Utah State Senator

I will vote to override Governor Herbert’s veto of 1 HB 76 (Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments). To preface this discussion, I’ll lay out 5 points.

First, the U.S. and Utah Constitutions protect the right to bear arms. It is important to note that Government in no way created that right. To the contrary, the right to bear arms already existed; the Constitutions of the U.S. and Utah both specify that government cannot abridge that pre-existing right.

Second, existing laws are clear that Utahns have the right to openly carry guns, without a permit.

Third, to carry a weapon concealed (e.g., in a briefcase or under a jacket), a permit currently is required. To obtain the permit, a background check and some training are required.

Fourth, 1 HB 76 would make it lawful for people to conceal carry an unloaded weapon without a permit. “Unloaded” means that a bullet can’t be one action away from firing (i.e., a bullet in the chamber or, for a revolver, in the firing position).

Fifth, other than as stated above, 1 HB 76 does not change the provisions or practices of the current conceal carry permit in any way. I’ve read commentary that 1HB 76 would prevent conceal carry permit holders from carrying a loaded gun. That is inaccurate. Permit holders can still carry a loaded gun.

Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming have “constitutional carry” laws, meaning that non-felons can carry loaded guns without a government-issued permit. Many Utahns believe those laws best fit the Constitutionally-recognized relationship of government and guns described above. As Americans, we take our constitutional rights seriously. When government officials start to talk about taking those rights away, as President Obama and Representative Pelosi are doing, Americans push back. Because, remember, Government didn’t give us gun rights. Gun rights were constitutionally preserved, so that Government can’t interfere with those rights. When government attempts to do so, it is stealing from the people.

One of the most effective ways for Americans to stop the federal government from imparing its rights is to enlist the help of their state legislatures. The United States Constitution has 4 main organizational pillars: (1) horizontal division of federal sovereignty into the 3 branches of government, (2) checks and balances between those 3 branches, (3) judicial review of executive and legislative actions, and (4) vertical division of government power between the federal sovereign and state governments. Of those 4 pillars, only 1 was unique to the United States. (We borrowed the other 3 from other nations). The unique pillar? Number 4: vertical division of government power between the federal sovereign and state governments. One pushes, the other pushes back. One abridges, the other protects.

When President Obama (the most divisive President ever?) decided to go all in on politicizing the Newtown shooting, many Utahns looked to their legislature to push back and send a clear message that Utahns’ right to bear arms would not be abridged by Government. Thus, the proliferation of gun legislation this session.

I believe that 1 HB 76 presents a good solution. Under current law, Utahns can openly carry a loaded gun in a vehicle and other public places (not “on a public street” or “posted prohibited areas”). We also can conceal carry a loaded gun. It makes sense of existing laws—it strikes an appropriate balance—to establish that a weapon can be carried concealed if it is unloaded. Thus, with 1 HB 76 in place, the law would be that (1) a loaded weapon can be carried openly in many instances, (2) a loaded weapon can be carried concealed with a permit, and (3) an unloaded weapon can be conceal carried without a permit.

At this point, the Senate President and the House Speaker will poll their respective members, to see if the votes exist to convene an override session. People should contact their Senator and Representative, to express their desire regarding this bill. I have received much input on this bill and on overriding the Governor’s veto. I believe that the people of my district would like to see this bill become law.

I respect Governor Herbert. He is doing a fine job. This is simply one issue where we happen to disagree. I mean no disrespect to him, just as he meant no disrespect to the Legislature when he vetoed the bill. This is how the process works.

Regarding the St. George ambulance service issue, I’ll take a minute to discuss what is contained in the Order issued by the Department of Health.

The Order clearly establishes that Dixie Ambulance can look in one place to understand why it has lost yet another service area: Dixie Ambulance. If at any point in its history, Dixie Ambulance had looked at itself, and improved its service, it could have stopped hemorrhaging customers. Instead of accountability and improvement, Dixie Ambulance has one tune: victimization. When Leeds fought to get rid of Dixie Ambulance because of poor service: victimization. When Ivins fought to get rid of Dixie Ambulance because of poor service: victimization. When Dixie Regional Medical Center fought to get rid of Dixie Ambulance because of poor service: victimization. Now that the Utah Department of Health has determined that Dixie Ambulance should no longer serve St. George because of poor service: victimization. If past is prologue, Dixie Ambulance—fixated solely on victimization—will do nothing to improve its service in its remaining service areas: Washington and Santa Clara.

