campaign.  It’s a way to provide greater recognition to our State’s veterans, to whom we owe so much.  We voted unanimously to pass it out with a favorable recommendation.

January 31, 2012—Day 9

We passed half of the base budget bills today.  Those are being sent to the Senate for action.  The other half originated in the Senate.  They’re on our reading calendar now; we’ll vote on them in the morning.  Essentially these budgets authorize the same spending levels as FY 2012.  Work over the next 5 weeks and two days will be to make changes from that baseline for the final budget.

H.B. 18, Kidnapping Offender Amendments

This bill allows a convicted kidnapping offender to petition the court for removal from the Sex Offender and Kidnap Offender registry.  The offender must have gone through any prescribed treatment and not have any more offenses.  The offender must have completed all registration requirements at all times. The offense of kidnapping would be removed from the list of offenses that would qualify someone for the sex offender registry.  However, it does not remove an offender from the list if the offense involves children or aggravating circumstances.

Representative Cox tried unsuccessfully to pass this same bill last year, but without a key requirement for all cases—judicial review.  He added that for some cases last year, but it wasn’t enough to carry the day.  This year he included universal judicial review as the trigger, and it passed, 72 to 0.  The point is that in limited first offenses, once an offender has completed his sentence and met all the terms stipulated by the court, including maintaining his name on the registry and fulfilling all probation and/or parole, a judge may determine that the offender may have his name removed from the registry and get on with the task of becoming a contributing member of society.

1st Sub. H.B. 24, Health Insurance For School Districts

We took up this bill again today, had a good debate, and sent it packing.  The bill failed by a vote of 25 to 49.  See my January 27th post for more on why I opposed this bill.

H.B. 290,  Divorce Orientation Class

I presented this bill today in the House Health and Human Services Standing Committee. Committee members wondered why this bill was assigned to them.  I had no answer other than that the Rules Committee can assign bills to whichever committee it chooses.

This was another bill that took more than an hour of presentation, testimony, public comment, questions, and committee discussion.  In the end, the committee chose to hold the bill for further discussion in their meeting tomorrow.  There may be a small amendment or two.
This bill changes the timing of the mandatory divorce orientation class so that it has a better chance at being effective.  As things stand today, quite often the class is not taken until just before a divorce is finalized.  My bill proposes to require that the class be completed before a person files for divorce.  It also eliminates a waiver provision that has in far too many cases eliminated the state’s 90-day cooling off period before a divorce is final.  Note that the provisions of this bill apply only to divorcing couples with one or more minor children.

There was opposition from divorce attorneys, but also strong support from several conservative and family-oriented organizations, including the Sutherland Group and United Families of Utah. I’ll have more to report on this bill in tomorrow’s post.

Blackhawk (Not)

By the way, the Utah National Guard gave me a polite no in response to my inquiry about having a constituent represent me on a flight. (See my January 26th Post for background.) They did say I could have a key member of the community accompany me, but I had to be there either way. So much for that idea.  And I’m sorry if I got anyone’s hopes up.

January 30, 2012—Day 8

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

We continued our ceaseless journey through the intricacies of public education funding.  At this point we haven’t made a single recommendation.  We’ve just listened to presentations and answered questions.  There appears to be a strong consensus that we will work to fund growth in the number of students and at the same time provide an overall per-student increase.  We’ll see how that works out.

Floor Time

Two hours on the floor, and we only dealt with a handful of bills.  Here are the two that generated the most discussion:

H.B. 51, Medical Specialty Practice Act Amendments

This bill requires that any legislation affecting a list of medical specialties licensed by the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) be submitted to the governing professional board for review.  Duh.  If we want a bill that affects one of these professions to have a shot at success, we’re going to run it past the governing board.  Why do we need a law to tell us to do that?  And why a law for a select group of professions and not all?  I didn’t like it.  I spoke against it for the reasons you can infer from my comments above.  There were others that made similar comments.  But it passed anyway, narrowly.

