You're Joking, Right?

Rep. Steven Mascaro commented on a post where I opined that his approach to politics is grandstanding and hackish, and, to point of fact, ineffectual. (At least I assume it really was him. It does have several difficult-to-replicate indicia that he actually did write it.).

Thank you, Rep. Mascaro, for allowing the public a wonderful opportunity to verify your rhetoric. Thank you. Usually you hide behind vague, unverifiable broadsides on people who are doing their level best. And, the media is all too glad to parrot your accusations, without attempting to check any facts. Thank you, for this time giving us some specifics that can be analyzed and that clearly show that your claims of victimization by thuggish colleagues are false.

Rep. Mascaro claims that I buried his bills in Rules this past session. Not so, as I told him on 1/30/08, when he screamed at me and swore vengeance.

In 2007, Rep. Mascaro did have some extraordinarily bad legislation or legislation where he never would be able to pull together a working consensus. So, much of it didn’t go anywhere. However, he had stirred up a constituency on a bill that aimed to mandate insurance coverage for morbid obesity (by working with the media, instead of health care providers and insurers). The bill had no legs. But, he asked if I’d send it to his standing committee, so that he could put on a bit of a show. He promised, as chair of the committee, that it would never get out of committee, even if he had to publicly protest that outcome. That’s what happened. He was happy. I thought we were BFF. Until he uncorked on me in 2008.

So, let’s examine the horrible treatment he received at my hands in 2008.

Two of his bills, HB 20 and HB 21, took a rocket ride on the fast track. Immediately, they skipped the (time-consuming) step of a standing committee hearing during the session and went straight to the board for consideration by the whole House. (Bills that have been approved unanimously by an interim committee are eligible for such rock star treatment; but, they don't all get it.). As a matter of fact, HB 21 was out of the House and to the Senate on day 1 of the session. I doubt any other representative – and surely not more than 2 or 3 – was given such a meteoric start by the Rules Committee.

HB 59 was sent to a standing committee on the third day of the session. Still rock star treatment.

Take a good look at HB 158. That’s the one where I got screamed at and threatened. He had asked me about it before. I told him that it was not in the possession of the Rules Committee. That means that it could only be in one place – the Fiscal Analysts’ office. It’s not rocket science. It’s got to be in one of two places. (And, thus, it is absolutely astounding -- or, more accurately, embarrassing -- that he’d claim I could hide it for 10 days; one hour after being sworn in, a decent freshman legislator knows that legislation has to be in one of two places, if it hasn’t gone to a standing committee; it’s either (A) with the Rules Committee or (B) with the Fiscal Analysts’ office. A or B. It can’t be anywhere else. There is no C, D, or E. It’s got to be in one of those two places, A or B. If a legislator is confused, he can take one minute and find it. 10 days? Wow!).

So, again, please take a look at the status report on HB 158. Rules took possession of the bill on 1/30. Mascaro talked with the clerk and uncorked on me on 1/30. Bully that I am, the bill went to a standing committee . . . when? We’re going to do a bit of training on fact checking, and I’ll let you answer that question. You’ll see that Rules received the bill on 1/30; now look for the date of the line that says, “House/to standing committee.” Clearly, I’m a bad man, and I deserved to be threatened.

On HB 232, a few Rules Committee members pointed out to Rep. Mascaro that the State currently is in the middle of a $7,500,000 elementary school math initiative project, and that we need to receive and analyze the results of that study before launching in another direction. We asked whether he might consider changing his legislation a bit. Of course not. Even on this non-starter bill, though, he was treated very well by the Rules Committee, and the bill was sent to a standing committee with over a month to go in the session.

Rules never received HB 496, meaning that he abandoned it.

So, Rep. Mascaro’s last bill was sent out very early in the process. No one can dispute that this is anything other than superb treatment by the Rules Committee. Yet, with lots of bluster, Rep. Mascaro reports that the Rules Committee stuck it to him. Facts. Those pesky facts. Borrowing Rep. Mascaro’s suggestion: “Now multiply that times [sic] the many occassions [sic] that” Rep. Mascaro has been quoted (with no verifiable factual evidence) to say that a conservative cabal is out to get him, and you’ll see that this just might be “the tip of the ice berge [sic]” to a polemic witch hunt.

So, thank you, Steven, for finally giving us some facts to analyze regarding your alleged victim status and my observation that you are a grandstanding political hack. My opinion stands. Then, again, maybe in that golden age of “decorum” and “professional courtesy” legislators could simply make up stuff and use those lies and distortions to malign colleagues, and everyone just thought it was precious.

I happen to think it's a pretty wonderful age now, when people don't have to rely on a biased media for information, but instead can easily check facts for themselves.

Investigations -- Timing

Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert has been pilloried for waiting to act on Richard Ellis’s allegations until after the primary election. The delay, many argue, is a sure sign of cronyism, protectionism, good old boyism, etc. If that’s the case, and it's not just the experienced realization that a politically-motivated witch hunt might be going on, then Democratic Representative Phil Riesen must be part of that conservative cabal.