Dixie Ambulance claims it is a victim of my involvement in ambulance issues. Okay, let’s look at that. I became interested in ambulance issues when I watched a man in cardiac arrest die—perhaps because of ridiculously bad ambulance service in Washington County (Hurricane Ambulance). An ambulance was staged right where the young man had a heart attack. Bystanders immediately started CPR, screaming at the ambulance crew to get its defibrillator. When the crew finally found its defibrillator, it was not charged. They could not even attempt to restart the man’s heart. Game over. The man’s children might have grown up with a father, had good paramedic help been present. As I watched the crew ram the gurney into the backside of the vehicle (because they had put him on it backwards, so it didn’t collapse), a doctor standing next to me cursed their ineptitude.

So, yep, at that point, I got very interested in quality ambulance care. I love my family, friends and neighbors. I want great ambulance care in Utah and in my local community. And I am willing to fight for it. I figured the best way to get better ambulance care is to encourage competition.

Dixie Ambulance’s victimization tale neglects the rather significant fact that the first ambulance company in Utah to feel the effect of my quest for greater competition was . . . Gold Cross Ambulance. I worked to help Southwest Ambulance get a toehold in Utah, by going after part of Gold Cross Ambulance’s authority in Salt Lake City.

For years, long before I represented Gold Cross Ambulance, I’ve wanted St. George to set some standards—minimum standards, any standards—for ambulance care in my community. I’ve wanted the City to undertake some kind of assessment whether the ambulance services are great or good or adequate or substandard or bad or downright awful. Does our provider respond in time? Does it run enough ambulances? Are its ambulances properly staffed? Do they have modern equipment? But the City has refused until now, because . . .. Well, I don’t know.

The reason the City refused to look at data for so long must be some variation on the theme that councilmember Jimmie Hughes is now reciting even after the evidence is in that our current ambulance service is poor. Despite 65 pages of evidence and explication, after a 4-day trial, that Dixie Ambulance does not respond in time, is not properly staffed, and does not use modern equipment, Councilmember Hughes wants to fight to defend that poor level of service because . . ..

Jimmie seems nice enough, but that must be the level of service he thinks St. George citizens deserve. More-deserving citizens in other communities can have state-of-the-art ambulance service. They deserve to live longer, better lives after injuries. But, St. George citizens must be fine with substandard care.

If someone is in full cardiac arrest in Salt Lake City, for example, Gold Cross has enough ambulances, trained personnel, and equipment to initiate hypothermic care in the field—chilling the body, so that detrimental effects on the body and brain are reduced. That is state-of-the-art emergency response care. Dixie Ambulance does not perform that level of service. Ask them. They don’t deny it. Though it is probably someone else’s fault, Dixie Ambulance doesn’t have enough ambulances, trained personnel, or equipment to perform the procedure. If cardiac arrest patients in St. George die or have less optimal outcomes than they would in Salt Lake City or any other city where elected leaders demand quality care, well, that just must be okay.

If stroke victims in St. George are unnecessarily hobbled for the remainder of their lives, because thrombolytic therapy is delayed by poor ambulance response times, well, that too must by okey dokey.

If Dixie Ambulance has 3 ambulances during the day and 1 at night—for St. George, Washington, and Santa Clara—when St. George alone requires 4 ambulances during the day and 3 at night, well, that’s alright.

If Dixie Ambulance only sends 1 paramedic on calls, when state law requires 2—you guessed it—that’s hunky-dory.

If Dixie Ambulance doesn’t track its response times and, therefore, has no way to improve its poor response times, well, that’s what Councilmember Hughes is fighting to defend. He must believe that the citizens of St. George just don’t deserve first-rate ambulance care. Slow response times, inadequate staffing, and outdated equipment must be good enough.

