This afternoon, approximately 400 people gathered together in the Capitol quad to show their support for the implementation of private school vouchers.   Among several speakers addressing the crowd was Mark Cluff, a member of the State Board of Education.  Mark read from a letter recieved by Kim Burningham, Chair of the State Board, on May 14, 2007 (yesterday).

For your review, I’ve included the contents of the letter written and signed by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff: (Sorry about the text formatting problem)

May 11, 2007 
Kim R. Burningham

Utah State Board of Education

250 East Cesar E. Chavez Blvd. (500 South)   

P.O. Box 144200

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4200 
 

Dear Mr. Burningham: 
 

I am writing in response to your letter dated May 7, 2007, in which you raised several questions regarding the implementation of H.B. 174 and the Attorney General’s Office’s role in providing legal counsel to the Utah State Board of Education.   
 

You made several incorrect allegations that I will briefly respond to at the end of this letter in order to set the record straight, but it is critical that I first address the issues of legal representation and obedience to the law. 
 

You point out that you were not asked by the Board of Education to inquire as to my qualifications, or those of my office, to represent the Board and the State Office of Education. Your letter suggests that I must answer certain questions to your satisfaction before you decide whether to retain my office for legal representation. That is not necessary. With respect to the critical issue of who can provide legal representation to the Board, I must clarify that as the duly elected Attorney General for the State of Utah, I am the constitutionally designated sole legal advisor to both the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah State Board of Education.  There is no constitutional or statutory exemption provided to the Board or to the State Office to allow either entity to utilize independent counsel.  Accordingly, any attempt by either entity to seek or receive legal advice from an attorney not provided, supervised and controlled by the Attorney General is a violation of the Constitution. Bill Evans and Kristina Kindl are the assistant attorneys general assigned by me to represent those entities. In addition, I have granted limited “special assistant attorney general” status to Carol Leer and Jean Hill to advise the Board, but only under my direction and supervision.      
 

Consistent with my written opinion to Governor Huntsman dated March 27^th, 2007, and in accordance with my sworn duty as Utah Attorney General, I must advise you, the Board, the State Office, and the Superintendent that H.B. 174, which went into effect on April 30, 2007, must be implemented immediately. All legislation is presumed valid until it is stayed or overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction or repealed by the legislature. Until such time it is the duty of the Board, as good public stewards, to obey the law and establish and implement regulations in accordance with H.B. 174.  In so doing, it would be expeditious if the Board simply modified the voucher regulations it already has drafted, thereby demonstrating its good faith effort to comply with the law and advice of legal counsel. I am confidant that the message you, the Board and the State Office of Education, want to send to the school children you serve, is one of obedience to the law first and foremost; and that if you disagree with a law, you work within the law to change it 
 

To set the record straight, we wanted to meet with you prior to the May 3rd board meeting but were told by your staff that was “not necessary.” I was surprised I was not invited to that meeting where legal representation and implementation of laws was discussed. When I was able to make it in the afternoon, I was told by the superintendent that the time for public comment was past. I did not argue. I am concerned about your repeated statements in public and in a least one email to Speaker Curtis that you believe my opinions are based on perceived friendships with, or sympathy for, one side of this issue.  For example, your letter incorrectly states that the “Board is aware of [my] office’s views in defense of the constitutionality of the voucher legislation.”  I have never stated my formal legal opinion on the constitutionality of this legislation, nor to the best of my knowledge has anyone in my office defended the constitutionality of this bill.  Certainly, no one has ever asked for my opinion, not even the Board. I assure you that I and my attorneys provide our best analyses and legal opinions based on the law and not on friendships or public opinion. You may not like, or agree with, the advice we give, but it would be a disservice to you and to the public to only tell you what you want to hear. 
 

In conclusion, it is incumbent upon the Board to implement the voucher program through H.B. 174 immediately! This guidance combined with your current draft regulations should allow the Board to comply with the law without further delay.  Any remaining questions will be answered with all due speed once we have received the official request from the Board.  As always, I and my staff remain dedicated to providing the Board and the State Office with the highest level of legal representation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Kristina Kindl, Bill Evans, or myself at (801)538-1191. 
 

Sincerely, 
 
 
Mark L. Shurtleff

Attorney General 

cc:  Utah State Board of Education Members

Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Carol Lear, Coordinator, Government and Legislative Relations

Jean Hill, Education Specialist, Government and Legislative Relations

Enough said.

