PTA Banned from school? Really?

Rolly:

If Bramble's SB199 is passed into law this year, Utah will be the only state in the nation that prohibits the PTA from participating in school activities.

A spokesman for the national PTA office in Chicago said no other state has a provision that comes close to the Utah proposal, and to his knowledge, there has never been such a law targeting the PTA in that manner.

Bramble's bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee on Tuesday. It would ban schools from allowing organizations that collect dues to participate in activities at the school. The PTA, because of its national affiliation, requires $5 a year in dues from members.

The proposed legislation appears to be an act of vindictiveness on Bramble's part. His Democratic opponent for the Senate last year is the president of the Provo District PTA. And the organization helped get the voucher bill passed by the 2007 Legislature repealed in a referendum vote.

Plus, most of those who testified in favor of the bill at the committee hearing were members of the coalition that pushed vouchers through the Legislature in the first place. Representatives of Parents for Choice in Education, the Sutherland Institute, the Eagle Forum and the Charter Schools Association all spoke in favor of the bill.

On the surface, this is just stupid.

On the underbelly, I didn't realize that vindictiveness was a Utah Value.

-Bob

Chris Buttars Get Same Punishment As Last Year

Last year, Chris Buttars made a racist remark, then dug the hole deeper by making more racist comments to try to cover his tracks. That, combined with threatening a judge is said judge ruled against his friend, was enough to get Senator Buttars removed from his chairmanship of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Then, in November, Senator Buttars received a "mandate" (heh, he said "man date") from voters by winning his election with a margin of 1500 votes.

As a reward, Senator Buttars became the chairman of two committees: Judiciary and Rules.

Utah Senate Republicans essentially made him the most powerful person on the hill.

So, after he made some wonderfully unloving comments about gay people and pig sex, we knew his punishment would be harsher, right?

After all, this was strike two.

Well, it's deja vu all over again on Capitol Hill.

To a packed room of reporters, Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, announced he was stripping Buttars of his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, because that's where gay-rights bills would be heard. He is also no longer a member of that committee, although he does remain on his other committees, including the powerful Senate Rules Committee.

-Bob

Huntsman Still More Popular Than Jesus

Even since Governor Huntsman's declaration last week that he supports the Common Ground bills in addition to Civil Unions, the right has been in a tizzy, saying that Huntsman doesn't side with 60% of Utahans on the issue.

I've been wondering about that one. It didn't seem completely right.

So, I've been anticipating this poll from Dan Jones for KSL/DesNews:

In a new Deseret News/KSL-TV poll, 67 percent of Utahns said the governor's recent announcement supporting civil unions either made no difference or gave them a more favorable opinion of him. Thirty-two percent said their opinions of the governor were negatively impacted by his announcement last week.

So, only 1/3 of his constituents think less of him because of this.

Probably the third that didn't know he was a moderate.

Overall, however, with 80 percent of Utahns still approving of the job Huntsman is doing, the governor's "political bombshell" seems to have created minimal fallout away from Capitol Hill.

Sure, that number was 90% last month, but 80% is pretty dang good. I'd bet that Jesus wouldn't even get 80% approval ratings in Utah.

Now, here comes the question of civil unions:

Forty-seven percent of those polled supported civil unions compared to 42 percent who did not, according to the survey.

OK, the difference is within the margin of error, but it looks like more people in this state favor civil unions than oppose them.

-Bob

Sutherland: LDS Church is Wrong

OK, so they didn't come right out and say that, but let's connect the dots for two seconds.

On November 5, 2008, Elder L Whitney Clayton, who headed the Church's involvement in California's Proposition 8, told the Deseret News that the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign. Three months later, the Church has not refuted these claims.

In fact, on January 21, 2009, LDS Church leaders met with Republican Legislative Leaders. When pressed for a position on the "Common Ground" bills, the legislators were referred to prior statements issued by the Church. This version of events has not been refuted by either the Church nor by Legislative leaders.

On February 9, 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman came out in support of the Common Ground Initiative, including civil unions.

So, you would think that groups that consist primarily of members of the LDS Church that use religious arguments to defend their positions would applaud the Governor for siding with the Church, right?

As if.