H.B. 48, Coalition of Energy Producing States

This bill clarified the number of members and composition of Utah’s task force that works with energy producing states to build a coalition and foster energy production.  The Democrats were not happy with the deletion of a requirement that guaranteed them one member of the four in Utah’s delegation.  They ran an amendment to put that back in.  In fairness to them, I voted with them in support of the amendment.  That failed.

We went on to debate this bill that makes minor modifications to the membership in a task force for almost an hour.  In the end it passed, 57 to 16.

House Transportation Standing Committee

H.B. 71, Vehicle Window Tint Amendments

We debated my friend David Butterfield’s bill to relax the State’s law governing window tinting.  He wants to allow them to be slightly darker.  Things weren’t looking good, so one of the committee members made a motion to move the next agenda item and we moved on.  I think David will do some more research and be back before the committee within a week or two.

H.B. 68, Powersport Vehicle Franchise Act Amendments

We have a law that inserts itself into franchise agreements between two private parties and overrides the terms of these contracts.  The bill before the committee takes that law one step further and sets the terms for repurchase of inventory when a franchise agreement is terminated.

I’m looking for a proper role of government here and I can’t find it in this bill.  I’m wondering if we have to protect private parties that sign agreements from the terms of those agreements. I said some of these thigns in the committee discussion, and I voted against the bill, but I was the only one.  We do something similar for auto dealers, I was told.  So we should do the same here.  I guess I figure you take each policy in turn and do what you can to make things better one bill at a time.

House Political Subdivisions Standing Committee

H.B 82, Architect's Licensing Revisions

This is a minor change I was running, as requested by the State Architect Licensing Board in order to allow us to set the quantity of continuing education units by rule rather than statute so we can line our requirements up with an emerging national standard that will make it more straightforward to hold licenses in multiple states.  There was a fair amount of discussion and a few that were concerned about taking the number out of the statute, but ultimately the bill passed out favorably with only one dissenting vote.

House Revenue and Taxation Standing Committee

H.B. 81, City or Town Option Sales and Use Tax Amendments

This bill allows two communities—Riverdale and South Salt Lake—to continue levying a 0.20% sales tax that is currently set to expire in 2016.  This was part of a hold-harmless agreement put in place just a few years ago to complete the deal that changed the way sales tax was distributed to communities.  Communities that relied heavily on retail ended up losing revenues in the deal. 

The 0.20% additional levy was to help make that up, but it was thought that revenue growth would make this extra taxing authority unnecessary by 2016.  With the economy flagging, revenue growth is less sure.  Of course in pursuing more retail development, both Riverdale and South Salt Lake have offered incentives that may have impacted their current tax receipts negatively in the hopes of reaping larger rewards down the road.

Taking all these things into consideration, I couldn’t support extending this extra taxing opportunity indefinitely beyond 2016.  At some point, I believe communities must make the difficult choices to live within their means rather than rely on addition tax levies.  So I voted no.  Six others joined me in opposition, but the bill squeaked by.  It should be an interesting floor debate.

January 27, 2012—Day 5

None of my committees met today, but we debated several bills on the floor.

H.B. 250, Tax Credit for Dependent with a Disability

The debate on the floor didn’t bring anything new to light that affected the position I took on this bill in committee.  See my post for the Revenue and Taxation Committee meeting on the first day of the session.  I voted with the majority in favor of the bill, 47 to 21.  It now moves to the Senate.

H.B. 24, Health Insurance for School Districts

This bill requires school districts to rebid health insurance for district employees every three years in order to save money. (It was amended on the floor to five years.) This is the case of the legislature playing super school board. I guess the legislature has the authority to dictate one-size-fits-all solutions to school districts, but I don’t think it’s wise to exercise it. School districts are governed by elected school boards that have policy-making responsibility for what goes on in those districts. I believe school boards should also have the authority to do their job. I believe the closer decision-making authority is to the people affected by those decisions, the better.

There were many comments along these lines during floor debate. The bill sponsor clearly knows how to count, so he circled the bill. He’ll see if he can make changes or build support in some manner and try again later when he thinks he’s got a better chance. As it stands, I oppose this bill.

S.B. 125, State Senate Boundary Amendments

This bill includes the minor redistricting changes to senate districts that goes along with the house and school board changes we passed Thursday.  It was adopted unanimously.

