November Voucher Vote and Democratic Process

Utah is in a bad situation regarding the voucher referendum. Confusion abounds. In response to that, some say, “No special session.” Some say, “Special session to repeal HB 174 (the second bill, which is not subject to referendum).” And some seem to say both.

The citizens need to say what they want. If this poll is accurate, Utahns want a special session to clarify the mess. I believe we need a special session. Depending on how the situation is handled, the next 5 months either will be horribly divisive and tear at the democratic underpinnings of Utah (all for nothing, since courts will resolve things in any event) or this period will illustrate that the system is alive and well and still capable of handling our most pressing controversies.

Two observations:

1. The “no special session” position misses an opportunity to promote democratic process. At this point, people don’t know what they’re being asked to vote on. The situation requires clarification;
2. The “repeal HB 174” position could be used as a polemic. HB 174 is the product of a more collaborative effort, forwarded by voucher opponents, to fix some perceived shortcomings in HB 148. If HB 174 were repealed and those fixes were erased, those perceived shortcomings would become a centerpiece of the anti-voucher campaign.

Our response should be guided by 3 principles:

1. The people must have a chance to vote on vouchers;
2. The vote should be on the final draft (HB 174); and
3. People must agree to be bound by the vote of the people (no lawsuits to challenge that decision).

Here’s my suggestion for achieving clarity, while adhering to those principles:

1. Hold a special session to repeal HB 148 and HB 174;
2. Pass a new bill (HB 1001) with the same language of HB 174;
3. Delay the implementation date of HB 1001 until June 2008;
4. Before it takes effect, require that the people have an opportunity to vote whether they want HB 1001; and
5. Based on the vote, implement or repeal HB 1001.

The vote on HB 1001 would be a vote for or against democratic process – clarifying things for the voters. The vote to hold legislators responsible on vouchers clearly was HB 148. That being the case, people (including citizens, legislators, and education officials) should agree to be bound by certain principles before the special session. This is especially true, since – as I understand it – the ballot question would need to be a non-binding opinion question. It would have to be made binding by some type of agreement made beforehand. I’ve drafted the following, in the form of a petition, in an attempt to get the discussion going.

“Utah needs clarity for the November vote on vouchers. It is a matter of fundamental democratic process and voting rights. We, the undersigned, call on the Governor, the Legislature, the State and Local School Boards, and all citizens to work toward providing clarity – and we commit ourselves to the principles and actions stated herein. A special session must be called, wherein HB 148 and HB 174 will be repealed in their entirety. In their place, a new bill (HB 1001) will be passed, with the exact language of HB 174 and additional language specifying that the matter will be put up for a vote by the people in November 2007. As indicated by that vote, the governing bodies will either implement the provisions of HB 1001 (if the voters approve it) or repeal HB 1001 (if the voters reject it). Signers of this petition agree to oppose any lawsuit challenging the outcome of the people’s decision.”

“Legislators signing this petition further agree to vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174, to vote for legislation as outlined above, and, if a majority of the people vote against the new legislation, to vote to repeal it. We specify that we regard a vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174 and to enact HB 1001 to be merely a vote for democratic process; nothing more. The “voucher vote” took place on HB 148.”

“State school board members signing this petition further agree to implement necessary rules and regulations for HB 1001 to go forward, if a majority of the people vote for the new legislation.”

I’d love for people to provide input on (1) how to better handle the situation and (2) how to get the process moving.

Shakespeare Festival

Fred Adams, founder of the Tony-award winning Utah Shakespearean Festival, was honored for his contribution to the arts and humanities in the State. Fred is amazing.

Failure to Camp in a Designated Area

The kids and I love to camp. Sara loves when we camp – so she can stay home and enjoy our absence. We convinced her to join us on a quick trip to the Grand Canyon (Toroweap).

Steve’s shortcut to nowhere: 2 extra hours.
Bad camping: $75 citation.
Driving washboarded roads on a skinny spare: 2 more hours.
Two new tires: $233.
The views: priceless.

Sara says we failed the audition, and she wishes us well in future endeavors.

