Dynamic Range

Heart of the House

The Utah House of Representative is like a great big family.  We each have our place and take on various roles.  We get along amazingly well, especially considering the many strong wills and diverse opinions shared by the group, but we have a respect for each other and the duty each has to represent their constituents and the citizens of the Utah to the best of their ability.

But a few representatives play special roles within this family.  One of those is Rep. Susan Lawrence, who I consider the "Heart of the House."  Susan is one of the most compassionate and caring people I have ever met.  She is cheerful through adversity and does a great job representing her constituents (and calling me on the carpet every so often, despite me being over twice her size).

Of course I have a special kindred with Susan.  Not only did we enter the legislature together, but she also is a polycystic kidney disease survivor, just like my son, Troy.  For those that don't know, Susan has been struggling with the disease and various related complications.  She dealt with her challenges with a smile on her face and a kind word for those around her, never seeming to let her struggles distract from her work of serving the people.  This was particularly evident when she participated in our annual planning meeting of the House Republican Caucus on December 13th, even though it was scheduled on the same day as her kidney transplant surgery.  She joked, that she had some time before the surgery commenced and figured she might as well spend it with the caucus.  (A very important meeting when the caucus typically sets its agenda for the upcoming session.)  Can you imagine such dedication and service on behalf of the public?  Of all the worthy activities she could have been doing that morning, she chose to serve those who had elected her.

That is why I consider Susan the "Heart of the House", providing service over self.  That's what made us great as a nation and that's what makes Susan such a great representative!

Run, Baby, Run!

Thomas L. Friedman's book "The World Is Flat" (previous review) is the hottest read within state government these days.  Whether its the Governor's office or the Legislature, the State Office of Education or the System of Higher Education, Republican or Democrat, almost everyone is talking about the book and discussing the impacts of a global economy in shaping public policy.

Last Friday, KCPW reporter Julie Rose, had a nice news report on the the books influence on Utah politics with a diverse array of perspectives from key players shaping policy.

The one point I wish she would have shared the following African proverb from the book:

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running.
(The World is Flat)

This proverb conveys a key success factors in the global economy -- you must run to survive.  With competitors at every turn, if you're not always at the top of your game, someone is ready and willing to knock you out of the game.

Some may interpret the proverb to mean that government must do more to ensure people's success.  For me, it says don't wait around for someone to take care of you, instead take care of yourself.  It means getting government out of the way so it doesn't slow down our citizens and businesses, making them less competitive.  To be competitive in the global economy you must be quick and nimble, not slow and bureaucratic.  And government by its very nature and design is slow and bureaucratic.

Welcome to the realities of the "flat world" -- eat or be eaten.  So, run, baby, run!

For DNews, Fiction Sells Better Than Fact

I was told that Mark Twain once said something like:  "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."  Well it looks like the Deseret Morning News is taking his advice.  I'm not sure the reason for their factual impairment, but the truth probably wouldn't make for such juicy reports and editorials.  For my small sample, refer to the following:

Sample #1

Legislators will probably not have to include conflicts of interest among their salient points during floor debate during the upcoming session.

A proposed bill that would have forced legislators to declare any conflicts of interest on a bill before debating it on the floor failed to move out of a joint House and Senate Rules Committee meeting Thursday morning, meaning that a seemingly annual debate is ended before the 2006 session even begins. (Conflict-of-interest bill stalls)

Sample #2

The Deseret Morning News did not cover the actual event because reporters were denied access unless they paid $22. (Republicans earn quick money by 'dating')

Sample #3

Members of the public shouldn't expect to be able to walk into a fund-raiser any time they wish, but the people who could tell the public what was happening — reporters — were not allowed to enter unless they paid $22. As news agencies do not wish to compromise their political independence by contributing to a political party, reporters didn't pay the fee. This, too, raises interest in what went on. (Speed-dating your lawmaker)

In sample #1, the title should have read something like "Committee recommends leveraging technology rather than additional legislation to streamline conflict disclosure process."  Just doesn't yield the same public outrage, does it?  How do I know what really happened?  I sit on the committee and I made the motion to work with the sponsor to have the conflict disclosure forms posted on the web (for anyone's access, at anytime) and to move to the next item on the agenda.  Pretty basic.  Why encumber people with an error-prone process when technology can rapid and conveniently accomplish the desired results -- access to necessary information on demand (in this case, conflict disclosure info).

In sample #2, the reader is lead to believe that the reporter was unable to attend the fundraising event.  I'm not sure how this could be true when I saw reporters from the DNews as well as KSL at the event (I think Fox might have done some reporting on the event as well).  The DNews report is particularly interesting since the pictures that accompany the article were taken more than halfway through the event.  Either you were or you weren't at the event (and your pictures alone say you were).  You can't have it both ways!

For sample #3, the DNews editorial board also seems more than happy to parrot the story in #2, despite the inconsistency identified above.  Besides that point, in a world of CBS, CNN, etc. (a world in which the news media runs with a story before checking the facts, such as the condition of 13 miners in W. Va.) I'm not sure anyone actually believes that news agencies are "politically independent", except possibly the news agencies themselves.  Perhaps a better course of action would be for reporters and news personnel to report their conflicts publicly, since we all have them, possibly at the beginning of every story, rather than shielding their conflicts from public view and hiding behind the fantasy of political independence.  At least that's what Utah legislators attempt to do, admitting their own humanity.

So the next time you pick up the DNews, just remember it's a (forgive the term) "business" with a motivation to sell advertisements and subscriptions.  And if conflict and "spin" makes for a better story,  who am I to question great fictional writers -- both past and present.

Florida Court Votes To Destroy Public Education

If you think kids are all the same, and that monopolies are the key to quality and efficiency, consider moving to Florida. As of this week, a uniform government bureaucracy is the only legal approach to public education in the Sunshine State. (The Wall Street Journal:  War Against Vouchers)

The Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's "Opportunity Scholarship" voucher program, which provided the ability for Floridians struggling in failing schools to look for better schooling alternatives.    The reason?  Florida's Constitution mandates "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education."  Sounds like quite a contradiction in terms.  From my perspective, uniform rarely equates to efficient and government can't do anything efficient (government was never designed to be efficient, rather slow and ponderous).  And of course we all recognize that the term "high quality system" is synonymous with "government run operation."

Mark my words.  Uniformity will now become the new mantra  when it comes to judging public education in Florida (picking up where the equity and adequacy arguments have left off).  Thank goodness we don’t have similar language in our Constitution.  Even in their public school system, Floridians will never have uniformity and will now enter a state of continual litigation whenever someone feels that his/her school isn’t uniform, resulting in increased costs while simultaneously driving down educational quality.  I’m not sure that any ruling will have done more to ultimately destroy public education in America that this ruling.  Truly unfortunate for all, but particularly Florida’s children.

Florida (soon to be child-free) -- the ultimate retirement community.