Basell Polyolefins has agreed to acquire the

Huntsman Corp. for $5.6 billion.

Click HERE for Wall Street Journal link.

[Before reading further, linking to these print news articles may help (or not) to understand how the media is trying to spin this topic. Click HERE, HERE, and HERE]
 
Education “Summit”
 
A joint meeting of the Legislative Education Committee membership and numerous members of the Utah education community, an informal  “summit” of sorts, was arranged at the Granite School District offices on Wednesday, June 13, 2007.  Presented to legislators and educators alike were a number of topics from policy issues to budget requests.  An inevitable (but brief) discussion on the recent Utah State Supreme Court decision regarding the Voucher issue occurred.  Informal visits between legislators and educators, like this, are few and far between.  However, in my experience, these less-formal meetings can be very productive.  And, this one was.
 
So, it was no surprise when Education Committee Co-Chair Representative Greg Hughes personally invited Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State Board of Education, to come the following week to the Capitol to further discuss some of these important issues with the full committee membership during our monthly Interim meetings–we are a part-time legislature and our opportunities to speak with state leaders are limited.  Some committee members were not able to attend the “special” meeting because of prior work commitments.
 
Agenda Item #2
 
Interim is an interesting time to discuss significant issues, primarily because unlike committees during the Legislative General Session, House and Senate members meet together as non-leadership in joint collaboration and supervised debate (Conference Committees during a General Session are the only other time I can think of when members of both bodies meet to “iron out” legislative impasses).
 
Often, requests by Legislative Chairmen to have Division and Department Heads (or their representatives) testify before Standing and Interim Committees are extended and graciously accepted.  I’m unfamiliar with any circumstance when a Division or Department Administrator has declined an invitation to give testimony before a Legislative Committee.  Wednesday, during the Interim Education Committee’s discussion on “Legal Counsel for State Board of Education” (Agenda Item #2), Deputy Attorney General Ray Hintze (HINT-zee) and Education Chief Bill Evans of the Attorney General’s office addressed the committee on the duty and authority of the Attorney General to be the legal advisor to state officers and agencies—including the State Board of Education.  They provided a superb presentation.
 
Recent events related to the employment status of a couple attorneys assigned to the Office of Education under the special counsel of the Attorney General’s Office, have lead to a number of vigorous discussions about the “ultimate” legal authority of the State of Utah.
 
Mr. Hintze and Mr. Evans presented to the committee an Executive Summary titled “Attorney General Position On Who May Appoint Legal Counsel for State Board of Education/State Office of Education” (dated Wednesday, June 20, 2007).  The introduction to the Executive Summary states:
 
“The Attorney General has broad constitutional and statutory powers and duties to provide legal counsel to all state entities and officers unless otherwise provided by the state constitution or statutes.  The State Board of Education and State Office of Education are state entities and state officers.  They do not have any constitutional or statutory exemption that allows them to hire their own attorney.  Therefore, the Attorney General is their sole legal counsel.”

Further, it is the conclusion of the Attorney General that:
 
“The State Board of Education may not hire its own legal counsel without either: (a) a constitutional or statutory exception which allows them to do so, or (b) the approval of the Attorney General.  Until one of those conditions i(s) met, the Attorney General is the sole counsel for that agency.”

Two Sections of state statute support the AG’s conclusions.  They are the following:
 
53A-1-303.   Advice by superintendent — Written opinions.
     (1) The state superintendent shall advise superintendents, school boards, and other school officers upon all matters involving the welfare of the schools.
     (2) The superintendent shall, when requested by district superintendents or other school officers, provide written opinions on questions of public education, administrative policy, and procedure, but not upon questions of law.
     (3) Upon request by the state superintendent, the attorney general shall issue written opinions on questions of law.
     (4) Opinions issued under this section shall be considered to be correct and final unless set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction or by subsequent legislation.
 
53A-1-401.   Powers of State Board of Education — Adoption of rules — Enforcement.
     (1) (a) The State Board of Education has general control and supervision of the state’s public education system.
     (b) “General control and supervision” as used in Article X, Sec. 3, of the Utah Constitution means directed to the whole system.
 
So, even though the State Superintendent of Public Instruction can issue opinions, by statute, it cannot be “opinions on questions of law.”  Opinions on questions of law [according to 53A-1-303(3)] shall be issued expressly by the Attorney General.  Constitutionally (Article X, Section 3), the State Board of Education does have “general control and supervision” of the state’s public education system as a whole.  But, therein lies the extent of their “powers.”  Powers are limited to “the system.”
 