H.B. 201, Utah State Winter Sports

This bill passed the House unanimously.  If the Senate follows suit, skiing and snowboarding will now be Utah’s official winter sports.  Our new state winter sports will take their rightful place along side our state flower (Sego Lily), our state cooking utensil (Dutch Oven), and our state gun . . . Oh please!

1st Sub. H.B. 29, Insurance Amendments

As I was reading through the arcane insurance terms in this 116 page bill, I wondered if this was the famously misplaced manuscript from 1829 and that the reason it was lost was that is was impossible to understand. Fortunately, the sponsor, Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, knows this stuff like the back of his hand. One of the things I think most of us learn to do is to find people in the body we can trust who have experience in a wide variety of fields. When we get out of our depth in dealing with the esoteric aspects of different aspects of the law and a variety of professional disciplines, we turn for guidance to those that have experience and whose judgment we’ve learned we can trust. That’s what we all did-on both sides of the aisle.  This bill passed 70 to 0.

Valley View Spelling Bee

This afternoon I had the privilege of being the pronouncer for the Valley View Elementary school-wide spelling bee.  I’m not sure I’ve ever used the word hircine in a sentence before.

And the pronunciation guide insisted I say ‘was ǝ bee rather than wa ‘saw bee, the way I am used to saying wasabi.  From the reaction of the parents watching, it felt as if I had just cast a vote people didn’t agree with, so I had to explain myself!

The kids were amazing.  We ran out of words and had to go dig out an old list to finish off the last four.

One Week Down!

So the first week is in the books.  More excitement to come, I’m sure!

January 26, 2012—Day 4

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

We spent most of the day working on an in-depth analysis of the Public Education budget.  We reviewed the changes that were made last year and the things that may need fixing this year.  In contrast to our last session, this time our base budget matches what we appropriated last year.  The only thing missing is one-time money used to fill a few gaps.  Those items funded last year with one-time money are not funded in the draft base budget because they did not have any ongoing revenue identified. 

So, for example, the Beverly Taylor Sorenson Art in Education program, which received one-time money last year is not funded in the base budget.  I’m sure someone will try to get some kind of funding for this program into the final budget, though.  For myself, I would rather provide flexible money to the State school board and ask them to do their job, as elected officials, of deciding how to spend it.  I don’t like the legislature earmarking things for special programs and micromanaging our school system.

Floor Time

H.B. 50, Repeal Of Election Campaign Fund And Related Tax Return Designation

Today the House voted to eliminate the income tax return checkoff where taxpayers can direct a couple of dollars to the political party of their choice when filling out their returns.  Checking the box doesn’t increase a taxpayer’s tax liability, so it’s a general public subsidy of political parties.  About $120,000 in tax revenues go to our political parties each year through this program.  The argument is that if the government funds, the government also controls.  Better to have the government out of it completely and avoid any potential oversight of political parties, which are ostensibly private organizations.

As a practical matter, if we go down this road, I think the next step may well be to eliminate public support of primary elections, which could be construed as party rather than public functions.  I question whether all currently viable political parties could muster the funding to run primaries in a way that is sufficiently open and transparent enough to guarantee universal voting rights.  Ultimately, the path we begin with this bill may lead to less access to the democratic process for some parties.  While those parties most at risk may not be my own, I think our system of government would be the poorer for not having sufficient access and participation by a wide variety of parties and interests.

Essentially what I am saying is that our society has an interest in multiple viable political parties.  It seems to me that a reasonable amount of public funding directed to parties based on the aggregated instructions of citizens expressed on their tax returns has more upside than down.  To me fair dealing and a reasonable chance for a seat at the table for a broad array of options is more important than angling for partisan advantage.  I voted against the bill, along with four other Republicans and all of the Democrats.  Nevertheless, it passed easily.