I disagree. I believe that my family, friends, and neighbors deserve first-rate ambulance service. After lots of foot dragging, the City finally asked the State to determine whether we have adequate ambulance service. The answer they received was that we clearly do not. Not even close. Discovery was conducted for over a year. Evidence and testimony were presented at a 4-day trial. Based on the evidence and the trial, the State Department of Health issued a scathing rebuke of what has been going on in St. George. How did it get so bad?

The City does not have a single ordinance, rule, suggestion, or even a wish what it requires from an ambulance provider. Anything its monopoly provider chooses to provide (or not provide) must be good enough. No question was ever asked. No investigation had ever been conducted. No accountability had ever been demanded. The City of St. George never even required a single report from its monopoly provider. So, Dixie Ambulance owners underpaid its employees, denied the employees health benefits (but not the owners and their family members; they have great benefits), did not stage enough ambulances, did not properly staff those ambulances, did not properly equip those ambulances, and did not invest nearly enough of the company’s revenues into quality service. The owners simply were living large off money that should have been going to employees, ambulances, staffing, and equipment. In other words, off money that should have been flowing into the proper care of St. George citizens.

Those are the facts that are documented in the State’s 65-page Order.

I am very proud to fight for good ambulance services for Utah citizens and St. George citizens. I am very proud to help bring state-of-the-art ambulance services to St. George. Health outcomes will improve. Though change is tough, paramedics who want to increase their pay, get health insurance benefits, and be a part of improved ambulance services for St. George have been invited to apply to Gold Cross. Because Gold Cross will be staging more ambulances and staffing each ambulance with 2 paramedics, instead of 1, workers are needed.

If I’ve got something wrong, if anyone wants to point me to one sentence in the Order where it says that Dixie Ambulance provides good, or even adequate, service, lay it out in the comments below.

Here are some thoughts that I ask people to consider/improve for the upcoming legislative session.

Utah should attack the two enemies to college completion—time and money—by addressing (1) college readiness, (2) the college-funding model, (3) most-affordable pathways to degrees, (4) technical high schools, and (5) flexible completion programs.

I. College Readiness

Utah’s high school graduates are not adequately prepared for college. Unprepared students typically do not complete college. Utah should do 3 things to promote college readiness.

A. Raise Expectations

Rather than sit back and passively bemoan incoming students’ lack of preparation, Utah colleges must promote college readiness by imposing standards for incoming freshmen. The 2 research institutions (the U of U and USU) should require 4 years of high school math. All Utah colleges should require that incoming freshmen meet certain standards indicative of success. For example, students failing to meet baseline ACT scores in math should be required to show willingness and ability through completion of the College-Readiness Assessment Tool (CRAT) currently being developed by the Utah System of Higher Education to (1) specifically assess each student’s math readiness and (2) specifically prescribe and deliver a remedial curriculum for each student. This necessary change should not close the door to any willing student. Rather, raised expectations will encourage Utah high schools and high school students to actively prepare for collegiate success, instead of wasting resources by doing things like taking office assisting, weight lifting, guitar and other fluffy electives during the senior year.

B. Promote Early Math Completion

We know that math trips up so many college students. And we know that math skills quickly diminish. Yet, shockingly, we do not require freshmen to fulfill their math requirement. Let’s require that. Better still, let’s promote success, by awarding small scholarships to students who start college with their math requirement completed through concurrent enrollment or an AP course. These are the students who will complete college. Let’s provide incentives for high school students to join this elite group.

C. Better Define “Math Ready”

Steps A and B should reduce the massive amounts of dream-killing remedial math taught at Utah colleges. But, some need for remediation will remain. Let’s be more direct about satisfying that need. “Math ready” should mean possessing the skills necessary to take a degree-related math course. Currently, before Utah college students take their degree-required math course(s), they often are herded through a battery of unnecessary full-semester developmental math courses that add significant time and money to the college experience. This is insanity. If we intended to plant more traps to ensnare dreams of a college degree, we’d be hard pressed to think of anything worse. This is an antiquated model that other states are abandoning en masse. “Math ready” means possessing the basic skills necessary to take a degree-required course. These skills can be polished in boot camps and applied settings, rather than semester-long courses.