Conspicuously not in attendance at the invitation of Co-Chair Rep. Greg Hughes at our Interim meeting was Mr. Burningham who was asked to participate in the committee discussion to give further input on the recent “dismissal” of the two assistant attorney generals in the Office of Education.  The invitation was not compulsory, on the contrary, the dialogue would have been collegial.  Nobody’s arm was being twisted. 
 
Two days prior to Interim meetings, Kim Burningham sent a letter, dated June 18, 2007, to Senator Howard Stephenson.  (An apparent “break” with standard protocols occurred by not also addressing the letter to House Co-Chair Representative Greg Hughes.)  Normally, I’d give someone in Mr. Burningham’s position a “pass” on this oversight; however, Mr. Burningham spent 14 years in the Utah State House of Representatives (Republican, Districts 56 & 19, 1980-1994) and should know well the proper way to address Legislative Committee Chairs in such correspondence (both of them).  I’m sure it wasn’t a lack of foresight that was the basis for such a breach in etiquette.
 
The Burningham Letter
 
Reproducing Kim Burningham’s letter to Senator Stephenson would be redundant and unnecessary.  (Click HERE for text of letter)  Most would consider Mr. Burningham an intelligent and well-educated person.  A board of bright individuals would certainly elect as their Chair someone of high grammatical and literary caliber.  Therefore, we would have to assume that a short, relatively concise letter would be well-crafted and riddled with implication.

For example, following the brief hearing and rapid decision of the Utah State Supreme Court related to vouchers, Mr. Burningham utilized in his letter the phrase, “after due deliberation” a statement which clearly “judicially” aligns himself, and the board for whom he is speaking, with the high court and their recent conclusions.
 
Mr. Burningham also states in the last sentence of the first paragraph that he, “representing the State Board of Education,” the letter continues, “respectfully decline to send a representative to that gathering.”  Mr. Burninham knows, by virtue of his tenure in the House of Representatives, that Legislative Committee Meetings aren’t “gatherings,” they are deliberative, legal hearings (those giving testimony may be sworn in at the Chair’s discretion).  To refer to a formal committee meeting as a “gathering” has been perceived by some as disingenuous and demeaning.
 
As to the “unclear” role of the Legislature (paragraph two, first sentence) regarding the confidential “business” between the Attorney General’s office and the state board, the Attorney General’s office saw fit to send two representatives from his office to participate in the continuing dialogue.  So, the “confidential” exclusivity between the Board and the AG appears to be rather one sided.  And, as I mentioned before, I cannot recall out of the dozens upon dozens of committee meetings I have attended over the years, any high-level state administrator to “decline” the opportunity to participate in a discussion forum at the Legislature.
 
Also, Mr. Burningham’s word of caution to the Legislature about the “further politicization of the relationship” between the AG and the state board would be “unwelcome” and “ill-advised in any event” could be perceived, by some, as a veiled threat.  (Did Mr. Burningham really attempt to speak for Mark Shurtleff regarding the “politicization of the relationship” between the Board and the AG?  Does Mr. Shurtleff feel further “politicization” would be “ill-advised?”  Is Mr. Burningham now speaking for Mr. Shurtleff?)
 
Keep the Lines Open
 
Honestly, I don’t know what’s in Mr. Burningham’s head.  It’s unfortunate how the dialogue appears to have ground to a screeching stop.  Continued public dialogue (and administrative dialogue) is imperative as we move closer to the election in November.  Further clarification and education—honest education—must occur for the voting-citizens of the State of Utah to make a well-informed, thoughtful choice.  Our children are counting on us.

Shortly after noon today, Darold McDade (Pleasant Grove) was unanimously confirmed in the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Utah State Senate as the newest judge in the state of Utah.  McDade, who currently serves on the Pleasant Grove City Council and has worked as an Assistant Attorney General for the past sixteen years, will serve in the 4th District Court.

Congratulations, Darold…I mean Your Honor.

Once again, beaten to the keyboard by the Father of Utah Political Blogging, Rep. Steve Urquhart (aka. steveu.), I have included a link to the letter “carbon copied” to members of the Education Interim Committee (of which I’m a member) written by Kim Burningham, Chairman of the State Board of Education.  The contents and tone of the letter are unmistakably clear.

Link to the letter at steveu.  Click HERE.

Opinion writer, John Florez, in the Deseret Morning News today, suggests that our current Education System if failing to train our children to compete in a global labor market.  Florez believes an overhaul of the public education system is necessary for our students to acquire the skills set required to achieve and maintain a competitive edge in the worldwide workplace.  Click HERE for Opinion piece.

I would agree with Mr. Florez.

Do you?  Post your ideas on education reform and how we, as Utahns, might increase the output of creative and productive labor to the worldwide workforce.

