Becky Edwards

Hurry Up and Wait

Becky — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:50:46 +0000

I have four bills sitting in the Senate. We worked hard on these bills and with a sense of urgency to get them out of the House so they could move to the Senate. And now they sit. If you’re interested in refinery safety–HB 169, recycling of electronic devices–HB 153, autism license plates–HB 327, or air quality–HB 456, please let the Senate know you want them to hear these bills! The clock is ticking.

Legislative Wrap-Up Town Hall Meeting

Becky — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:47:13 +0000

On Thursday, March 18, 7:00 pm, Sen. Dan Liljenquist and I will be hosting a legislative wrap-up town hall meeting. It will be held at the Spectrum Academy Charter School, 575 N. Cutler Drive, North Salt Lake. Directions: turn West off Redwood Road at 600 N., then left onto Cutler Drive at the first roundabout). We’ll be discussing issues and bills we were involved with and goals we’re continuing to address. Your concerns and input are vital to this process and we encourage your attendance. It has been great to have so much participation from many of you during the session and we welcome a continuation of that as we move on. Hope to see you there!

A Starting Point Is Just a Starting Point

Becky — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:42:30 +0000

Several weeks ago we worked on a budget proposal based on the recommendations of the various appropriations committees. That has turned out to be very much a starting point for many conversations and negotiations since that point. Today the last piece of the puzzle fell into place as we were able to address the funding for public education. While we are not funding for new growth (debate continues as to whether this is a “real” cut or not–either way it is important to recognize that fully funding for new growth would require $75 million so you come to your own conclusions as to what it really means when we say we’re “holding education harmless” and still not funding growth) a conversation has been taking place over the past couple of days over if additional cuts would need to be made in public education. Somewhere in the ballpark of $21 million. As a frame of reference, last year $293 million was cut from public education. We then backfilled that money and have converted that to on-going. The total real cut seen last year was around 5% and for this year it is an additional 1.5%. The Senate is standing strong on two things: no additional dipping into the Rainy Day fund which currently sits at $210 million and exacting a $21 million additional cuts to public education, which translates into a 2% cut. After hours of caucus discussion yesterday and today we finally achieved a caucus position on restoring the proposed $6.3 million for public education transportation from the tobacco trust fund. Translation: public education sustained a $13.8 million cut, which brings their two year total to 6.5%. We’re hoping House leadership can achieve some consensus from the Senate leadership on this budget proposal.

Two for Two

Becky — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:56:35 +0000

This morning I was able to pass out two of my bills from the House. HB 153, “Recycling of Electronic Items,” and HB 169, “Refinery Amendments,” are now in the possession of the Senate. The recycling bill involved a lot of questions from the House body, but did pass which was very gratifying after the considerable efforts of so many who’ve been involved with the recommendations that served as the framework for this bill. The refinery bill received more immediate support and passed quite easily. Other items of note today include the second caucus lunch/meeting of the week. Each day this week we are meeting during lunch as a Republican caucus to discuss and finalize the budget. House leadership has been given the responsibility to find a way to remove the latest $21 million cut to public education. The next step of that will be getting buy in from the Senate and the Governor, which is not as easy as it may sound. From here on out the House will only hear Senate bills and the Senate will only hear House bills. Rumor has it we don’t have as many bills as in years past and we may not be going as late on Thursday night. Just once I want to be serving when we go down to the wire at midnight, but it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be this year.

Neighborhood Caucus Meetings

Becky — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:10:34 +0000

On March 23 you will have your first formal opportunity to make a political difference in 2010 by attending your Neighborhood Caucus Meeting. These meetings are where citizens in neighborhoods get together and elect state and county delegates who attend the state or county conventions and vote on candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. This really is the first building block of the election process in Utah and a great place for you to get involved.

All the Neighborhood Caucus Meetings in the state are held the same night, March 23. The locations vary based on area and party. I’ve included that information below.

District 20 Republicans:

For those with Bountiful addresses:
South Davis Jr. High School — 7:00 PM
298 W. 2600 S.
Bountiful

For those with North Salt Lake addresses:
Orchard Elementary — 7:00 PM
205 E. Center Street
North Salt Lake

For those with Salt Lake City addresses:
Backman Elementary — 7:00 PM
601 N. 1500 W.
Salt Lake City

District 20 Democrats:

For those with Bountiful or North Salt Lake addresses:
Foxboro Elementary — 7:00 PM
587 Foxboro Drive
North Salt Lake

For those with Salt Lake City addresses:
Rose Park Elementary — 6:30 PM (note the start time)
1105 W. 1000 N.
Salt Lake City

Voter registration and party affiliation can be done at the Caucus meetings. Please make an effort to attend, take a few friends with you, and consider running for a delegate position. It only requires a few hours of your time, yet as a delegate you’ll have a major influence on Utah’s political future. Let me know if you need more information or would like a lawn sign advertising the Neighborhood Caucus Meeting in your area of District 20. Thanks!