On June 18^th, he and Rep. Sheryl Allen went toe-to-toe on the timing, manner and purpose of their planned ethics complaint against Rep. Mark Walker. While Rep. Allen was extremely eager to file the complaint immediately before the primary, accompanied by a splashy press release, Rep. Riesen recoiled at the political crassness. Instead, he wanted it to be less political, waiting until after the primary and doing it quietly through the ethics committee, instead of through the media. He won on one of those two points.

These kinds of things are important to know, if – as we are forebodingly told today – more, unspecified ethics allegations are to come (say, shortly before the general election?). There’s always the chance that politics are involved in politics.

Rep. Riesen, thank you for the restraint on the timing issue. I support organizations policing their members, whether that’s a bar association, a team, a family, or a legislature. But, as we see here and in so many other contexts, the concept of innocent until proven guilty has no meaning in election cycles and the media. Thus, it is important that members of an organization approach the organization’s disciplinary process with restraint – which usually means out of the public’s eye, until the disciplinary body reaches its conclusion, which, then, can be released along with the allegations; otherwise, the disciplinary process itself can become a tool for significant abuse.

Coincidence, I'm Sure

Three members of the House complained bitterly that their bills were being held by the House Rules Committee -- of which Mark Walker is 1 of 8 members (1 of 6 Republican members). Those 3 complainants are (drum roll please) Neil Hansen, Sheryl Allen and Steve Mascaro.

In 2007 and most of 2008, each rules committee member nominated an equal number of bills to the list the Rules Committee would consider for committee assignments or floor prioritization, meaning that those 3 couldn't find a single member to move his/her legislation. When Hansen, Allen and Mascaro complained that their legislation wasn't moving, I candidly told them that they were perceived on both sides of the aisle to be grandstanding hacks who brought little of value to the process, and that the perception probably wasn't helping their cause. (For example, Phil might want to explain to Neil why no Democrat on the Rules Committee and no member of Democratic leadership in the House was willing to lift a finger to get any of Neil's legislation moving forward). I pointed out to the 3 that they only needed 1 member of the Rules Committee to help them out; but, I pointed out, they couldn't find a single committee member who believed they had anything of value to add; I suggested that they might want to consider why that was. Of course, none of the 3 liked hearing that, and all 3 promised vengeance on Rules Committee members, if their legislation did not move forward. Their legislation did not move forward. It just might be possible that they're now delivering on that promise, kicking a Rules Committee member when, clearly, he is down.

That's a funny aspect of politics. It has long been my perception that these 3 members are cancer -- unwilling to accept the fact that they cannot work well enough with colleagues to ever convince them to do anything, and willing to use any way possible, legitimate or not, to gain relevance. Yet, now, they proclaim themselves surgeons, ready to remove the cancer.

As it should, the ethics committee will investigate the allegations and make a determination. However, if things are going to be laid on the table for dispassionate consideration, it also might be proper to consider whether the accusations themselves are politically motivated. Because I was told by the 3 that vengeance would be exacted, that seems like a fair inquiry. This simply could be politics as usual.

And, because the victimization story is sure to follow, let's go on record now that none of the 3 can move legislation. (In 2007-08, Hansen passed 1 bill out of 26 attempts; Allen was 5-for-14; Mascaro was 4-for-11). I'm sure that next term, when they also can't move legislation, because they still won't be able to work effectively with others, they'll claim that it is because of retribution for their bravery in filing the complaint, and the media will eat it up without ever pointing out their prior ineffectiveness.

UPDATE (7/1/08): Notice the close of Bob Bernick's article today. Conservatives very bad. I'm sure Bob will follow up in 2 years, to let us know whether thuggish conservatives retaliated against Hansen and upset his previous lofty pass rate of 3.8%. I guess it's possible. Maybe parking privileges could be taken away, or something along those lines.

Education: Pay for Performance

Tremendous things are happening in public education!

It seems that citizens, educators and policymakers are on the same page (imagine that!) regarding the merit of performance-based pay for teachers. The (very) tough thing, of course, is to figure out how we go about it.

This past session, the Legislature passed SB 281, which provides $20,000,000 for the districts to figure out a pay-for-performance ("PFP") plan that they believe works best for them. (This is one of the loosest appropriations I've ever seen: "figure out how you're going to spend the money, let us know what you're doing, let us know how it went, and good luck!"). All districts, except one I believe, are stepping up to the plate with plans. Charter schools are doing the same.

I'm particularly excited about the Washington County School District plan (and not yet familiar with other districts' plans). The WCSD plan is based on team-based goals, implementation, assessment, team-based performance, and school-based performance. How exciting! My only suggestion to that plan is that the District figure out a place for parental input/participation.

Also, the State School Board has assembled an excellent team to formulate the Board's vision of best practices for PFP. I have assembled an outstanding group in Washington County to look at PFP, among other education issues, and I encourage other legislators/citizens to do the same in their area.

Better dialogue really is only made possible by better dialogue. So, let's all get working on this project.