II. College Funding Model

Funding for Utah colleges currently does not account for student success. Colleges bring in revenue by marching students through the front door. No fiscal significance is paid to retaining and graduating students. As a result, our efforts are pointed too heavily toward recruitment of tuition dollars. Recruitment is not retention. In fact, current recruitment efforts might be contrary to retention.

I suggest we make two fundamental changes to the way we fund higher education.

A. Fund Completion, Not Recruitment

Instead of funding institutions on the basis of students walking through the front door, we need to correlate funding to students walking successfully out the back door. Let’s start by funding proven success models—graduate programs at our two research institutions (requiring that they share and coordinate research opportunities with our other 6 institutions). Beyond that, let’s inform all institutions that, over the next 2 years, we will tie a percentage of funding to retention, student completion plans, and other indicia of success. Over five years, we’ll tie a percentage of funding to completion and jobs upon completion.

In government, we get want we fund. In higher education, we need to fund completion and jobs.

B. Bring the Best and Brightest to Utah

Students who come from other states often stay and help build Utah. Let’s strengthen our economy and our colleges by inviting the best and brightest to come to Utah. Currently, out-of-state students typically pay much higher tuition that in-state students. We make exceptions to that rule for many reasons that don’t relate to talent, such as geographical proximity to Utah. Let’s allow our institutions to offer tuition discounts to above-average students from other states.

Each institution would determine its median GPA and ACT for incoming students. Colleges could discount non-resident tuition rates for students who exceed that measure. These students would help raise the academic quality of our student body.

III. Promote Most-Affordable Pathways to Degrees (MAP Degrees)

Remember: time and money are the enemies of college completion. The cost of college discourages some students from starting, and it prevents other students from finishing. In Texas, Governor Perry is attempting to attack this problem through his “$10,000 degrees.” Looking at our existing programs, I realized that Utah could offer degrees starting at $3,000 (total cost!). Simple alignment adjustments and promotion are all that is required to place college within the reach of many Utah families.

I call these degrees “Most-Affordable Pathway Degrees” or MAP Degrees. As explained here, MAP Degrees take advantage of high school concurrent enrollment courses, the New Century Scholarship, and 2 years of residential college—with all courses counting toward aligned associate and bachelor degrees.

IV. Technical High Schools

Utah must place applied-technology education on even footing with college education. Currently, Utah provides far more advantages to high school students looking to attend college than to high school students looking to enter a technical career.

Currently, high school students can enter Early-College High Schools (ECHSs), which are charter high schools located on college campuses. Through fee-sharing arrangements, the colleges and charter high schools partner to offer the students a curriculum that simultaneously meets the requirements of high school graduation and an associate degree. The ECHSs are a godsend to students who are ready for the challenge of college courses while in high school and who want the significant financial boost that the ECHSs provide toward higher education expenses.

Along those same lines, Utah needs to develop Technical High Schools, which would be charter high schools located on Applied-Technology campuses. Through fee-sharing arrangements, the ATCs and Technical High Schools would partner to offer the students a curriculum that would simultaneously meet the requirements of high school graduation (or a GED) and an applied-technology certificate. This would be a godsend to students who are ready for the challenge of applied-technology courses while in high school and who want the significant financial boost that the Technical High Schools would provide them for (1) the workplace, (2) college, and (3) the workplace/college. Let me explain this last sentence.

Remember, time and money are a college student’s enemies. Lots of our students don’t complete college, because it takes too long and costs too much. Graduates of our Technical High Schools, however, would have a significant advantage. First, the ATC certificates would give students increased earning power to pay for college. Second, through existing articulation agreements with Utah colleges, the students’ certificates would automatically give them 1 full-year of college credit. So, think about that. By pursuing something they want to do in their junior and senior years of high school, the Technical High School students actually would be academically ahead of where they would otherwise have been. They will have earning power to pay for college, and they will have a full-year of college credit. Should they decide to go forward toward an associate or bachelor degree, the Technical High School students will have significantly abated the time and money menace.

