Becky Edwards

We’ve just finished our floor time for the day/night. Because today is the last day we can hear House bills we were greatly interested in hearing all bills remaining on our third calendar. The House will only hear Senate bills for the next 3 days and the Senate will only hear House bills for the next 3 days. Several interesting things tonight:
1. World’s fastest bill presentation award goes to Rep. Kraig Powell for his HB 320, 4-H Special Group License Plate. His entire bill presentation came in under a minute. If every bill went this quickly we wouldn’t still be here at 11:00 pm!
2. It was a night of 1000 “do-overs.” Motions to reconsider were the theme for the night, with several bills being heard several times, even after defeat. Some were passed after being defeated the first time and others were defeated a second time.
We’re done for tonight, but will be back first thing tomorrow morning bright and early. Three more full days ahead of us!

This afternoon the House recalled HB 477. Emails from many constituents across our District expressing frustration and disappointment with the process and/or policy involved in the passage of this bill contributed to my support of the recall. You can read my previous post on GRAMA to understand how I came to my original yes vote, although I share the frustration of many over the expedited process. I am pleased we will have an opportunity to hear this bill more extensively and to include the public in the debate. So what will happen now? The bill has been amended to include a delayed implementation date of July 1, 2011. Prior to that date a working group consisting of legislators from the House and Senate, representatives from the Governor’s office, and other stakeholders will meet to reconsider the bill. We will involve the public in these meetings and hope we can find a positive solution. A special session will be held prior to July 1 and any amendments to the bill will be voted on at that point. Constituent feedback was an important part of achieving this recall. I appreciate the input of so many on this and other issues.

Here is a link to the KSL story regarding the recall:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14636065

Deseret News HB 477 recall story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705368138/Utah-lawmakers-recall-and-amend-controversial-records-bill-for-further-study.html

SL Trib story:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51380413-76/bill-census-concerns-herbert.html.csp

I have received many emails in the past couple of days about HB 477, “Government Records Amendments,” or GRAMA, http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0477.htm. I’d like to thank all who’ve written me on this issue and it is clear that many are unhappy with my vote and I can truly appreciate that. Although I was frustrated by the way the bill went through the legislative process without a chance to get public input on the content of the bill, I did vote yes on the bill. While it is very easy for me to entertain the notion that it may have been the wrong vote, in the moment I voted the way I did for a couple of reasons:

1. HB 477 gets us into the 21st century. GRAMA was passed in 1992, a world away from where we are today in terms of communication and technology. Even it’s title (Government Records Access Management Act) indicates it was for government records, but what constitutes a government record? When it was signed into law there were no tweets, emails, text messages, or blogs. I am 100% in favor of openness and transparency and strive to adhere to those principles as a legislator through all the means listed above in addition to posting every vote I’ve ever taken on the internet.

When GRAMA was originally written a conversation was not deemed a record, whereas correspondence was typically deemed a record. Texting is more similar to a conversation and email is typically more similar to a traditional letter. HB477 recognizing this evolution of technology and adapts GRAMA to accommodate to the new technologies. The goal of HB 477 is to restore the open records law to it’s original intent while maintaining the public trust and acclaim for transparency that Utah has earned.

For instance, I carried a bill this session, HB 410, which would list as private a voter’s birth month and date on their voter registration information, which is primarily a public record. In doing research on the balance in other states of public/private information in general and specifically as it related to voter registration information Utah stood out as having an unusually high bar for openness that exceeds the majority of the states I studied.

Additionally, the bill restores the balancing test of preponderance. A government is typically free to release a protected record whenever it chooses but it is required to release a protected record “if the person or party seeking disclosure of the record has established that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the public interest favoring access outweighs the interest favoring restriction of access.”

2. HB 477 clarifies appropriate fees associated with GRAMA requests. Many GRAMA requests have a fee assessed to the individual/entity placing the request. Others are funded at the expense of the taxpayer. However, he current language of GRAMA greatly discourages charging. HB 477 allows fees to be waived, but adds that judgment deem if it is “an appropriate use of taxpayer funds and resources.” Some requests are simple and others are quite extensive, sometimes not even aimed at retrieving a specific piece of information. While speaking about this yesterday I had someone involved in a state-wide race confide to me that they had submitted multiple GRAMA requests on their opponent simply looking for anything they could use against them, with nothing specific in mind. This is “electronic trolling” and should not be funded by the taxpayer. For standard requests, many of which are small in nature and are generated by individuals rather than media outlets, there will likely be no change. For voluminous requests the governmental entity will no longer be highly discouraged from waiving the fee and allowing for this costly, taxpayer-funded “electronic trolling.”