Redistricting Clean Up

We approved minor clean up legislation related to redistricting as requested by county clerks across the state to line up borders of districts with municipal and county lines.  About 37 residents are added to District 19 in the process.  If this change is adopted, the north border of my district will match the north border of Bountiful precisely.  And the west border picks up the back and forth jogs along 500 West that include a large number of cars and some retail establishments but not a single resident.  Becky Edwards was just fine letting go of that.  I actually wanted it just this way, but previously there was an effort to keep deviations from district to district to 20 or fewer residents.  With these changes, we’re letting a little common sense back in. Here’s a link if you want to look at the changes we are talking about:  http://www.redistrictutah.com/bills-passed-maps/redistricting-technical-changes.

Besides the house map, we also approved similar changes to the state school board map.  And we should get the senate map tomorrow.

House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee

H.B. 277, Graffiti Paraphernalia

This is one of the bills I’m sponsoring.  It brings our definition of graffiti up to date with the latest techniques taggers are using in other parts of the country.  Specifically, it adds the use of etching agents and things that chemically mar a surface to the definition of graffiti, where the law currently focuses on paint and markers and is silent on these newer things.  All of the juvenile justice and prosecutor groups endorsed the bill.  I presented for probably about a minute.  The committee had no questions.  They voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor with a positive recommendation.  Would that every bill was that easy.

House Transportation Standing Committee

One bill wanted to increase the speed limit in HOV lanes.  The Highway patrol brought up safety issues (for the trooper pulling someone over to the left against the Jersey barrier).  The committee voted to send the bill to Rules with a recommendation it be considered for interim study.

Another bill aimed to outlaw pedestrians on freeways, or at least on most freeways.  It listed the applicable places one by one.  So that would probably mean we’d have to change the statute every time UDOT built a new limited access road. And the public complained about the fact that in some instances there simply is not an alternate walking path available.  In those cases many felt there should be some provision to allow a person to walk along the shoulder.  Finally, there were questions about definitions.  What, for example, is a collector?  The bill sponsor said he was talking about the limited access collectors that run alongside the main freeway (as between the spaghetti bowl and 9th South in Salt Lake).  But collector also has a specific meaning among the hierarchy of major roadways that are not limited access expressways.  Such collectors, combined with arterials and neighborhood roads, create a grid of interconnected roadways and do not constitute freeways.  This bill had enough challenges that we voted to move to the next agenda item.

HB. 266, Driver Education Amendments

If you’re 18 and you don’t have a driver license, this bill makes a provision so you don’t have to take Driver’s Ed.  We amended the age to 19 so it wouldn’t include any high schoolers.  I was concerned that the bill requires a certain number of hours of experience, but the applicant just has to self-certify.  So I voted no, even though the rest of the committee approved.  Speaking with the sponsor, he’ll be fine if I offer an amendment requiring that those who accompanied the student driver during the 40 hours also sign a form (so we’re not relying on self-certification).

The public grants license in order to protect health, safety, and welfare.  If we allow someone just to say they met the experience requirement without any third-party validation, I don’t think we’re doing our due diligence.  The amendment is being drafted.

Blackhawk Down?

Finally, let me ask you about something that landed on my desk today.  It was an invitation from the Utah National Guard to join them on a Blackhawk helicopter flight.  Sounds pretty amazing.  But you see, one of the principles I do my best to live by is not to accept anything as a legislator that wouldn’t be offered to me as a private citizen.  That line of thinking with respect to this invitation gave me an idea:

Instead of accepting the invitation, what I’ll do is ask the Utah National Guard whether they would extend such an invitation to a citizen of my district.  If they are willing to do that, I’ll ask for volunteers (here, in email, and on my Facebook page).  If more than one is interested, I’ll draw names out of a hat.  Then I’ll ask that individual to go on the tour as my eyes and ears and report back to me what he or she learns.

How does that sound?  Give me your thoughts at jimnielson@le.utah.gov.  I’ll let you know whether the Guard agrees with this idea.

January 25, 2012—Day 3

Floor Time

H.B. 22, Centralized New Hire Registry Act Amendments

To make things interesting right from the get go, we started floor time by reconsidering a bill we voted down yesterday.  Yesterday it failed miserably, 50 to 18.  Today it passed 39 to 33.  So in some things you get do-overs.