Oh, goodness!!!  Let’s not make this political.

Click HERE.  Click HERE.

Enid Greene announced she’s ready to jump ship the moment the new State Republican Party Chair is elected on June 9th.  Click HERE for Bernick’s D-News article.  Six individuals applied to run for the Republican Party’s top elected position by the filing deadline Thursday at 5 pm.

Still at the top of the political “pile” is Stan Lockhart, former Utah County Republican Party Chair.  Stan, who hs been active in the state party for a number of years, brings with him an outstanding background of administrative and public relations experience.

The vacancy being created by short-term, outgoing Chair Enid Greene leaves a unique opportunity for someone well-qualified to fill the Utah Republican State Party Chair.  Greene, who recently fired Party Director Jeff Hartley, following her announcement that she wouldn’t run for re-election this June, served for only a few short months as the Chair.   Joe Cannon, former Party Chair, vacated the Party’s top elected position to take the Editors Desk at the Deseret Morning News upon retirement of former Editor John Hughes.  Greene announced at the Utah County Republican Party Convention last month that she was remarrying–congratulations, Enid.

Now, I don’t know much about three out of the four candidates currently vying for Party Chair.  However, one candidate I know has done more for the Utah Republicans (not just Utah County Republicans), clearly, than any other candidate, to date–that man is Stan Lockhart.

Stan is the whole package.  His administrative experience as a successful Utah County Party Chair will bring familiarity to the job.  With current financial “strains” on the Party’s checkbook, Stan has a long, well-known track record of annually filling Utah County’s coffers to the brim, so much so, that often local Party surpluses have spilled over into State and other County races to significantly support Republican candidates across the state–Utah County is already 100% RED!

By default, the State Party Chair must be an active lobby on the Hill.   Stan’s professional experience as a public affairs executive with Micron (IM Flash), in Lehi, has placed him in close proximity with Legislators and Legislative Leadership–everyone knows Stan.  Having that kind of access to the Legislature is critical in the Chair position–Joe Cannon had access and Stan already has it–relationships which take years to develop.  I’m not familiar with the other candidates.  I’m sure they’re all great people.

Stan IS the Republican Party.  He has been a long-time member of the state central committee, a position he was just re-elected to few days ago.

Stan knows the political process.  Former member of the Provo City Council, he was an outspoken advocate of conservative party principles.

I have stood back for years and watched the progression of Stan’s life and everything about this man and his committment to the Party has brought him to this specific point in time–our next State Party Chair!

Click HERE for Bob Bernick, D-News article.

Does anybody else find it ironic that the Tribune Editorial Board is asking the Utah State Legislature to “do the honorable thing” and repeal HB174?  The Tribune?!  HB174 was voted on by both the House and the Senate with over two-thirds in each body and signed by the Governor.

If there is “honor,” HB174 will stay law, and an amendment to the “Amendment” bill should shift the “hold harmless” money ($9 million for filling empty student seats with money for 5 years) from HB148, where it was appropriated, to HB174 where, effectively, HB174 would be nearly identical to the original HB148.  Doing this would not change the contents or intent of HB174, but allow the “hold harmless” money to be reappropriated to the Parents Choice in Education Voucher program.  Doing this would take the Governor’s signaure on a Call and about $34,800 extra dollars from Utah taxpayers for a Special Session.

The chances of repealing HB174, about 0%.  Honor is saying what you’re going to do…and then doing it.

Some Washington DC insiders believe the White House will not VETO a bill granting the State of Utah a Fourth Congressional seat, as well as, giving the Dictrict of Columbia a “full-voting” seat in the House.  The bill proposes increasing the number of House seats from 435 to 437.

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), revealed the contents of a conversation he had with Vice President Dick Cheney while the two flew out to Utah on Airforce 2 in conjuction with the VP’s commencement address at the BYU in Provo.  Click HERE for SLTrib story.

The Plan:

1)      Phased “Deportation”

2)      Documentation

3)      Required Leave Outside US Borders

4)      Phased In, Legal Importation

5)      Removal of Illegal Population

Introduction & Reservation

A necessary introduction to this proposition is the clear understanding that I personally would prefer to have all individuals who have entered this country illegally removed, immediately.  Pragmatically speaking, I understand this is not rational or feasible, and so I offer the following solution… 

This proposal has a little bit of something in it for everyone–Constitutionalists, Employers, Illegals, State and Federal Governments, Common Folk (like myself), the Apathetic…Everyone.  Will everyone be absolutely happy?  No.  Is it full of holes still?  Yes.

