« November 2005 | Main | May 2006 »

February 24, 2006

Civility

During Utah’s legislative session things move fast. Thankfully, each weekend provides an opportunity to reflect on the previous week’s happenings. This weekend, I came to the conclusion that we can do better.

Let me share some of my perspective. It is an honor to serve in the Legislature. I know my colleagues feel the same way. We realize our friends, neighbors and constituents put trust in us to serve with integrity. And we hope they realize we can’t satisfy every person in our districts, but we try to debate and vote with respect for the process and for the state. But, sometimes we may take for granted the great responsibility that has been given to us by the public.

In an article in the February 17th Deseret Morning News Bob Bernick, Jr. shared his thoughts about some bad legislative behavior. Referring to comments directed at the media during a committee meeting he wrote, “Unfortunately, over the 25 years I’ve covered the Legislature such bashing-matches are happening more and more. Leaders are doing nothing to stop it; in fact sometimes they seem to fuel the attacks. Civility is not the legislators’ strong suit.” This quote struck me not only because I’m a legislator, but because I am also one of the leaders about which he is writing.

You may think I am going to vehemently object to Mr. Bernick’s comments but I am not. Bob is right. We have lost civility. Not just at the Legislature but as a society in general.

Legislators, believe it or not, are recipients of as much if not more civil-less behavior than most. Even one of the examples Bob wrote about in his article last week to show the Legislature’s lack of civility could be looked at in a different light. The article mentioned that the chairman of a legislative committee hearing cut off a citizen witness for pointing-out the conflicts of interest of two committee members. And while it is correct that the chairman finally did cut-off debate, it was only after another member of the committee raised a "point of order" that the citizen had gotten way out of line.

First, the citizen confused Rep. Dave Clark with a Mr. "Dave Clark" who works for Intermountain Healthcare (Rep. Clark is a banker) – and then proceeded to vociferously attack Rep. Clark. Second, the citizen violated the very rules of civility that Mr. Bernick’s column argues for. Instead of speaking to the legislation at hand, he spent his entire time personally attacking three (not two) members of the committee.

Just as the Legislature could be more civil, so could the public.

That being said, legislators are elected offices entrusted by the public and we simply need to do better. As the Majority Leader I understand that I must help bring civility back into the legislative process.

Civility is showing courtesy or being polite to another person. We all know that in our world there is not much civility anywhere. More and more people are expecting more of others and giving less of themselves. It is as though we are driven by having the last word.

I’ve always appreciated what President Gordon B. Hinckley has said about Civility. "Civility carries with it the essence of courtesy, politeness, and consideration of others. All of the education and accomplishments in the world will not count for much unless they are accompanied by marks of gentility, of respect for others, of going the extra mile.”

In a much earlier time President George Washington wrote a book about the rules of civility. Two of those rules seem particularly applicable to our present discussion: every action in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those present and show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another, though he were your enemy.

I regret that sometimes, as legislators, we get so involved in the work at the Capitol that we take our responsibilities for granted. Because there are so many people who want to talk with us and need our help we begin to think we are more important than we really are. Sometimes we forget that if we weren’t legislators nobody would care who we are and in fact most people don’t now.

I don’t always agree with what Bob Bernick has to say, and he knows that. But this time I have to thank him for the wake-up call. As leaders in the Legislature it is time for us to lead and help the House and Senate develop a greater respect for their positions and for the people we serve. Consider that my pledge.

Posted by Jeff at 05:37 PM | Comments (1)

February 17, 2006

Getting Along Isn't Always Best

It is always very interesting to hear the reactions from the public when the Legislature is in session and it appears there is not agreement between the House, Senate and the Governor.

To people looking in from the outside it may seem like there are a bunch of egoes holding up the process. But from the inside we see the democratic system working just the way it is supposed to.

The House of Representatives is different from the Senate in many ways. In the House there are 75 members who are elected every two years. In the Senate there are only 29 members who are elected every four years. In many ways the House members have a stronger pulse on their consitituencies because we are elected more often and represnt smaller districts. But because the House has so many members it takes longer for us to come to a consensus on issues. The Senate, with its fewer numbers, can meet in smaller groups and make decisions without as much debate.