I remember yesterday when this bill failed I came in late in the voting because I was talking with someone in the lobby.  I had decided before the bill came up that I would support it.  However the board was filled with red when I cast my yes vote.  Half of the yes votes were Democrats. There was nothing particularly objectionable in the bill, but somehow during the floor debate things got off on the wrong footing and the wrong impression was created.  So the bill went down hard.  One of the people that had opposed the bill yesterday had a change or heart; he is the one that brought the bill back for reconsideration.  Presented well, and with the right information, the bill succeeded.

Although I’m sure not everyone does, I find this stuff fascinating.

H.B. 35, Extension of Recycling Market Development Zone Tax Credits

I suspect the Democrat Minority Leader, David Litvak, knew he couldn’t stop this bill. In fact, he ended voting in favor of it, but he tried to amend the bill so that this program would only be reauthorized for five years rather than 10.  His amendment failed. The bill then passed after a healthy debate. This is an economic development program that supports metal recycling efforts by two or three dozen Utah companies. One of the largest participants is Nucor Steel in Box Elder County.  I voted for it because it is not a subsidy; it’s an incentive.  It has worked well for 20 years or more. It allows companies a small credit for capital improvements.  And it fosters good jobs.  I think it pays for itself through revenues generated though expanded employment.

House Revenue and Taxation Committee

My severance tax trust fund reform bills were up first.  They took the bulk of the meeting.

H.B. 210, Severance Tax Amendments and
H.J.R 6, Joint Resolution on Severance Tax

This is one you might want to listen to online.  The debate was fascinating.  There was public opposition by the UEA and Voices for Utah Children.  We also had good support by the Utah Taxpayers Association and from Ron Mortensen and his foundation for Tax Fairness.  There were many questions and a lot of back and forth.  The bills both passed along party lines and will be heard next in the House.  We may add an amendment there to consider phasing things in over a longer time.  The UEA representative that spoke used the term dramatic, as in we don’t need to do something quite this dramatic.  I think the extended committee discussion demonstrated that this is dramatic, decisive action.  I also believe it is warranted.  It was very gratifying to receive every Republican vote. Kudos to Representative Eric Hutchings, who gave an eloquent and compelling speech as part of his motion to move this to the floor with a favorable recommendation.  I think he just may have swung one or two of our fellow Republicans that may have been on the fence.

I imagine I came across as reasonably well composed in my presentation, but finally, when I went back to my seat after the final vote, I noticed that it took several minutes for my adrenaline to stop rushing.  You see, this is my highest priority bill this session.  As I said to the committee (and I don’t think this is an exaggeration) I believe if we pass severance tax trust fund reform, it will be the most important thing we do this session.

Now I haven’t said anything about the bill.  I’ve gone into that in other places.  As noted previously, I wrote a guest editorial on the subject in the Deseret News a couple of weeks ago.  That column lays out the proposed legislation about as simply as I know how to do it, so here’s a link if want to read it.

Town Hall Meeting

We competed with the Governor’s State of the State address this evening and still had a great crowd.  Representative Becky Edwards, Senator Todd Weiler, and I met with maybe 75 people in the Bountiful Library Auditorium.  We told them a little about what we’re up to.  They shared information and experiences with us and asked us questions.

I am grateful to the people of Bountiful for your involvement and for making it possible to serve.  It is an honor and a privilege.

Note for anyone that missed the Governor’s address (such as those that attended our town hall meeting).  The speech is printed in its entirety in the House Journal entry for today at http://le.utah.gov/~2012/journal/h0003.pdf.  Governor Herbert’s message begins on page 139.

January 24, 2012—Day 2

Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee

We had a brief discussion about the base budget and then pretty much devoted the rest of the committee meeting to a discussion about the interplay between funding for Utah College of Applied Technology institutions (Applied Technology Colleges or ATCs) and the impact on public school funding when students leave their school and enroll in ATC courses.

As things were until last year, public schools received full funding for students taking ATC courses off campus. At the same time, ATCs also received state funding through the Utah System of Higher Education to cover the cost of providing the concurrent enrollment coursework these students received free of charge. The sense of the legislature was that we were paying for the student as if he or she were still taking a course at the public school and then paying once again for instruction at an ATC.