Reference this message I received via Facebook tonight from Jeff Reynolds of the Sutherland Institute:

On Monday, February 9, 2009, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Governor Huntsman, through his spokesperson, had expressed his support for the "Common Ground Initiative" and said he was in favor of civil unions for same-sex couples.

In response, Sutherland Institute issued the following statement: "We're not surprised. Public relations, not policy, is his strong suit. He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3, and everyone has known, since then, that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Responsible citizens wishing to express their disappointment to the Governor's position on this issue may contact his office at 801-538-1000 or you can simply leave a comment for him at http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html.

The Governor needs to know it's important to be right on this issue, not nice.

Click here, and send the Governor a message thanking him for showing courage and standing up for what's right.

Liveblog: Blogger Presser @ the Capitol

I'm live at the blogger deal at the Capitol. To view online, click here.

1608: After everyone introduced ourselves, Senator Urqhart introduced SB 208 that will allow legal notices on state web site.

1616: There would be a nominal fee to publish the legal notice. The actual cost of the fee is unknown at this time.

1617: The requirement of an online notice would be anywhere a legal notice is required in the current law.

1618: Currently, hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly low 7 figures) is spent on legal notices.

1619: No feedback yet from newspaper publishers.

1620: archives.utah.gov is likely where the legal notices will be published.

1621: database of notices will be searchable (location, type, etc)

1628: ethan at slcspin asked if this was an anti-media bill. the answer (from the senator) is that it's a pro-consumer bill. not governments job to prop up a industry.

1632: implementation will be in 2010 so that any tweaks that come from the technology can be rectified in annother session.

1634: JMBell texted in to ask Ethan why, since he's no longer a real blogger, he's hogging all the questions. (Ethan asked 3, everyone else asked one. While I liked JM's point, Ethan didn't exactly hog out time.)

1637: Sen Neiderhauser speaking on transparency moves by the state government.

The Optimism of Waddoups

Some people wish for the patience of Job.

I want the optimism of Senator Waddoups. From his opening speech as Senate President two weeks ago:

"I prefer to look on the bright side. Things aren't as gloomy as some would have us believe," Waddoups said. "Revenues are down a little, but we can still eat, we can have homes, we have health care, we have color TV … and most still have jobs."

We can still eat, except for those who can't afford to. Not to mention the fact that we have no idea how safe our food supply is.

We have homes, except those who have been foreclosed on. Anyone want to make a visit with me to The Road Home and congratulate them on having a home with me?

Well, you have health care. Have you ever tried to fight strep without meds? It ain't color TV?

Ad, speaking of color TV's, since when was that a necessity? And can you even buy a black and white?

And fewer people have jobs than when he said this. Go figure.

-Bob

"It's on the web site"

I haven't been blogging much as of late because I have been looking for two things: 1) Motivation and 2) a job.

#2 is the most important, of course.

However, I wanted to post this, mostly because I am preparing remarks on the subject and wanted it in a handy place for future reference. (Tribune, Jan 22 2009)
\

Also discussed by GOP legislators and LDS Church officials Wednesday were the following:

City Creek » The church said it has no plans to postpone work on its City Creek development, the largest construction project in the state.

Same-sex couples » Officials did not specifically address a series of proposed "Common Ground" bills that would extend some rights to same-sex couples, except to refer lawmakers to their previous statements on the topic.

Immigration » The LDS leaders reiterated their concern that the state enact a "compassionate" immigration policy.

From the Archives: The Most Wonderous Time of Year

I've been thinking about this song for about a week now, and I thought I'd share it with you again. It's a rewrite of a Christmas song that I wrote before the 2006 legislative session.

Enjoy!

It's the most wonderous time of the year
With the Democrats yelling
Which Utah Republicans can't seem to hear
It's the most wonderous time of the year

It's the cra-craziest time of the year
With those closed door meetings and no gays to be greeting
When Gayle R comes to call....
It's the cra-craziest time of the year

There'll be one party hosting
No liquor for toasting
The public is left in the snow
There'll be scary ed stories
And tales of the tax cuts that were promised long, long ago!

It's the most wonderous time I do say!
There'll be much lobby-y-ing and ears will be burning
Cause the teachers want pay!
It's the most wonderous time I do say!

I'm working on a Jim Matheson one that I hope to post soon

HB 215: A litlle too late

In case you hadn't heard, you'll have to start dialing 10 digits to call your next door neighbor starting this March.