What else does HB 477 do?

As to the bill specifically, the first ten or so pages are simple codifications of code, and there are other entire chunks of the bill that focus on rewording and cleaning up language. The nuts and bolts are:

1. HB 477 clarifies the original intent of GRAMA in that government agencies can continue to determine for themselves whether to charge those who request public information based on the burden it will place on the taxpayer. See additional explanation on fees above. The fee section of the bill starts at Line 602. First 15 minutes of service are free (Line 656).

2. Defines what is a public record, and does NOT include (starting at Line 515 of the bill): voice mail, texts, instant message, video chat. Also it protects personal email addresses and other personal electronic or online addresses (Line 1063).

3. Clarifies the appeals process for denial of information, and that appeal decisions should be based upon determination of if the party seeking disclosure of the record has established that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the public interest favoring access outweighs the interest favoring restriction of access (Line 1535).

Where can the public continue to find openness in government?

1. The state transparency site provides easy access to the public can view financial dealings of state government. http://www.utah.gov/transparency/index.html;jsessionid=2960d452c72d50345586a3e2dd89
2. Many other documents specifically dealing with legislative budgets and other issues can be found at le.utah.gov.
3. The state Elections Office maintains an updated database of all candidate, political group, and lobbyist disclosures at http://disclosures.utah.gov/
4. Conflict of interest forms for all elected official are available at http://utah.gov/house/representatives.html.
5. Public meetings agendas are available online at http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html.
6. Live video and audio streaming of floor time for both the Senate and House are available at le.utah.gov and audio is typically available for most committee meetings. These are archived going back many years.
7. And of course GRAMA requests are still an available tool for the public.

What was the scope of GRAMA requests?

1. Since the beginning of this legislative session, the legislature has received 10 GRAMA requests. Some are so broad so as to require thousands of pieces of information. Legislative attorneys spent an estimated 400 hours over the past year alone complying with GRAMA requests. I was included in several GRAMA requests last summer that required dozens of hours of my time combing through my work and personal emails searching for all communication with several individuals over a period of 3 years.
2. West Valley City had to deal with a request for all land-use decisions over the past 30 years, it took 1 full time person 3 months, including multiple reviews by other staff, to fill the request. Costs approached $30,000.
3. The Governor’s office filled 30 GRAMA requests last year, releasing 1,900 documents after poring over tens of thousands of them.

Other places you can read about GRAMA and HB 477:

1. At utahreps.net, an official Utah House of Representatives blog/website, you can read an excellent analysis of HB 477 written by Majority Leader Brad Dee, http://www.utahreps.net/utah-legislature/house-bill-477
2. Rep. John Dougall, the bill sponsor, is engaging in specific questions re HB 477 on his facebook page.

I hope this has been helpful in understanding how I got to my yes vote. For many of you I suspect this is much more information than you were expecting. If you’re still in opposition and determined to defeat this bill, you can contact Governor Herbert to request that he veto the bill. Feel free to contact me again regarding this or any other issue. Your input is important to me. Thanks again.

Charter School Funding

Some of the finest schools in the state are in the area I represent and they just happen to be charters: Legacy Preparatory Academy, Wasatch Peak Academy, and Spectrum Academy. Three different schools with three different missions that do a great job meeting the unique needs and desires of their students and parents. I have been to all three of these schools and know many of their students and parents. In fact, I sponsored a bill last year that created the Autism License Plate, which provides funds for the Autism Council of Utah’s efforts for educational support and outreach for families at Spectrum Academy. On the whole the parents are extremely pleased with the experience their children are having at these charters and they are filling a real need in our community.

What is a charter? Charters are public schools that operate tuition free. They serve students K-12 and have a variety of specializations in curriculum. Charters have grown dramatically since first introduced in Utah about 12 years ago. As a comparison, currently there are 576,335 total students statewide in K-12; 36,039 of those attend one of 82 charter schools, representing 6.3% of total students. Estimates for the next school year are 591,089 total K-12 students with 41,675 of those attending charters, or 7.1% of total students. Of the 14,754 new students expected state-wide in 2012, 5,636 of those, 38%, are expected to attend charter schools.