So last year we changed it and deducted a pro-rated portion of the funding for the school when a student left to take an ATC course.  Some schools, then, decided to discourage or prevent students from taking courses at an ATC. The sense is with the new incentive they will focus on offering career and technical educational (CTE) courses on their own rather than send students to an ATC and lose funding. (There is an additional pot of money for CTE courses schools can access if they develop such programs in-house.)

Complicated enough?

Well we heard two proposals, one from the head of UCAT and one from the State Superintendent of Public Schools. Both involve spending more money.  Both would really prefer we just go back to where we were when we paid the full rate for each students even when they left campus and we still funded the ATC programs separately. Senator Stephenson advanced one more idea that at least deserves some consideration. What if we said that CTE add-on funding for school districts would only be available for programs that were not otherwise provided with sufficient capacity at a nearby Applied Technology Campus?

Clearly this is something we’ll spend more time on this session.

Floor Time

We spent a couple hours on the floor this morning and took action on our first group of bills.

H.B. 25, Patient Identity Validation

This bill allows healthcare providers to work together confidentially to build and maintain a system that will help them establish or confirm the identity of patients with more certainty. It will cost about $300,000. This bill generated vigorous debate on the floor, particularly on the subject of whether it was the proper role to government to be involved in this endeavor. Existing federal privacy laws make it impossible for the private sector to do this on its own, which I believe would be preferable (if it were feasible). As a practical matter, I voted for it (along with 51 out of 68 of my colleagues). There isn’t a way we could accomplish this needed reform without the government being involved.

House Transportation Standing Committee

In our Transporation Committee meeting this afternoon, we dealt with two minor bills, one about temporary driver licenses and one giving authority to the State Tax Commission to reduce or waive motor vehicle business regulation penalties within reason (much as they currently do with tax liabilities). Both bills passed out of committee by unanimous vote. Nothing controversial here!

Day 2 is in the books.

January 23, 2012—First Day of Session

Opening Ceremonies & State of the Judiciary

We had the usual prayer, pledge, and swearings in.  Add to that a phenomenal performance of the National Anthem and two other patriotic hymns by a Provo High School choir.  And then there was the announcement by Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham that she is stepping down as chief justice a the end of March.  She'll stay on the court. 

In her State of the Judiciary Address, Chief Justice Durham did tell about a conversation she had years ago with justices from the former Soviet Union.  She told them how our system works and asked about theirs.  They called their system telephone justice.  Their typical approach was to hear a case and them wait for a telephone call from a politician telling them how to rule.  She told us not to get any ideas.

After all the formalities, we got underway with our first round of committee meetings.

House Revenue and Taxation Committee

We reviewed some pretty interesting bills in committee this afternoon.  On some of them, I could have gone either way.

H.B. 31, Taxes and Fees on Emergency Medical Aircraft

This bill changes the fees imposed on helicopters used by a tax-exempt entity, or helicopters used for the emergency transportation of medical patients.  The bill reduces revenue by $9,800 annually.  Aircraft fees are charged in order to defray airport costs; however the medical aircraft targeted by this bill don't use airports and are not garaged there.  They typically stay at hospital helipads.  It seems reasonable not to charge a fee for services these aircraft don't use.  The committee voted unanimously to pass this bill on to the full house with a favorable recommendation.

H.B. 41, Property Taxation of Business Personal Property

This bill increases the property tax exemption for business personal property several fold to $25,000.  The idea is to reduce the burden for businesses that have less than that amount of personal property, such as computers, desks, and office equipment.  Enactment of this bill is anticipated to result in a $12 million shift in property tax revenues between taxpayers. Those taxpayers with business personal property will see a decrease in taxes paid while all paying property taxes on real property will see a small increase.  As a small business owner that watched an auditor come in and come over our books for three or four days just to verify that we had all of our personal property accounted for, I see the value of this bill.  There turned out to be a small problem with the definitions in the bill, so the committee put the bill on hold and moved on to the next agenda item.