UPDATE (6/27/08): Last night, I was invited to a meeting at George Washington Academy (a charter school in St. George) where the parents/administrators discussed their performance pay plan. It looks like GWA is going to put a lot of weight on student outcomes over the course of the academic year -- but, as others are finding, the planners are grappling to figure out how best to measure outcome.

The Deseret News published a pointed editorial on the matter.

Gay Marriage in Utah

Sen. Scott McCoy writes an article on gay marriage – which is particularly interesting between the lines.

Sen. McCoy first warns of “political rhetoric and demagoguery” (no doubt, which will be spread exclusively by Republicans), while informing us that the California gay-marriage decision won’t mean much for Utah “in the short term.” He notes that his pending marriage to his partner won’t be recognized in Utah “for now.”

So, what do those qualifiers – “in the short term” and “for now” – mean? They mean that Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage, even though there is no doubt that most Utahns want no part of that.

The “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize laws and legal arrangements from other states. So, the plan of gay-marriage advocates is to use the courts to force other states to recognize California same-sex marriages – Utah being no exception.

There is a particularly juicy bit of irony in this, since Sen. McCoy and Democrats can’t stop beating the political drum that Republicans are out of touch with Utah voters, because the Legislature passed vouchers, and the people then said “no.” Well, just a few years ago, 66% of Utahns said “no” to gay marriage. Hmm.

So, while high-minded Democrats share facts and information about vouchers (which is a dead issue), we can only hope that those lowly Republicans don’t spread political rhetoric and demagoguery about same-sex marriage (which is far from a dead issue).

UPDATE (6/19/08): Glen Warchol's blog has a good discussion going on regarding the topic.

Steve Urquhart: Super Genius

I have to admit I am flattered that, once again, the good people of Salt Lake County are looking to me to solve a thorny issue for them. I think, though, that -- instead of stepping in and solving this one for them -- I'll let them grapple with the issue, so that they might develop some problem-solving skills.

C'mon, people. Dig in and work it out. Delaying the tough work would only mean that the tough work has been delayed. Nothing more. Breaking up is hard to do, but at this point it's simply a question of valuation. Politically tough? Absolutely. Rocket science? Hardly.

UPDATE (6/18/08): LaVarr Webb wrote an article today in Utah Policy that helps explain some of the background for local governance:

"In response to the Sunday Deseret News column I wrote about federalism, some local government leaders have sent messages saying that even as state officials feel the heavy hand of the federal government, local leaders sometimes feel oppressed by the state government, especially the Legislature.

So, the question is, should the principles of federalism also apply between state and local governments? State legislators will be quick to point out that the legal and constitutional relationship between state and local is much different than between state and federal. State governments created the national government, and the Founders expected states to be a check on federal power. States are sovereign, and hold constitutional status. Local governments, on the other hand, are creations of state government. So, within the parameters of state constitutions and statutes, the legislatures can slap around local governments as much as they please. State legislatures determine how local governments are established, how the operate, and how they are financed.

However, even though local governments have no constitutional protection, common-sense principles of governance still apply. Taking a paternalistic, heavy-handed, “mother knows best” attitude toward local governments isn’t the best way to govern them. Government closest to the people is still the best government. In many cases, locally-elected officials are as close, or closer, to the people than are state legislators. They meet much more frequently. They deliver the most basic of services. They are accessible and are responsive to the pulse of the community. They often know better than legislators what works at the local level. Legislators ought to respect them and not ride roughshod over them. There will always be pushing and pulling and a healthy tension between the levels of government. But there should be mutual respect that results in a good balance between the responsibilities of state and local governments."

Just 99.9% of His Purpose

From the Tribune: "But Ellis said after the hearing that his 'whole purpose wasn't politically motivated.'"

Scuzzy.

Sen. Hickman on Washington

Sen. Bill Hickman shared a few thoughts in the Tribune about our federal government. As someone who has spent 16 years in the political trenches -- making the tough decisions to balance a budget every year -- it seems that Bill is a bit frustrated with a federal government that increasingly wants to do the work of the states and locals but is unwilling to battle with the difficult issues it should be addressing, like immigration and energy policy.

I regularly meet with legislators from other states. Bill's sentiments are directly in line with the vast majority of state legislators across the nation. States aren't perfect. Often, we're far from it. But we're worlds better, or at least braver, than the show horses in D.C., who habitually hide from tough or controversial issues.

As for Utah's 5 representatives in Congress, I think they are exceptional human beings. And that's what really depresses me. If a Rob Bishop or a Bob Bennett can't put a significant dent in the machine, we're in a bad way and in desperate need of reform.

Take energy policy. We are enriching terrorists and thugs, the price or our most basic staple of production (energy) is taking off like a rocket, oil companies are making obscene profits, we haven't built a refinery forever, we're doing next to nothing about tapping domestic fuel sources or developing reliable alternatives (e.g., nuclear), but Congress is yapping about how we can seriously jack up production costs by capping and trading carbon dioxide emissions (cap, trade, and export production jobs).

As China races past us, it must be awestruck that it lagged behind a nation led by cowards.