V. Flexible Completion Programs

BYU, a private institution, enjoys a tremendous college completion rate, despite many students interrupting their studies for missions, marriage, and childbirth. Part of that high completion rate is explained by the high preparation level of BYU students. Part of that rate also is explained by BYU’s efforts to work with former students who require added flexibility through its bachelor of general studies program.

Utah has many citizens with some college experience but whose lives have moved them away from college. Utah colleges must develop flexible online programs to better allow completion opportunities for these students. The Legislature should provide funding for 1 or 2 pilot programs to improve/implement flexible completion programs (i.e., online general studies degrees).

CONCLUSION

The simple items discussed in this paper will significantly improve completion rates at Utah colleges. Most of these items require little new funding. We can make these changes this year, and, thereby, improve our colleges and the lives of our citizens.

When I wrote that Ben McAdams is the better choice for Salt Lake County Mayor, I just wanted to state my piece on Ben and let it be. I didn’t want to say anything at all about Mark Crockett—and I didn’t. No big deal. But then Crockett had his campaign manager call to harass and threaten me for endorsing Ben. So, I’ll go ahead and share an aspect of my thinking, which Crockett and his campaign clearly ratified with the nutty, unhinged phone call.

I do think Ben McAdams is outstanding. That stands alone. On the other side of the ticket, I simply don’t think that Mark Crockett is stable enough to be county mayor. He can’t handle disagreement in a mature way.

My interest in Salt Lake politics started with Rocky Anderson. I thought Rocky hurt the capital city and the State, by being unnecessarily polarizing, hostile and emotionally immature. Salt Lake County (and the State of Utah) doesn’t need a Rocky from the right, and yesterday’s unbridled call has me further convinced that would be the case with Crockett.

Quite simply, Ben is the better choice. And, for Utah to do well, our biggest county needs good leadership. Ben will provide that leadership.

I am a Republican. Ben, of course, is a Democrat. But, my politics are driven by ideology, not tribalism. I am drawn to the Republican side, because I am more comfortable with Republicans’ approach to budgeting. In the Senate, Ben and I have worked together (and, at times, apart) to craft a few budgets for the State. In this race, I have more trust with his hands on such a big and important budget.

Also, Ben really is an extraordinary person. Whether we agree or disagree on an issue, he is great to work with. Leadership requires the ability to truly listen and interact with others. Salt Lake County is a wonderfully diverse place, and I believe Ben will work effectively with everyone.

I love this state. I feel extremely blessed that I can be a part of it, raise my family here, and play a part in governing it. The Salt Lake County Mayor race affects the entire state. Some in my tribe won’t appreciate this endorsement, but, the fact is, I’m looking out for my district and my State. Utah needs Ben to win.

Thursday, the Higher Education Appropriations Committee discussed my idea of the Most-Affordable Pathway to a college degree (MAP Degrees). As outlined here, the MAP Degrees would combine high school concurrent enrollment, a New Century Scholarship ($1,250/semester for college students who complete their associates degree while in high school), and 2 years of residential college. Utah residents could obtain a college degree for $3,000 to $10,000 (depending on the state institution they choose to attend).

Yes, you read that right. High-quality college degrees for a TOTAL COST of $3,000 to $10,000.

I chose the acronym MAP for good reason. Utah parents and students need better direction regarding affordable higher education options. We have great concurrent enrollment options. We have relatively low tuition rates. And we have decent (though not great) alignment and coordination between our institutions. The pieces are in place. We just need Utah colleges to align courses a little better and communicate the Most-Affordable Pathways to parents and students. Many families that now think college is not affordable will realize they can afford it. And, many students who think they have to go to school part-time (a completion killer) will realize that they can hunker down and quickly complete.

Stan Jones, visionary head of Complete College America, tells a story about jam, to emphasize the connection between simple options and college success. Stan compares 2 tables selling jam at a fair. One table has 20 options. Those options attract a huge crowd. The other table has 5 options. It has a much smaller crowd all day. But, the second table sells twice as much, because people are not frozen into inaction by the plentiful options. I’ve talked with plenty of people who went sideways in college pursuing various options, because they lacked a clear pathway to completion. Also, check out the comments to my earlier post, where involved mothers mention their inability to determine which concurrent enrollment courses will count toward bachelor’s degrees.