H.B. 42, Permanent Community Impact Fund Board Grants

This bill makes arrangements for the Community Impact Board to forgive the debt one Utah community can't repay due to changes in the way the State distributes sales taxes.  A few years ago, this community entered into a bond for public purposes.  They were confident in their ability to borrow because of a long history of consistent tax revenues.

A few years ago, changes in state tax policy had the unintended consequence of reducing that revenue stream to just a fraction of what it had been.  This community has tightened its belt significantly, but it has no hope of ever repaying its loan under the new rules.

The state changed the rules after the game has been played.  I agree the state should make the community whole.  That involves forgiving the $1.1 million debt.  Otherwise, the state may be stuck picking up the pieces when the community goes bankrupt.  I voted with the majority to forward this bill to the floor with a favorable recommendation.

H.B. 35, Extension of Recycling Market Development Zone Tax Credits

This bill extends the recycling market development zone tax credits from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021.  According to the fiscal note, enactment of this bill could reduce revenue to the Education Fund by $2,100,000 annually beginning in FY 2013.  That's not a new reduction in overall revenues.  Although one time money has most recently been used to eliminate the impact on the education fund, the overall drop in revenues has been the same.

This bill provides incentives that help fund a portion of capital costs for companies involved in recycling steel.  These capital investments have a proven record of creating jobs.  It passes the test of being an incentive, not a subsidy.  I voted with the majority recommend the bill to the whole house.

H.B. 50, Repeal of Election Campaign Fund and Relate Tax Return Designation

This bill repeals a contribution to the Election Campaign Fund that may be designated on an income tax refund, and it repeals the Election Campaign Fund itself.  According to the fiscal note, enactment of this bill would repeal an existing transfer of approximately $120,000 per year from the General Fund to the Election Campaign Fund.  These funds are distributed to political parties.

Does it make sense for public funds to flow to political parties, which are private organizations.  On the one hand, one may argue that the public has an interest in functioning political parties.  If we take this step, will the next step be to stop using public money to fund primary elections?  That could be an extreme financial challenge to parties.

The other side of the coin is the argument that what the state funds the state controls.  Some of the movement to change our parties' nominating system is based on the notion that since state money is involved, the state has a right to require changes.  We certainly see evidence of money with strings attached from the way our Federal government treats states.

I thought hard about this one but ultimately ended up voting against the change.  You may not agree with me, but I believe much of the stability of our government is a result of strong political parties.  Think Italy and splinter parties if you want to understand what I mean.  I do not want to do anything that would diminish the stability that comes from solid political parties.

I ended up voting with the Democrats.  I think they are worried they won't be able to make up the money.  I think I was voting more on prinicple, but the majority sent the bill on to the full house with a favorable recommendation.  I suppose if you just look at this in terms of partisan advantage, it will be easier for Utah Republicans to replace the reduced funding than for Democrats.

H.B. 250, Tax Credit for Dependent with a Disability

This bill allows a tax credit for a dependent with a disability.  A claimant could deduct an additional 75% for each dependent with a disability.  According to the fiscal note, enactment of the bill could reduce revenue to the Education Fund by $765,000 in FY 2013 and by $781,000 in FY 2014.

This was one of the tax credits that was eliminated when we adopted our modified flat income tax in Utah.  The sponsor's argument is that since we haven't gotten rid of all of the tax credits and deductions, this is an important one we ought to put back in.

A member of the public argued that we were asking the state to take over what should be a personal responsibility.  I don't see it that way.  This is a non-refundable tax credit, which means the taxpayer can only offset taxes he or she would otherwise be paying.  The state isn't giving the taxpayer anything; rather it is refraining from taking as much as it otherwise would without the credit.  It's leaving more of the taxpayer's money in his/her pocket.  And we're talking about the pockets of someone with very limited ability to pay.  I believe fundamentally that we should not expect those with very limited means (such as those with large families) to pay as much in taxes as those with more resources.

Accordingly I, along with all present, voted to pass the bill along to the full House with a favorable recommendation.

We did not get to my bills, which were at the bottom of the agenda.  The meeting went more than a half hour long as it was.

And that was the first day of the 2012 General Session.