Cricket Wireless subscribers have had to do it since last June. And, since the Legislature is still in session, someone wants to change it:

The Public Service Commission says, starting March 1, all phone calls in Utah must include dialing 10 digits. Also, all new phone numbers will have the 385 area code, regardless of city.

Rep. Jim Dunnigan is worried about that 10-digit dialing, especially for seniors and children.

"Now we are going to tell them, it's not enough to memorize seven numbers, you have to memorize 10, and is it 801 or is it 385," he said.

Dunnigan is sponsoring House Bill 215 to assign the new area code by geography, like 435.

The PSC made the decision to overlay the new area code in 2007.

I like this bill, in principle. However, given the late date, it seems a little late. It's coming a little too fast to change things now.

However, there does need to be information coming out about this. As much as I hate being reminded of the switch to digital television on Feb 17, At least you can't say you didn't know. And only a small portion of the population will be affected.

But how many of you know you'll have to dial ten digits when making a phone call in a month?

Anyone?

-Bob

Contact Your Legislator Without Loking Like an Idiot

More importantly than not sounding like an idiot is making sure you actually get your stuff read by your legislator instead of thrown out by their intern.

So, with that in mind, please read the following from Curtis over at Blue in Red Zion, with commentary by me:

1) Always use formal titles - Always refer to the person you are writing to with their formal title, and do it throughout the message. Even if you know the person personally, I would still strongly recommend calling them Representative or Senator.

Last year, when I was on the Hill, I made the mistake of calling my favorite English Teacher I never had at Olympus by the wrong name. I called he Carol, which earned me a glare. The I called her "Ms. Moss, I mean Spackman-Moss," which got me another glare, until I came up with the appropriate name: "Representative Spackman-Moss."

2) Be sure to reference the specific bill you are interested in by bill number and name. The proper format is H.B. (for "house bill" as an example) 1 - the name of the bill here. If you are writing someone other than the bills sponsor, also be sure to include the name of the person proposing the bill.

I've heard from many people who have either been Legislators or interns that a Legislator will read several letters/emails about the same bill at once, so this makes it easier to get your letter read when it will do the most good. Also, with as mny bills as there are every year, it's hard to keep up with them and will allow them to look it up.

3) Always mention why your opinion matters - more specifically, state that you live in the legislators district, city, county, or are a citizen of Utah. If you involved with an organization relating to an issue, mention that as well - if this is the case be sure to point out that you are acting as an individual.

Also, try to only contact your representative and/or the bill's sponsor. This is the most effective use of time.

4) Keep messages short, generally less than three or four paragraphs.

Because do you really want to read a novel in your inbox. (I know that because of it's length, 50% of my readers won't read this far.)

5) Avoid using arguments that are based on ideology - quoting scripture, party rhetoric, and/or sources that are less than reputable will make legislators ignore you and your message quick. This is especially true if you disagree with bill. If you agree, this still harms your argument and may cause a legislator to reevaluate their positions. Similarly, do use logic whenever possible; oftentimes when legislators write bills, they do not know about potential consequences to groups if the bill were to pass.

6) If possible, be sure to include personal stories that explain how this bill would help or hurt you, your family, your friends, your organizations, etc.

#6 is my favorite. If a bill riles you up enough to contact your legislature, then there is a reason for it. Tell them!

7) Be sure you have read the bill, or at the very least, read a summation of the bill from a reliable source, before writing - if you make inferences and logical leaps that are just not there, the legislator may ignore future correspondence from you.

I'm amazed at people who complain about something (a bill, an article, a blog post) that suggests something that will make it better. Something that is already in there. (.e. "Your post would have been better if you had made additional comments.)

8) Always sign your name to any message, it adds legitimacy and show you believe in your cause.

It makes you 50% less crazy.

And, I'd like to add a #9:

Write, even if you think your legislator agrees with you. A few years ago, there was an issue that I cared about being discussed at the Legislature, which I though my Representative was in agreement with me on, so I decided not to waste her time. When she voted the other way, she sent a reply that said that she had heard from more constituents disagreeing with her after her vote than had weighed in on either side before the vote. She honestly didn't know which way to go, and went with what she though best, a position that changed once constituents weighed in on the issue.

-Bob