One body is no better than the other. They just work differently. If the House and Senate always agreed straight out of the shoot the public would not be well served. It is with hard questions and strong debate that good ideas become stronger and from which the best decisions are made.

The next time you hear that the Legislature isn't getting along try and look at it a little differently. You might just agree that disagreement can sometimes be for the best.

Posted by Jeff at 09:13 AM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2006

Show Me the Money!

I attended a business association meeting recently where I heard an erroneous reference to the state's billion dollar surplus. This is not uncommon.

Many people I speak with, including constituents, quote the same information and attribute it to the news media. The problem is, we really don't have that kind of surplus.

So if the reports are wrong, what's right?

Here's how the money really breaks down; we do have total revenues of one billion dollars. But what we don't have is a billion extra!

The one billion dollars everyone is talking about is really the $640 M we have counted on for the 2007 budget plus surplus money. So where did the surplus come from? In 2005 and 2006 we budgeted based on the assumption that the state would collect $528 M in revenue for those years. As it turned out, more money came into the state coffers than expected so now we have surplus money – kind of like a bonus.

It is important to recognize that the surplus funds are only available once. Why does this make a difference? Simply stated, most programs and services are ongoing and need ongoing money. Can you imagine if the state paid employees or funded education with money we only have this year?

I'm not trying to minimize the fact that we have unprecedented amounts of revenue because we do. But with that, we need to talk truth about the numbers and recognize the limits of surplus money.

Posted by Jeff at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2006

The Education Fund

Much confusion exists in this state over how funds for education are appropriated. HB 294 seeks to eliminate much of this confusion through the creation of the Education Fund.

In 1996 the citizens of the State of Utah voted to amend the constitution to allow all income tax revenue to be earmarked for education. Prior to that vote income tax revenue was used only to fund public education. Because income tax revenues were growing much faster than the sales tax revenue it became necessary to ask the citizens if they would agree to allow income tax to also fund higher education. The measure passed and since that time just over 10% of the income tax revenue has been used to help fund higher education.

This year a new fund is being created under HB 294 to help people better understand how the funds for education are appropriated. Most people involved in education have misunderstood how the funds are allocated. Today the income tax revenues are split between public education (Uniform School Fund) and higher education. Therein lies the confusion. According to the Utah Constitution the Uniform School Fund can only be spent on public education. Many believe that all income tax revenues flow straight to the Uniform School Fund and that the legislature has been illegally funneling money to higher education. In reality the income tax dollars flow to both higher education and the Uniform School Fund.

The creation of the Education Fund should eliminate much of this confusion. Under this system, all income tax revenues would initially be received in the Education Fund. The legislature would then appropriate funds from the Education Fund to the Uniform School Fund and higher education. All revenue from the Uniform School Fund would still flow straight to public education, just like it always has.

Posted by Jeff at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)

February 06, 2006

Lobbyist Disclosure

One of the issues that caught the attention of many - including the media - the first week of the session was lobbyist reform.

As the sponsor of a bill that dealt with this very issue, I was very encouraged when the House passed it the first week. Of course there were some who thought it should have gone further, but nonetheless the bill makes major changes for lobbyists and legislators. For instance, if a lobbyist were to offer a legislator a ticket to an event the ticket would have to be disclosed, by the legislator's name, if the purchase is above $5. Included in the bill is also new language to tighten up conflicts of interest for lobbyists.

As important as the media made the bill that first week of the session it would appear that it isn't very important now - to some that is. The lobbyist disclosure bill has been in the Senate's possession for over two weeks and no action has been taken yet. The House felt the legislation was so important we wanted to get it to the Senate early so they could have good debate. So where is all of the debate?

Although the media is one of the groups wishing the bill went farther, they have said that reform on disclosure is still very important. So where is the media today? If the issue was really as important to the public as the media reports it is (and I think it is), I wonder why they have given the Senate a pass on this important issue. I say put your ink where your mouth is and let the Senate know their inaction hasn't gone unnoticed!

Posted by Jeff at 04:09 PM | Comments (0)