Bagels and Budget

Becky — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:57:32 +0000

Thanks to those who came to the “Bagels and Briefings” today. Our discussion centered on the most recent version of the proposed FY 2011 budget and the tax structure in Utah. It is always great to have these opportunities to discuss issues with interested constituents. Hope to see you again at the Legislative wrap up meeting in a few weeks that will follow the end of the session.

Budget adjustments made by the Executive Appropriations Committee and discussed on Thursday afternoon in our Republican caucus can be found at this link:

http://le.utah.gov/interim/2010/pdf/00000510.pdf

Some other useful links are available now. A very helpful chart describing the changes to the URS system can be found here:

http://le.utah.gov/lrgc/2010retirementbenefitstable.pdf

Most recent budget changes for FY 2011 (including the anticipated $43M additional revenue anticipated from the tobacco tax) can be found here:

http://le.utah.gov/interim/2010/pdf/00000510.pdf

As you look at the budgets for each appropriations committee the area at the top that is highlighted indicates the cuts from last year that have already been made. The lighter highlighted section at the bottom of each budget category indicates the areas not considered by the appropriations committee, but still receiving review for possible additional funding. The un-highlighted section of each category represents the recommendations of the appropriations committee. You will note areas of proposed budget restorations, both using one-time and on-going money (columns Q and R). If you have questions, please let me know and I’ll try to answer them. This was the topic of our spirited “Bagels and Briefings” this morning. One thing you will note is that in this proposal Public Education takes a $21M additional cut, beyond the cuts inherent in our not funding for growth (funding for growth would require $75M). Know this represents a utilization of about half the Rainy Day funds, leaving $210M in the Fund.

The Wheels on the Bus Only Go Around So Far

Becky — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:07:32 +0000

HB 166 is an attempt to remove state mandates on local school districts, provides more flexibility and control for districts in the difficult economic situation we’re in right now, and lifts these mandates for two years. For instance, the bill removes mandates for certain exams, like the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test and other achievement tests for two years. Another mandate that has been removed deals with the busing qualifications for students. Elementary school students qualifications for busing will not change, they will remain at a 1.5 mile perimeter of the school. The bill states that for secondary students (Jr. and High schools) it will change from a 2 mile to 3 mile perimeter. That has brought a lot of attention and comment about the burden that will place on families and students, including concerns of safety of students walking to school to pollution concerns with additional cars on the road. The bill passed out of the House and is headed to the Senate. I spoke with the bill sponsor today who confirmed the language in the bill dealing with the busing will be amended in preparation for the presentation to the Senate and will maintain the current levels for Jr. High students, 2 miles, and only change High School students to the 3 miles. Again, this is for a two year period and the local school districts still have the flexibility to continue busing students within that 2-3 mile zone if they wish. I’d be interested to hear how folks feel about this bill and in general the idea that the state should give more control and flexibility to local school districts.

A Legislative “Do Over”

Becky — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:06:13 +0000

We passed a bill today that within minutes had caused quite a stir. Not from the media or constituents, but from within our own body as some of us began to realize what we had just voted on. It was SB 119, Sen. Stephenson. The bill was presented by the House sponsor, Rep. Morley, and his entire presentation of the bill is as follows, “The intent of this bill is to help or at least encourage the most participation possible when taking on new debt in local legislative bodies.” There was no public debate and we went straight to a vote. It passed 41-22, with my yes vote, which was a mistake. It was after the vote that some of us realized this was not the “simple bill to encourage participation” that had been purported in the presentation. In fact it does two things that greatly impact a school district’s functioning: 1) requires that an election for a bond, levy, leeway, or sales tax issue requires a 2/3 majority vote of the local legislative body, and 2) limits the date of a special election called by a local school board to the general election day in November (now it can happen in June or November) except for a vote on a voted leeway or when creating a new school district. These are things that impact school districts tremendously and place tighter restrictions on their ability to make decisions. So, the process for reconsidering the bill was put into place. Basically what happens in that case is that a person who voted on the prevailing side (yes) requests from the speaker “under suspension of the rules that we reconsider” the bill in question. That is placed to a vote of the body. In this case, there were more than enough votes to bring this bill back to us for a reconsidered vote. Reconsidering a vote is very rare, and although someone spoke against bringing it back saying doing so would create a negative perception from the public, I believe the public would rather have legislators admit when as a body we’ve made a bad vote, either by inattentiveness or lack of preparation, and rectify the situation before we enact into law a flawed bill. This was one of those cases. This bill was circled once it was brought back to the reading calendar and it is being worked on for a possible amendment in preparation for the next presentation. A legislative do-over. And I appreciate the mechanism we have in place in the legislature that allows this.

