One of These Is Not Like the Others

I've been invited to discuss Politicopia at the Personal Democracy Forum Conference. I'll be joining:

Thomas Friedman, New York Times Writer/Best-selling Author of The World Is Flat
Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post
Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
Seth Godin, Best-selling Author, and
Craig Newmark, CraigsList Founder
and other luminaries.

I'll also be discussing Politicopia at Freedom-to-Connect. We'll focus the discussion around Prof. Yochai Benkler's The Wealth of Networks, which I took the time to read this weekend and highly recommend. And I'm very excited to meet the Sunlight Foundation's Micah Sifry at F2C.

I'm just hoping I don't say anything memorably stupid on either occassion.

Flat Like a Marble

Just 4 months ago, Utah got a flat tax.

Now, people are getting frisky to layer onto that infant “flat” tax things like “charitable contributions, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.”

The argument is that those items will bring 80% of filers into the “flat” tax system. Maybe they will, but let’s please stop calling it a “flat” tax. We’re simply (after just 4 months) moving toward a rehash of our old system but with a sexier rate up front and uglier deductions on back.

States are laboratories for democracy. In the broader national debate, score this one Neal Boortz – one, Steve Forbes – zero. Boortz argues that the flat tax concept won’t work, because politicians can’t resist layering exemptions and deductions onto any tax that is temporarily flattened.

Vouchers -- Committee Hearing Tuesday

The voucher bill will have a hearing in the House Education Committee Tuesday at 3 p.m. (room 135). Audio will be available on the Legislature's website.

I've had several representatives tell me that they are following the dialogue here and on Politicopia. Two have told me that the dialogue determined their vote. So, keep the cards and letters coming in.

UPDATE (later): Thanks, Tyler. 3 p.m.

Also, assuming the bill does pass committee and that it advances to the floor, it likely will be put on the Time Certain calendar for Thursday at 10:30.

UPDATE (1/31/07): Make that Friday at 11:00.

Early Intervention Funding

The D-News has an article on my bill to increase early intervention funding $2.5 million. Initially, I proposed to fund the increase with a penny-per-beer tax increase. Now it would be funded by creating a restricted account to capture revenue that already is being generated by the existing tax and is simply falling into the general fund.

The article says, "The bill's sponsor, Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, said he got rid of the tax increase when he discovered the already existing surplus." We can run with that; however, it might be more accurate to say that I decided to go with the restricted account when I realized the increased tax was dead in the water.

House Rules Committee -- Distributed Responsibility

Two nice articles were written this weekend about the way the House Rules Committee is functioning this session. Bob Bernick writes in the D-News, "Urquhart's actions 'gives every member here some real power,' said committee member Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake. 'It is much easier to get Democrats' bills out now' for a hearing."

Scott Johnson writes in The Spectrum, "And as the powerful House Rules chairman, Urquhart has given committee members the authority to add bills to the Rules agenda, once set largely by the chairman. 'I'm turning the keys over to the kids,' he said. 'If I can get them to help me think about how to distribute bills in the best way and how to keep the members happy, then, of course, I'm just going to use their great skills to get this job done.'"

By distributing the opportunity, I've simply distributed the workload and the responsibility. Because each member knows that his/her nominations can be yanked off the list if the nominations don't have the support of half the committee, committee members are doing a great job of communicating and collaborating while the list is being compiled.

No one should mistake this for benevolence. Anyone at all familiar with politics has to know in an instant that I wouldn't have set up the committee to run this way if I didn't have great confidence in each of the committee members.

The Internet Battles Disinformation on Vouchers

Some of the most informative exchanges of political information occur in correspondence that typically is never seen by the public. I’d like Politicopia to reveal some of that information to the public.

I'll start with an email exchange I had Thursday with Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State School Board, concerning vouchers. [At the top of the Politicopia page I link to, click on "voucherletterjan25.pdf"].