Better Democracy Requires Better People

I messed up today and am reminded that I need to be a better person. People need to engage each other with more patience and compassion, in life and in politics. It would make for better lives and better communities. I frequently suggest that people not immediately assume the worst of elected officials. It is too easy to dehumanize people with titles and positions and assume that “they” are all bad and intent on doing mean things. Such an approach is poisonous. Instead of focusing us on issues and attempts to reach collaborative solutions, the negativity devolves toward meaningless yapping.

Great theory, yes? Unfortunately, I failed the lab practicum.

I have worked diligently to open doors to government. It is something that burns brightly within me. Thus, when I read an article saying that I was working to shut out the public, I assumed the worst of “them,” the mainstream media. Because I had dehumanized “them” in my mind, forgetting that I know Bob and Lisa and respect them, it gave me permission to respond with anger and accusations.

A few hours later, I did what I should have done in the first place. I called Bob Bernick, the flesh and bone human being, and discussed the issue with him. He immediately agreed that the piece should not have stated that I admitted the main objective of the lawsuit was to scotch the vote, but, rather, that I admitted the lawsuit raised a possibility of doing away with the vote (a point on which I elaborated that Courts are expert at fashioning remedies). Without me asking, he offered to run a clarification.

Of course, he did. He’s a person who takes pride in his work and is trying his best. Handing off interview notes from one reporter to another (and humans just being humans) can lead to mistakes and misinterpretations. Sorry, Bob, and sorry to all, that I did exactly what I’m trying to discourage – jumping immediately to negative assumptions and dialogue-poisoning accusations, instead of having a conversation.

I came back from PDF with a renewed commitment to employ dialogue-promoting views and terms. Looks like I need to move more mental files from the “them” category to the “us” category.

Release Your Notes, Bob

The D News wrote an article on the legal challenge to the ballot language for vouchers. It states, "Urquhart, an attorney, admitted that the new lawsuit's main aim is to get the Utah Supreme Court to call off the Nov. 6 vote." This is false.

Bob Bernick interviewed me yesterday for the article. I have always regarded Bob to be good with quotes and conveying the gist of conversations. He got this one 180 degrees wrong. And, frankly, I don't know how he could have.

I was in a car on a cellphone with the person next to me talking on his cellphone. I couldn't hear every word Bob was saying, so I very deliberately over-explained each response, pointing out that we are in a mess and that the Court needs to clean it up, so that people know what they are voting on. Repeatedly, I stated that people need to know what they're voting on, just like I said in my blog yesterday. When he asked about effects on a vote, I said that the Supreme Court could fashion a remedy, I didn't know off hand what it would be, but that's what courts do. To conclude with a non quote summary that I said the purpose of the lawsuit is to cancel the vote is a fabrication. I don't know how Bob would reach that conclusion or why he would. Maybe it is Lisa (who wrote the story) being careless with Bob's notes.

In any event, it is fiction. The problem with the mainstream media is that they can make things up and never answer to anyone for it. Bob Bernick needs to publicly release his interview notes. Rather than convey that I am hoping an election won't happen, the notes should convey that I spoke repeatedly about cleaning up things for the election.

UPDATE (later): I do not delete or edit my posts (except for grammar/spelling). The blog is a record of how I view(ed) things at the time of the post. On this post, I responded poorly to a situation that displeased me. As I explain here, I called Bob, and he had no hesitation about clarifying the mistake. Life is better when we talk directly to each other on a civil basis.

UPDATE (5/26/07): the correction.

Vouchers – Ballot Title

I’m supposed to submit the argument in favor of the Education Vouchers bill to the Lieutenant Governor by June 1st. However, that is very difficult to do, given the way the ballot question was prepared.

Though it is the attorney general’s opinion that the provisions of the second voucher bill (HB 174) supersede provisions in the first bill (HB 148), the ballot question does not reflect that effect. Instead, the question is drafted as if HB 174 amended HB 148, rather than superseded it. To say the least, there is robust dialogue whether HB 174 amends or supersedes.