If Most-Affordable Pathway Degrees are created and marketed, higher education quickly becomes a reality for many, many people. Utah’s goal is to have 66% of the adult population obtain higher education degrees or certificates. MAP Degrees make that goal much more obtainable. I look forward to working with the Governor, Commissioner Buhler, the individual institutions, and the many concerned individuals and groups that care about higher education issues, to develop the MAP Degrees. A great place to affect meaningful change is to start with the successful pieces that already are in place.

(And, because these discussions can get sidetracked by fictions, let me mention that I’m not talking about limiting options or changing delivery modes for any of the courses. We will simply highlight the most-affordable pathways to get college degrees, using the same concurrent enrollment and college courses we currently offer.).

Texas is kicking higher education butt by offering college degrees—start to finish—for $10,000. Awesome. That is opportunity! But, here’s my idea: Utah should see the Lone Star State’s bet and raise it one. Or, rather, lower it one.

My challenge to myself, my legislative colleagues, our visionaries in the Utah higher education system and our friends in public education is to develop college degrees for less than $10,000. Much less. And, while we’re at it, let’s see if we might even raise the quality of the educational experience.

Can the Legislature figure this out? Probably not. We don’t have the expertise. But, rather than a top-down mandate, we can work with each institution to (1) see if they’re interested in the challenge and, if so, (2) get them the tools they’ll need to get it done.

Here, for example, is how Dixie State College could establish a $5,500 college degree—start to finish:

Many Utah high school students get college credit through concurrent enrollment classes. DSC could pick aligned associate degrees and bachelor’s degrees and work with school districts, to perfectly match (1) the associate degree and bachelor’s degree requirements with (2) high school graduation requirements, so that no class is wasted. In other words, each concurrent enrollment class will count toward (1) high school graduation, (2) the associate degree, and (3) the bachelor’s degree. (You’d be surprised to learn how many concurrent enrollment classes don’t end up tracking toward any college degree).

A high school student in this program would graduate high school with both a high school degree and DSC associate degree. That would magically qualify the student for the New Century Scholarship ($1,250/semester). (This already happens; my Zella just did it). Then, the student—by simply aligning our courses better—would have just 2 years of college work remaining to get the bachelor’s degree (at DSC’s tuition rate of $4,000/year). So, here’s the math for the cost of moving forward to the bachelor’s degree:

(2 years x $4,000) – (4 semesters x $1,250) = $3,000 for a DSC bachelor’s degree! (That’s TOTAL, not per year or per semester). Did you see the magic there? We didn’t really create anything new. We simply took the extra step of aligning what we’re already doing. As I’ve said many times before, Utah has many of the basics solidly in place. We are ready to launch. (And I’m quite excited that, with Dave Buhler at the helm of the system now as Commissioner, and with the fabulous Presidents we have at each institution, we will launch).

Why would DSC want to do this? Well, it would get some of the most-motivated and best-prepared students in the state. The $3000 students would have tremendous focus. They would be far more likely to graduate than the typical college student (because time and money are the enemies of college graduation, and these students will cut those monsters in half before they set foot on campus). And, despite the huge financial savings to the students, DSC would receive all the money it would receive for any other student ($4,000/year). In short, the program would make DSC shine. And, most importantly, the program would open the doors of higher education wide to many, many families.

The improved quality of the degree could come from using TICE courses for many of the concurrent enrollment courses. Currently, educational outcomes and competencies vary significantly in college courses. Some times, college students achieve the foundational standards in general education courses. And sometimes they don’t. Through measurable standards, TICE courses better assure that general education courses are preparing a student for future success in upper-level courses.

Pretty neat, huh?

Edit: Originally, the post was titled “How About a College Degree for $5000?” I used an incorrect number (too low) for the New Century Scholarship. Using the correct number, the prospect of affordable college education for our citizens is even more amazing. Again, pretty neat, huh?