SB 275 — Signature Removal from Initiatives

Becky — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:31:55 +0000

We just voted on 2nd Substitute, SB 275, “Removing Signatures from Intiative and Referendum Petition,” Sen. Howard Stephenson. This is a bill allows an easier process for people to remove their names from a petition for an initiative or referendum. It also allowed that if this bill received 50 votes or more then the effective date would be immediate. Let me clarify my vote on this bill, which was no.
1. I am supportive of making the standard for removal of a name a less onerous process. To require a notary to remove one’s name is a difficult and in some rural situations, an unworkable situation. This aspect of the bill just makes removal more in line with the level of ease one has when they add their name to a petition. It is a good idea.
2. The date for which petitions must be submitted to the county clerk’s office is April 15th. This bill provides that people can remove their names until May 15th. This is akin to a soccer game ending, stoppage time being added and only one team gets to go back out to play. The list of petition signers becomes public upon submission to the county clerk, so from April 15th to May 15th opposers of an initiative can continue to contact those in critical areas and encourage them to remove their names. Remember the bar for signature gathering is set fairly high already, with 26 of 29 counties being required to gather a percentage of the people who have voted in the last gubernatorial election. In some rural counties it would not be difficult for some dedicated folks opposed to a petition to lobby citizens to remove their names, therefore upsetting the petition’s compliance with initiative requirements. That being said, I can live with this part of the bill. This does not prevent or speak directly to people either supporting or opposing a particular initiative or referendum from shoring up their side of the argument during that month time. The supporters could work to maintain the signatures they have and the opposers could work to remove the signatures. It seems like a set up for an invigorating four weeks. I would still support the bill with this language.

3. With a 2/3 vote of the legislature this bill goes into effect immediately. This is where the bill lost my support. I find it extremely troublesome to change the rules in the middle of the game. Specifically we have two initiatives in process now. They have been proceeding in good faith under one set of requirements. To change this for them in the middle of their efforts seems a direct attack on these two particular initiatives. As legislators we should make decisions based on good policy, and remove ourselves from the temptation to block a process that is being legally followed by a group whose ideas we do not support. Regardless of the support or opposition we as legislators have for the two current initiatives, it is not fair and good policy to change the policy in the middle of the process and that appears to be at least somewhat based in bias against the concepts within the initiatives.

Bottom line: I support the initiative process. And I believe the process could be improved by the provisions included in this bill allowing a greater ease to remove names from the petition. I also could support the changes in dates as described earlier. However, I just could not support the immediate enactment. Without the removal of that aspect of the bill, I simply could not support it.

However, it passed, 50-24. As such this bill will take effect upon approval by the governor.

**NOTE: I appreciate the correction on the initiative process I just received from Bob Bernick that are included in his comment below. The law for signature collections actually requires that 10% of voter signatures must be collected in 26 of 29 Senate districts, NOT counties.

Ending with a Bang not a Whimper

Becky — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:38:16 +0000

Our last Education Committee meeting was held today. We had seven bills on the agenda and ended up hearing five before we had to adjourn to go to the floor. Just to give you a sense for the kinds of issues being brought to this particular committee, I’ll share those we ended the 2010 session with:

HB 149 – School Finance Amendments, Rep. Ron Bigelow
This is a bill that focuses on providing flexibility for small schools and charters by allowing them to combine funds for certain programs that receive less than $10,000 with funds from other programs. It also removes a statutory cap on the maximum number of students that may be enrolled in charter schools now. Previously enrollment was based on a formula, now it will be based on funding. There are 70 charters in the state now.

HB 433 – Foreign Exchange Student Amendments, Rep. Carl Wimmer
This bill clarifies the rules for allowing a foreign exchange student to enroll in a Utah school, especially when that accepting school is overcrowded. It provides that if a foreign exchange student is simply trading places with a regular student from that school who is going to school in a foreign country then that one to one exchange allows the trade. Currently Rotary International is the main program who does this student to student exchange. As a note, foreign exchange students pay a tuition to attend our schools.

HB 295 – Expanded Uses of School District Property Tax Revenue, Rep. Ken Sumsion
This bill allows a district for two years to transfer excess or unused funds in capital outlay to be used for maintenance and operations, however not for debt services. This is an attempt to bridge the structural imbalance between capital outlay and maintenance and operations budgets. For instance, the $10-11 million Jordan School District currently has in their capital outlay “bucket” could be used to offset their maintenance and operations shortfall, i.e. teacher shortage. This bill provides the ultimate local control. And it mirrors what happens currently in charter schools, they get one funding stream to do with as they wish. Districts are held to specific streams of funding that are to go to specific programs. This is a move in the right direction and could really help many school districts, specifically it will free up $10-11 million in Jordan School District alone. I wonder if I’ll get 1672 emails on this bill as it moves along? Maybe just 836 thanking us for providing this level of flexibility for that school district.

HB 137 – Public School Funding, Rep. Wayne Harper
This is an 89 page bill that changes considerably the funding streams for public education. It replaces a large portion of property tax and replaces it with sales tax. It begins as a revenue neutral shift of taxes, but down the road truth in taxation would be required if the school district needed or wanted to increase the taxes. The concern is the volatility of the sales tax vs. the stability of the property tax. While property tax is typically the most hated tax of the three main taxes: income, property, and sales, it is also the most stable. Sales tax varies considerably with the economy. The bill sponsor argued that education needs the flexibility businesses have and that in the end “all three legs of the stool” are still being paid for by the consumer. Another key point is that the increase in these funds would be distributed 100% across the state.

I think I’ll leave it at that, but you get the gist of this. Complex bills receiving a thorough discussion by the members of the committee and always enhanced by spirited public comment. We definitely ended with a bang. I will miss this committee.