Wow.  Lightening struck twice…hell heck froze over (remember, we’re in Utah!)…the fat lady sang…

VOUCHERS. 

The Daily Herald does it, again!  And, all in the same Weekend. Click HERE.

Saturday’s “Beehives and Buffalo Chips” section of the Daily Herald called attention to the smearing of late, great economist Milton Friedman by the Anti-Voucher Utah Democratic Party.  Friedman’s outstanding contributions to US and World Financial/Economic communities positively changed the course of a generation, if not the world.  In fact, to their credit, the Herald made it a DOUBLE chip.  Step in it once, you’re just not lookin’, step in it twice…you’ll need a new pair of boots there cowpoke.  Who said ridin’ a donkey isn’t a messy proposition?!

Milton Friedman’s Wiki Bio.  Click HERE.

Beehives and Buffalo Chips 6/16.  Click HERE.

Yesterday’s article, Utah tallies in-lieu tax funds, written by Suzanne Struglinski of the Deseret Morning News, got my blood boiling…again.  Suzanne reports that Utah recently recieved funding of approximately $20 million for Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) for compensation related to the fact the Federal government owns nearly 65% of the land mass within the borders of the Great State of Utah–money we can’t collect from local land owners because there aren’t any.  Why wouldn’t they want to own it…it’s Great!  I know it, you know it and apparently they know it, too.

State’s cannot impose Property Taxes on the Federal Government.  Imagine that.  And, because states cannot tax the Federal government, state and local governments miss out on a big chunk of potential revenues shouldered by the “would-be” property owners if the Feds were to GIVE US BACK OUR LAND (Rep Rob Bishop quote).  So, instead of deeding the property back to the states, they give us pennies on the dollar for “compensation” in the form of PILT.

Sometimes, and it’s not too often, government proposes something worth look at…closely.  One of these programs is the APPLE Initiative–Action Plan for Public Lands & Education.  I don’t really know where it came from.  It was “before my time.”  I’ve been told it may have been orchestrated by former Gubernatorial Candidate and House Speaker, Marty Stephens.

The APPLE Initiative proposes that the Western States create an alliance to “approach” the Federal government to “ask” for compensation (PILT), to a greater degree (PILT), for the land they promised to pay for, by agreement, and then promptly abandoned their promise.  Surprised?!   You shouldn’t be.  You see, it’s not just our problem…the Fed’s own MORE THAN 50% OF ALL WESTERN STATES’ LAND–substantially more land mass than the 37 “Eastern States.”

What does this mean?  This means that you and I bear a greater concentrated burden for state and local taxes related to Municipal and Local Education costs.  This means that our children and Public Education are uncompensated to the tune of potentially tens of millions (hundreds of millions) of dollars annually.  What this means is you need to get on the phone to your Congressman today (OK, tomorrow) and say you’re mad as hell heck (remember we’re in Utah) and not gonna take it any more!  

Give us more PILT or give us back our damn darn land!

Hot off the “press:”  STAN LOCKHART NEW STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY CHIEF!  Securing more than the majority of State Delegate votes in the first round of balloting, Stan Lockhart has been elected the new Utah State Republican Party Chairman.  In what could have been a three ballot event, Stan “easily” scored more than 50% of the votes necessary to become the state’s GOP head honcho.

I spoke with Stan while the ballots were being counted, but only after the balloting results had been “leaked,” and…he was just as calm, cool, and collected as always–characteristcs of someone unflappable, who will become, I believe, one of the best state party leaders we’ve ever seen–no pressure, Stan.

Congratulations.

On a more apologetic note (I should probably do this more often), outgoing Interim Party Chair, Enid Greene, gave a particularly touching benedictory speech.  To Enid’s credit, she along with several benefactors, eradicated the state’s sizeable GOP debt before leaving office today.  Out of the red, into the black.  Ahhhh!  Thank you.

A hybrid group of the Utah State Supreme Court handed down a ruling on the voucher issue a few moments ago.  In a written unanimous decision, the high court found that if the voters reject HB148 Education Vouchers (ballot title) at the ballot box, so too would they be rejecting HB174 Education Voucher Amendments and all its provisions. 

The high court’s decision runs contrary to the findings of Utah State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who recently sent a letter to the Utah State Board of Education requiring them to immediately implement the Parental Choice in Education Statute without HB148–based on HB174.  Shurtleff’s findings proved the substance of HB174 (Education Voucher Amendments) could stand up to Constitutional muster.

My feeling is the high court enjoys legislating from the bench, a Constitutional duty, last time I checked, assigned to the Legislature.

My guess…you haven’t heard the last of this debate.