You see, the more and more I learn about the founding of this great nation, the more I realize the foundation of this American Ideal was constructed on the principle of compromise—the willingness of people with uncommon interests to find common ground—a solution.  And, with compromise no one gets everything they want.  It’s the reason why slavery wasn’t done away with during the drafting of the Constitution.  Compromise.  It is the feeling of some that a fragile, infant Nation may not have survived the very real North/South tensions existing decades before the commencement of the Civil War had slavery been abolished during that era in US history.

So, here’s my reservation.  Do I believe for a second Washington DC hierarchy and Congress have the wherewithal to accomplish what I’m proposing?  No.  So it is with many simple ideas originating from the prolotarian ramblings of the common man.  Nevertheless, I have a blog, dog gun’ it…and I’m not afraid to use it.

Because this is strictly a National border security problem, the States cannot practically implement this plan alone.  Execution will take a cooperative and collaborative effort between the States and the Federal Government.  Strengthening the borders is absolutely necessary. The free flow of illegal immigration must stop.  You don’t start shoveling the mud out of the basement until you stop the flow of mud into the basement.  Congress must appropriate funding to properly secure our borders.

Impetus

One more note before I explain the plan.  It is in light of recent events surrounding the selective deportation of the Corados from Utah that I’m proposing this plan–the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back.  The story of this migrant family is clearly an indictment of our current immigration system—it’s broken, clearly broken.

Some estimate the illegal population of Utah now exceeds 100,000 undocumented residents.  Many taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of our state are uncomfortable with this integrated population.  The argument that these illegal aliens in our state are human beings is not considered as a criteria of this proposal.  Nobody in their right mind would argue that illegals do not deserve the same considerations demanded and required by any other human being…unless, of course, that individual is a criminal—someone who commits crimes.  There are undocumented criminals among this population and they need to be dealt with as criminals.  The fact that illegals have entered this country unlawfully will not be considered part of this argument.  They ARE illegal…so instead of incessantly beating our heads against the wall, let’s try to solve the problem.

It’s not perfect…but it’s something…anything.

Step One—Phased “Deportation”

Voluntary “Deportation” is the first and most critical component of this proposal.  Why the most critical?  Because, it requires trust between a “guarantor” and a “guarantee”.  The “guarantor” is the Federal government (whose agent is each state).  The “guarantee,” an illegal resident alien individual willing to trust that the Federal government will allow reentry into the US after the illegal alien leaves the US under his/her own control.  THIS ACTION BY THE “GUARANTEE” ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A NATIONWIDE AMNESTY PROGRAM.

“Phasing” is also necessary to accomplish this program.  Phasing would mitigate the loss of critical labor in our work places.  The idea is not to disadvantage anyone who has assumed that the individuals they have employed are, in fact, legal—after all, their paperwork checked out.  (This isn’t a post about ID theft, but at this point could easily go that direction.)  The immediate need for temporary guest workers to assist in the viability of our nation’s economy is a fact.  Don’t believe me?  Immediately remove 10 million (plus or minus) undocumented workers from the US and watch the economic balloon deflate.  Or, how about Utah?!  Remove 50,000 illegal workers (I’m just guessing)  during a current 2.5% rate of unemployment and…Poof!  It would take years to recover.  Unless, of course, we could convince our children to take their places in the fields and factories.

Mandatory removal from the US would be…well…mandatory for this plan to work.

Step Two–Documentation

Undocumented = need for documentation

The second component of this proposal is the need for undocumented workers to seek Federally guaranteed, legitimate ID.  This ID would be issued at a location in each state where illegals could obtain a card (or temporary) on their way out of the state and the country—with the guarantee that they could pick up the permanent ID card when they return from their “Immigration Vacation.”  Also, appropriate state ID would have to be secured at this point, too.

Currently our documentation for many individuals who temporarily enter this country is easily counterfeited.  The Federal government has spent an exorbitant amount of money to make our new Currency system nearly uncounterfeitable.   So, why don’t we do that with a new, improved documentation system?  After all, like counterfeiting cash, counterfeiting documents cost US taxpayers millions upon millions every year.