What does HB 313 do? HB 313, Charter School Funding Amendments, Rep. Merlynn Newbold, http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0313.htm, would significantly change the way charter schools are funded. Income tax, which is constitutionally appropriated to public education, is currently divided equally across the state in what is called the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) and that funding follows the student to whichever public school the student attends. Districts are able through property tax to raise additional funds for local schools. That money does not necessarily follow students to the school they attend but stays within the district. Charter schools can’t levy taxes like traditional public school districts, so the state has a fund allocated to “replace” the dollars they aren’t getting through local property taxes. Currently, local districts pay about 25 percent of the cost, while the state picks up the other 75 percent. HB 313 would shift that over to 100 percent provided by districts by 2025. This results in a shift of $70 million from local school districts to charter schools, $2,169,000 of that shift occurring in Davis school district.

What would this mean for taxpayers and WPU funds in Davis school district? In the past, legislative bills that required Districts to contribute 100% of their per pupil tax allocation to charters schools assumed the State local replacement dollars would flow back into the WPU. The WPU funds flow equitably across the state and cover K-12, including special education. Under HB 313, a portion of those current state dollars would still flow to charters on top of the 100% contributed by Districts. Full implementation of this bill would cost Davis School District $2,169,000 based on current students enrolled in charter schools.

What are the implications for property tax increases? Taking a share of property tax revenue for charter school replacement funding will necessitate that districts seek additional property taxes from the citizens in order to maintain school quality. Increasing property taxes at this time in Utah’s economy will cause an outcry across the state and both local districts and charters will receive the brunt of that outcry. This will create further division among parents, educators, and students in whichever educational setting they choose.

How does the current funding for charters and local districts compare? Information from the Utah Taxpayers Association (using 2009 data from the Utah State Tax Commission and the Utah State Office of Education) indicates that on average total spending per student is $8,096 for Davis School District and $8,684 for charters. However, this includes capital outlay which is higher for many startup charters. Charters also receive federal money for the first three years to assist with set up. These differences are seen as charters get 85% of their money from the state (income tax), 4% from local districts (portion of property tax), and 11% from the federal government. Davis School District, on the other hand gets 67% of their money from the state, 22% from local districts, and 11% from the federal government.

However, if you compare Instructional Expense Per Student, a category influenced mostly by class size and teacher compensation (including salaries and benefits of teachers, teacher supplies, textbooks etc.), the differences are striking. The state-wide average for instructional expense per student is $3,508 (67% of the maintenance and operations budget) and the Davis District average is $4,222 (70% of the maintenance and operations budget).

What are my goals for charter funding? Charter schools are valuable and the effort to craft policy that creates parity in funding deserves a thorough discussion. Charters also deserve the type of transparency taxpayers and parents want. We also need to address the need for charter school expansion, both with new schools and expanded grade offerings in existing charters. I believe this is best achieved through either utilizing the income tax revenue to solve this issue (does not require a property or income tax increase) or create a line item on the property tax that specifically deals with charter schools.

What is my commitment to charters? There are several other bills this session dealing with public education funding, charter schools, property tax exemptions for schools etc.
My goals continue to be:
1. Provide robust funding for the educational opportunities for all our students.
2. Create a wide range of possibilities for students that includes choices for parents.
3. Do this in a manner that does not create additional tax burdens on our citizens.
I commit to continue to study the extent to which HB 313 accomplishes all three of those goals.

A few days ago, my bill HB 410, “Access to Voter Date of Birth Records, came to the House floor for debate. The bill adds your birth month and date to the protected information on your public voter registration file (currently your social security and driver license numbers). Your year of birth would remain public. Many people don’t realize the bulk of the information you submit when you register to vote is public. This bill helps protect voters from potential identify theft, and is a compromise with those that use this voter database for legitimate purposes. It is a good balance of voter right of privacy and public right of access. It was opposed by both Democrat and Republican parties. The bill failed 30-42. Progress is being made, however. Three years ago a similar bill was run and it failed 6-58.

Adam Brown, BYU assistant professor of Political Science, has written an interesting analysis of the voting pattern on this bill.  http://utahdatapoints.com/2011/03/was-hb-410-a-bipartisan-battle-between-moderates-and-ideologues/

There are two bills coming forward that deal with restoring sales tax on food that was reduced 3 years ago. Many in the legislature who voted for that feel now that it was a mistake. The balance between property tax, income tax, and sales tax is important in terms of providing a solid, stable tax base. Our sales tax revenue during the recession has been very unstable because people are scaling back their spending. An increase in the sales tax on food would do what many people feel is a good economic move: broaden the base and lower the rate. It would allow for a lowering of general sales tax, while restoring the sales tax on food. I’d love to hear from you on this issue as we will continue to discuss this over the next week of the session. Below are the links and basic descriptions of the two main bills moving through the process.
SB 270, Sen. Stuart Adams, http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0270.htm, would increase the sales tax on food while lowering the general sales tax rate. The goal here is to stabilize the tax base, the proverbial three legged stool (property, income, and sales taxes). You know….broaden the base and all. The concerns are how this will affect lower income families, with some saying it will be a tax increase for all Utah families learning less than $150K a year.
HB 282, Rep. Kay McIff, http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0282.htm, would also increase the sales tax on food while lowering the general sales tax rate. This version provides a 5% tax credit to any Utah resident who qualifies for the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. Those who qualify are families with one child and an income of $35,535 ($40,545 if filing jointly), or families with three or more children and an income of less than $43,352 ($48,682 if married filing jointly). The concern here is that many low income people are not employed and would not receive this benefit.