Regardless on which side of the argument one falls, the amends/supersedes issue is hugely important. It controls what the vote means. Without clarification of the issue, the referendum is seriously muddled. The vote will have no meaning – until the Utah Supreme Court tells us what we voted on and what the results mean. People can be as passionate as they want that their analysis of this legal situation is correct; but they should realize that people are every bit as sincere and passionate on the other side of the analysis. That means, we’ll vote on a blank slate, and 5 individuals in robes will then tell us what we did.

Of course, we all agree to follow the rule of law – after the Court tells us what that rule is in this confusing situation. Once the rule of law is definitively expressed, I doubt anyone is going to storm the Bastille. However, to establish that rule of law – to get a “clear public decision on Utah’s Voucher Policy in November” – I believe it would be best for the Court to tell us what the outcome means before we vote, instead of after.

Let’s have a straight-forward debate and vote on this issue. To do that, let’s have clarification before, instead of after. As I wrote earlier – though I seem to be alone on this idea – I’d like to have a special session to try to hammer out an accord. Of course, it won’t be easy. Who says it should be easy? A representative democracy is designed to push difficult issues to the legislative body. I say we give it a try. Set aside a week or two. Done right, the debates, the dialogue, and the citizen participation in such a special session could be the best Utah has seen for generations. Short of that, let’s at least have the Court tell us beforehand what our “yes” or “no” votes mean and help fashion a remedy so that the people’s will can be determined and carried out.

UPDATE (later): Senator Bramble writes about the need for clarification at the Senate Site.

Ethan blogs about the statement of the Gov., Sen. President, and Speaker, opposing a special session and "honoring the rule of law." In comments, Dave B. opines, "There is an easy solution, nix BOTH bills and put a single voucher bill up for a vote by the people. That way, neither side can hide behind a AG opinion letter, or a court ruling, or waiting on one or the other."

Dave B. nails it. We should hold a special session, pass a bill with the language of H.B. 174 and with language that the new bill will only go into effect after an election in November, and repeal both bills passed in the general session. Right now, both sides are hoping the courts side with them. That is an abdication of democratic responsibilities. It is a roll of the dice. If people truly want to ascertain the will of the people at the ballot box (which I think we should do, given the 100,000+ people who signed the referendum petitions), I think this is how it should be done.

Stuart Adams to Head Transportation Commission

Stuart Adams is going to take over the reins of the Transportation Commission. This is fantastic. Stuart is extremely smart, patient and fair. He entered the Legislature one term after me. Though it was immediately obvious that he was gifted, I first took close notice of him when, during floor debate on a bill I was running during his first term, he rolled me up in a ball and started bouncing me across the chamber. It was a Butch Cassidy moment; I was thinking, "Who is that guy? He's good."

From the article, it sounds like the news might have been dropped abruptly on current chair Glen Brown. If so, that's unfortunate. Glen has served the State well in many capacities, including his excellent and lengthy tenure as chair of the commission.

Old Media v. New Media

Paul Rolly, a Salt Lake Tribune gossip columnist, is sniping at the Senate Site. Comparing Rolly and the Senate Site would be a terrific case study in old media v. new media.

It would be interesting to examine whether Rolly or the Senate Site is more substantive; which one is more informative; which one is more accurate with facts; which one is better written; which one has better community participation; which one is more transparent in its political leanings, etc.

Opinions?

Tapscott -- Power to the People

Mark Tapscott wrote a compelling piece, outlining the need for people to pull power from the insiders that now control things (and how the Internet enables that to happen). Unless the process changes, the outcomes won’t change. As I did on Monday, and as The Who did long before us, Tapscott writes that, without changing the process, the new boss will be the same as the old boss -- proving, yet again, that if it hasn’t been said in Rock tunes, it’s probably not worth saying.

How to Give a Presentation

Larry Lessig and Seth Godin gave crisp and brilliant presentations at PDF. Lessig’s visuals are utterly simple. Godin’s are eye candy. However, the divergent approaches both are clear and effective.