ITIN (Immigrant Tax Identification Number) must be reissued assuring its legitimacy.  A Federally issued picture ID must be issued to create resident alien status and to secure the individual’s legitimacy.  Biometrics must be used to insure its validity.  Retnal scan, Thumbprint, DNA sample, etc.  Processes to quickly identify a person used to be expensive—today they’re relatively cheap.  An embedded chip with swipeable information can be added.  Counterfeitable—Perhaps.  But, nearly impossible.

Sound a little bit like Big Brother?  These procedures and processes aren’t much different than what’s required for legal documentation today.

The residual effect?  A cleaner, more accurate up-to-date database of guests of the US.  Foolproof?!

Step Three—Required Leave Outside US Borders

Properly streamlined, this process shouldn’t take any more than three to five business days to accomplish.  One to two days travel to border, one day stay outside the US and one to two days back.  Overlapping weekends would extend the stay of individuals outside the US from one to two days—after all, we wouldn’t expect the Fed’s to work on weekends.

The cost of transportation outside the US might be somewhat costly for some illegals.  Perhaps, employers could help bear the costs of an “Immigration Vacation” for their undocumented workers.  After all, they’ve probably managed to save a truckload of money not paying payroll (FICA, 15% of payroll) and Unemployment Insurance, etc.  Oh, the drawback!  When their laborers return, they’re document and “legal.”  No more escaping the taxman.  No more competing on a different playing field than their competitors.  Accountability.

Step Four—Phased In, Legal Importation

Because individuals have left the US on their own recognizance, AMNESTY has not been granted, other than a guarantee from the Federal government that they may return under “Guest Worker” conditions OR the individual may chose NOT to reenter the US at all.  Not much of a chance of that happening.  Proper paperwork was previously processed before the individual left the US and so reentry is nothing more than a formality.

The tragic events of the van roll-over in Southern Utah a few weeks ago killing eight of twelve illegal passengers, only illustrates the need for individuals seeking employment to find safe entry into the US.   Individuals on guest work programs will safely “check-in” at state border offices on major highways.  Simple enough.

Step Five—Removal of Illegal Population

No plan, of this nature, would be complete without the removal of individuals who don’t want to “play” fair.  Another benefit: the illegal criminal (real live lawbreakers, not peaceful “law-abiding” types) are identified easier in the course of illegal activities with the new, cleaner database.  Criminals without proper ID are arrested, processed, prosecuted, and DEPORTED.  Returning to the US without proper documentation is a Felony.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  I know this part is more complicated than I’m making it.

What Are We Providing?

We’re providing legal employment for “good” illegal individuals–nothing else.  This is a phased in “Guest Worker” program. Individuals and employers do not escape proper taxation.  Individuals paying taxes are eligible for societal benefits equally enjoyed by all who pay for them—Public Healthcare, Public Education, etc.  This program eliminates the need for costly “free” Federally mandated emergency room benefits, paid for by individual or group plans in the private sector.

Legal resident aliens will not be eligible for FEITC (Federal Earned Income Tax Credit) or EITC (“State” Earned Income tax Credit) benefits.  FEITC & EITC programs are wealth shifting programs and the intent of this proposal is to provide employment opportunities NOT wealth building opportunities.  Many claim wealth building programs are for domestic investment purposes.

So, there you have it.  Simple.

Like it?  Don’t like it?  Share your thoughts.

Senator Curt Bramble (R-Provo), Senate Majority Leader, testified before a Washington Subcommittee…something about oil…

Catch Mr. Bramble’s testimony at the Senate Site–Click HERE.

Mr. Mike Jerman’s last day at the Utah Taxpayers Association as Vice President was today.  A trusted advocate for conservative tax policy, Mike was always around the hallways of the Capitol to answer questions and educate lawmakers on critical issues facing the Great State of Utah.  Mike is the blogger extraordinaire on the Utah Taxpayers website always up on the latest issues–a voice of reason.  We’ll miss Mike’s quiptical wisdom in the halls of the Capitol…or will we?!  Rumor has it he’ll still be shakin’ down legislators…just on a different topic.

I told you it was a great conference this morning.  Matt Canham, Tribune Political Blogger, posted this little diddy at “Out of Context.”  Click HERE for blog link.