You can look at the emails and make up your own mind. From my perspective, Chairman Burningham's financial arguments seem vacuous. If there are no adverse financial impacts, that issue should be conceded, so that the debate can focus more keenly on the other issues that are being raised. Unless, of course, those issues also are vacuous and the point of voucher opponents is to blur the debate rather than focus the debate.

Check This Out!

Utah State professor David Wiley posted information on Politicopia about OpenCourseWare. Wow! Colleges and universities use OCW to deliver course lectures and materials to citizens of the state who help fund those course and to citizens of the world. Talk about ripping down walls!

Here is Utah State's OCW homepage.

The History of Politicopia

People have asked how I started blogging and how Politicopia was created. I've posted the history over at Politicopia.

Here's the Voucher Bill

A draft of the voucher bill is available at Politicopia. I wanted the public to have a look at it before I lock it in.

A commentor to a previous post asked some good questions regarding the bill. Here they are:

Would the Private Schools that accept these vouchers be required to have state-certified and highly qualified teachers? No. Teacher qualifications are outlined in lines 155 - 161. The element of control in this area is parents. They can look at the credentials and determine whether to send their kids there.

Would these Private Schools have to accept all who apply and do a "lottery enrollment" like Charter Schools? No. The eligibility criteria for private schools to receive vouchers start on line 133. The requirement on student admission criteria is that the schools can't discrimate.

Would these Private Schools have to adhere to NCLB and meet AYP yearly? No.

Would these Private Schools have to use the same tests that District and Charter Schools have to use, i.e. Iowa Basic, U-PASS, CRT, etc.? Lines 145 -154 address testing. (a norm-referenced test).

What happens when a student returns to the District School mid-year? Does the unused voucher money come back with them? How about the money that the District has received for that student? Lines 271 - 275 specify that money is paid quarterly, to better address transfers back and forth.

What about Charter Schools that lose students to vouchers, will they receive money like the District Schools? No. Charter schools philosophically don't have problems with giving parents choice.

What about transportation, will the Private Schools have to provide transportation for the poor students who's parents are unable to take time to run their children across town to the Private Schools? No. There are private school costs that are not covered by this bill, such as transportation, school construction, and in some cases amounts of tuition greater than the voucher amount. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. These costs will be picked up by the private sector, including scholarship granting organizations. This public/private partnership means more money to education, along with the taxpayer money that already flows to educating our children.

Politicopia – Day 1

I’m pleased with Day 1 of Politicopia – an effort to give citizens a better handle on the Utah Legislature. It received some mentions here, here, here, and here. For now, I’d like Politicopia to focus on issues pending before the Utah Legislature. (Other great sites deal more specifically with Congress and national issues; I’ll give some links to those in upcoming days.)

I’d like to invite the public to get on Politicopia and drive. The content belongs to the people. Anything – and I mean anything – that you disagree with or want to change, change it. Someone might change what you write, but that is the nature of the Wikipedia-style experiment. I do ask that people stick to their side of the argument when they edit the pro/con sections, but, other than that, have at it, have fun, and get involved!

UPDATE (later): It never fails. I mention someone and embarrass myself by leaving off others. How on earth could I fail to mention my dear friend and tremendous supporter Britt Blaser, one of the most amazing people I've had the occassion to meet in recent years, Doc Searls, and my good colleague Rep. Craig Frank? Thanks to all these amazing people for their help and encouragement.

Rep. Litvack Also Is Invited

Some years, the Legislature has surpluses of money. Other years, it doesn't. But, it always has a surplus of empty rhetoric.

Regarding my voucher bill, the Tribune reports:

Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, doubted assertions by sponsor Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, that public schools would not be hurt because they get to keep some of the money for kids who leave with vouchers. "The problem with that is the math has never added up . . . public school still loses."

As I have done in previous entries, I again invite people to abandon the rhetoric and join the debate. If Rep. Litvack can back up his statement with data, if he wants to show me his math, I'll fix the bill to address it. Until I see the math he refers to, I'll assume he was making stuff up.