Internet, Meet Real World

One of the most interesting projects I saw at PDF was FrontPorchForum (FPF). FPF is using online community to build real community. According to FPF co-founder Michael Wood-Lewis, about 20% of the people in Burlington, Vermont, are FPF members. Membership groups are limited to neighborhoods and sign-in is by real name. By using the forum to help match needs with resources for things like shoveling snow, moving furniture, obtaining emergency firewood when a furnace failed, selling old cars, staffing neighborhood watch programs, etc., FPF is using the Internet to help build better neighborhoods in Burlington. Way to go, Michael!

UPDATE (Later): My friend Arjun Singh, the bloggingist city council member in all of Kamloops, British Columbia, paid me a visit in the comments. It's really funny how people see the world. As far as I know, Arjun and I were the only two elected officials at PDF (at least he's the only one that I met, I should say). And we both work on the local level (though city and county council types might challenge me on that assertion). While there were lots of famous and important people there and lots of cool things to catch someone's attention (I'll blog about some in the coming days), if you look at his blog, you'll see that Arjun and I both lasered in on a not-so-flashy site doing worthwhile things at the local level.

Web 2.0 -- Good Thing/Bad Thing?

I walked into the PDF speakers’ reception (at Google’s offices in Chelsea) with Andrew Keen, a digital dissenter. As presented in his soon-to-be-released Cult of the Amateur: how today’s Internet is killing our culture, Andrew’s theory is that Web 2.0 largely is rubbish, in that we’re not using the tools to build anything of value as much as we’re using the tools to tear down existing infrastructure (e.g., cultural, political, economic), merely to then shout about nothing within our own echo chambers. To Keen, Web 2.0 is a bunch of monkeys hammering away on keyboards.

It sounds like Keen oversells the point. Web 2.0 does some cool and beneficial things; I’ll highlight one successful community-building 2.0 application tomorrow. But, it’s worthwhile for each of us to consider whether our 2.0 activities are producing good things in the political realm. If 2.0 applications are primarily used solely to polish/enlarge the scale of doing the current crummy stuff in politics (like agitating the fringes and focusing more on “gotcha” than substance), they will only amplify the current crummy stuff that’s already out there. New boss same as old boss and all that. To the contrary, if the tools are being used to create meaningful dialogue (and perhaps action) within communities, that’s a different story.

To that end, I wish Jeff Jarvis would engage directly with Andrew. Both men are smart and articulate. It would hurt nothing to examine and re-examine whether new tools are being used in beneficial ways. Regarding culture, I had a nice conversation with Andrew about 2.0 introducing me to a band from his home town of Berkeley that I never would have found otherwise – Golden Birds – and how it’s not my problem or concern whether that 2.0 introduction helps displace established labels, critics, under-assistant west coast promo men, etc. Fortunately, he didn’t bite, kick or do anything to indicate that his dystopian position is militant.

Personal Democracy Forum

I encountered some exciting people and ideas at the Personal Democracy Forum this week in New York. I’ll highlight a few of these over the next few days. First though, thanks to Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry, the event organizers, for working to open the doors to democracy.

Let Them Eat School Lunch

The Senate and House minority leaders sent a letter to Governor Huntsman asking him to call a special session to repeal HB 174 – the “clean up” bill for my education voucher legislation (HB 148). As we all know by now, HB 148 is subject to a referendum. HB 174 is not, nor could it be, since it passed by more than two-thirds in each body. HB 148 might or might not become law. HB 174 is law, even if the state school board chooses to ignore it.

So far, we’ve had some good public dialogue on the voucher issue; however, one point seems to be entirely missing: why was HB 174 drafted? Answer: the state school board asked us to run the legislation. That legislation passed; now, they want it to go away.

The tack of the education establishment has been to ignore/oppose the voucher issue, not to ever offer contributions or suggestions to an idea that many of their constituents want. And, no matter what anyone says, the ones who want it the most are the ones who are struggling the most. Remember, rich people already have the option of going to private schools. Poor people don’t have that option – unless, as we heard repeatedly in the testimony, they work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it. Short of that, their kids are trapped in a situation that is not working for them. While the public school system does a great job, some kids will be lost in a system so big. Maybe the kids are being bullied, maybe they have language issues, maybe they’re way behind or way ahead, etc. For whatever reason, public schools might not be working for some kids. Rich people have options. Poor people don’t.