Today during our Republican House caucus we discussed budget issues.  Remember we started the session with a budget shortfall of $313 million, and the new revenue forecast estimates show signs of recovery with $263 million coming in. This is a positive sign for Utah and shows that true to projections we are starting to inch our way out of the recession. Since the new revenue doesn’t cover the shortfall entirely, we’ll have to use some one-time money to fund ongoing costs, or make additional cuts to bridge the $50 million difference.

Here are the “final” (as of today) cuts each of the appropriations committees will realize after the proposed funding additions to the base budget bills we passed several weeks ago:
Business, Economic Development & Labor, 0.5% cut on $106M budget
Executive Offices and Criminal Justice, 1.1% cut on $490 M budget
Higher Education, 2% cut on $688 M budget
Infrastructure and General Government, 4.7% cut on $130M budget
Natural Resources, Agriculture & Environmental Quality, 4.4% cut on $57M budget
Public Education, 2% increase on $2.2B budget
Social Services, 1.4% cut on $663M budget
Retirement and Independent Entities, 3.3% cut on $3M budget
State Totals, 1% cut (1% increase with growth) on $4,370M budget
There may still be some movement between line items within the appropriation committees (write me if you have something specific you’re wondering about), but this is a snapshot of where we are today.

The lyrics in this classic song by “The Who” from 1971 perfectly describes my feelings this session as we’ve debated and heard bill after bill that seem to be either iterations of bills from previous sessions (many in public education), or variations on themes (immigration, states rights). Here is a link to the lyrics of this song (substitute “Here’s the new bill, same as the old bill”): http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/csimiami/wontgetfooledagain.htm

Council Member Carlton Christensen Interviews Representative Becky Edwards, District 20

Here is an interview I did with SLC Councilman Carlton Christensen a few weeks ago as he met with elected officials who represent different parts of Salt Lake City.

Today was the first of many immigration bills to be debated on the House floor. HB 70, Rep. Sandstrom, is primarily an enforcement bill. Let me first say that I have tremendous respect for Rep. Sandstrom and the way he has conducted himself during the past year while this issue has been debated. He has put in countless hours and been respectful to the process and those who oppose him.

During the past year I have gathered data from the legislative questionnaires returned from close to 700 people in our District, discussed the potential impacts with law enforcement and other affected entities, and studied the issue extensively. Interestingly enough the data from the people in our District indicate a strong desire to couple enforcement with some type of guest worker program. There are very few who are on the extremes and want either wholesale deportment or 100% welcoming arms to those here illegally. I tend to agree.

I found myself very frustrated this morning during the discussion for HB 70. I am in strong support of a comprehensive bill that combines both enforcement and a worker permit program. The more I’ve listened to the debate over the months and on the floor this morning I’ve become convinced the House body has no will to move the direction I’m hoping for. While there have been amendments that have addressed some of my concerns with HB 70, making a bill better does not make it good.

However, we are at an impasse in the House. I have lost confidence in our ability to continue to craft and shape this bill. The House is absolutely intractable on a combination type bill. We must get this bill out of the House for further work to take place. My vote today is a hope that the Senate will craft a comprehensive, or significantly amended/substituted, bill and send it back to the House for a concurrence vote.

I have confidence that the Senate has the capacity and political will to craft such legislation. This issue, and even this bill, is not over. There are several other bills addressing drivers privilege cards, in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, use and enforcement of eVerify for small businesses, and others. These can and will be debated individually on their own merits and will become part of the big immigration picture at the end of the session. Many of those ideas have my support. However, it is critical that immigration be dealt with in a comprehensive manner addressing the economy, an imperative federal solution, realities for law enforcement and cities/counties, and is in harmony with the principles of the Utah Compact, which I strongly support.

I’d love to hear from you, my constituents, on this issue. The time is now to weigh in on the specifics. Please take a look at the latest amended version of HB 70 and share your recommendations with me. Here is the link: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillamd/hb0070.htm