Politicopia

For me, the beauty of the Internet is its ability to cut out the middleman. Though the Internet has moved sellers and consumers closer together, its strides in politics haven’t yet been so grand. In politics, intermediaries – like special interest groups, bureaucrats, and the media – heavily filter information between people and their elected officials.

In an effort to give people a more direct handle on the issues pending before the Utah Legislature (and to give elected officials a better read on what the public wants), some friends and I started Politicopia. Check it out, participate in the dialogue, and help move your government where you want it to go.

Any Takers??

In the post below, I asked if anyone could theorize any possible scenario where public education does not come out ahead financially under the voucher bill I am running.

I'd specifically like to extend that invitation to the PTA, the education union, the State School Board and to any and all who have an interest in education issues.

If a financial issue exists, we can address it. If it doesn't really exist, we should stop saying it does. Fair enough?

The financial provisions will be the same as in last year's HB 340.

Vouchers

Today in caucus, I presented a discussion draft of voucher legislation. The bill will pay private school tuition of $500 to $3000 (the larger amount going toward tuition for poorer children). A few points:

1. The public school system works well for most children. But, does it work well for 100% of the children? Of course not. Children come in all kinds. And, not all children thrive in a public school setting. But, let's say it works well for 98 or 99% of those children. What about the other 1 or 2% who aren't thriving in public schools and come from families that can't afford to get them out of public schools? Do they want to be there? And, honestly, if they aren't thriving, do we want them to be there?

2. Despite the doomsaying that is sure to come, public schools will come out ahead when a student accepts a voucher under this bill for two reasons. One, the amount of the voucher is less than the cost to the public school system of educating each child, meaning that extra money is left in the system to distribute to remaining students. Two, the bill provides that each student leaving the public system will continue to be enrolled on the public school's books for 5 years; the district will continue to receive money for the student, even though he/she isn't there. Why? Depending on your perspective, you can call it mitigation money, or you can call it politics. But the point is -- public education comes out ahead.

If anyone can show evidence (not just alarmist rhetoric) that public education does not come out financially ahead with this bill, post your arguments and data in the comment section. If they're valid, I'll amend the bill to ensure that public education comes out financially better with this bill.

3. Far and away, the beneficiaries of this bill will be the poor and middle class. Rich people already have school choice. They live in neighborhoods that typically have better schools. And, if they conclude those elitist public schools aren't working for their kids, they can afford private school on their own.

4. Vouchers foster a public/private partnership. Some complain that vouchers are flawed, because they do not pay the full tuition of many private schools. That funding gap is true. The private sector (e.g., the family or a scholarship granting organization) picks up the rest of the tuition, and the private sector also picks up the cost of the building. This collaboration helps fund education in this state.

UPDATE (1/19/07): a few news articles on the bill. D-News and Trib.

Rules Committee

This session I will be serving as Chair of the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee helps control the flow of legislation, deciding (subject, of course, to the ratification of the entire body) which bills should get out to committees and to which committees they should go. Later in the session, all bills will be referred back to Rules, and the Rules Committee will determine which bills go to the floor for consideration and in what order.

The Rules Committee is running a bit of an experiment this year. My excellent intern, Scott Riding (BYU), has set up a shared workspace online (a wiki). Rather than me compiling the list of bills and sharing it with members when they get to committee, each of the eight members of Rules logs onto the workspace and submits a proportional number of bills to go out to the committees.

Our deal is that, once we get to the actual Rules Committee meeting, we won't add bills to the list that previously was collaboratively compiled, but any bill can be pulled off that list. This gives each member a lot of power to work with legislators and compile his/her additions to the master list. And it also gives each member a lot of responsibility to own those decisions and to make sure the bills they nominate have the support of a majority of Rules Committee members to stay on the list.

Such collaboration (and distributed authority/responsibility) is only now made possible by recent advances in technology. Last week, before Scott set up the wiki, I had each member submit suggestions by email. Even in the pre-session calm, it was too big a pain, and I wouldn't have done it again without the collaboration made possible by the wiki.

Most things are beautiful in theory. We'll see how the experiment holds up when we hit crunch time in a few weeks.