For me, the committee testimony was revealing. In the line for vouchers were parents, most of them stating that they were struggling to financially do what is best for their children. In the line against vouchers were members of the education establishment, informing those parents that they were fine, no matter what they might experience to the contrary. Also telling was the smugness of the Senator from Holladay, righteously declaring that people in Holladay are against vouchers. Good for them. I’m glad they are rich and have wonderful schools; and, if for some reason the best performing schools in the state don’t meet their elevated needs, I’m glad they already have the money to send their kids to private schools. Life is good in Holladay. But maybe not so much in other areas.

I’m against a special session to repeal HB 174. It is law, and it should be implemented.

However, I would be happy to advocate a special session to consider modifications to HB 174. However, that would require that all sides declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. Though they’re working hard to claim some sort of high ground, it has always been undemocratic for the education establishment to refuse to dialogue on an issue of such obvious consequence to our citizens. Again, the part of the story that is missing is that the only time the education establishment was willing to dialogue was after HB 148 passed. We heard them and immediately ran the changes they requested. One side of this debate has always been willing to engage in democratic process and give the other side fair consideration.

Friends and the Written Word

It is hard to get to know someone until you've read their writing. I have found this to be true even with long-time friends. Because it tends to be a highly-focused activity, the written word reveals depth and perspective differently than conversation does.

I was delighted to find op-eds from 2 friends in today's Spectrum. The first is from Tad Trueblood about flying into Bagdad (2 weeks ago, I happened to be on the flight to Philadelphia with his wife Cindy when she was sending him off). Check out Tad's milblog. The second is from Glenn Mesa regarding better treatment of people with differing opinions.

E-Government and Dave Fletcher

Monday I spoke at a government CIO conference in Florida. I was sure to point out that everything I am able to do here and at Politicopia, and things that other members of Utah's political blogosphere are able to do, are significantly enabled by the tremendous online resources provided by the State of Utah. (If you haven't ever done it, take a few minutes to poke around other states' websites; you'll see how fortunate we are).

A big driver of Utah's advantaged position is the work of Dave Fletcher. Dave has rejoined the blogosphere and tells us why he's been missing (he's been busy).

Strides Toward E-Goverment

Politico highlights Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's site that encourage grassroots identification of issues and Prime Minister Blair's site that facilitates online petititions. Good for them, for pioneering these exciting efforts! (BTW, A look at the most popular petitions suggests that Brits want to boogie).

The article mentions Politicopia. We learned quite a bit running Politicopia during the legislative session. It has been nice to take some time after the session to focus on our experience, and to think through the limitations and possibilities of what we're trying to accomplish. At the Personal Democracy Forum on May 18th, we will introduce Politicopia's next step toward helping the public more meaningfully participate in their government. Thanks to Britt Blaser and his dedicated (and tired) ORGware team for their masterful work.

To give you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish with Politicopia, take a look at Gov. Patrick and PM Blair's sites. These are good starts. Now, imagine if participants on those sites were able to set up their own pages on those sites, to more fully explain their positions (with links, blogs, videos, podcasts, etc) and, then, were able to interact directly with the other participants, again directly on the site. This could convert suggestions and petitions to actual movements. While it is cool that (1) people can see who agrees with their thinking on issues and (2) that goverment, if it chooses to look, can see what people are thinking about an issue, this is not directly empowering for the participants. Think what might happen, though, if participants were enabled through the sites to network directly with the other participants and to, there, plan strategies to get the policymakers to act on their issues. At that point, the sites aren't just beneficial to policymakers who chose to look; rather, they are beneficial to the people, in that the actions the sites facilitate would force policymakers to pay attention. It is only with that type of functionality and organizational capabilities that the Internet will deliver on its potential to return political power to the people.