Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label earmarks. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2008

Rep. Neuenschwander's Nay Votes

I've been looking at the voting record for Paul Neuenschwander for this last session, particularly his 'Nay' votes on bills that passed into law. I wanted to get an idea of times that he took an unpopular position to see if I agreed or disagreed with his stances. I've included his absent 'vote', because he may have wished not to vote in favor of the bill, but didn't want to come out in opposition. (That's highly unlikely considering the strong stances he's taken elsewhere, but nonetheless I've put it up for your consideration)

  • HB0015 Control and Prevention of Sexually Transmitted--Nay
    • This bill mandates that Health Departments statewide provide literature to Physicians and the general public to educate on the risks of STD's--Cost: $175,000
    • My assessment: Plenty of educational materials already exist that accomplishes this same goal. I hardly a reason to appropriate money for this purpose. Here are the latest statistics on STD's in Utah.
  • HB0104 Urban Trails Appropriation--Absent
    • This bill appropriated up to $500,000 dollars from the General Fund to build the Bonneville Trail.
  • HB0122 Driver License - Application of Minor Amendments--Nay
    • This bill says that Foster parents can co-sign on an application for a learners permit or driver license. It appears to make Foster parents less liable for damages, in some cases, than a parent, or other legal guardian would face were the minor to be in an accident.
  • HB0294S01 Appropriation Limit Amendments - Fire Suppression--Nay
  • HB0332S01 Use of Public Schools by Community Organizations--Nay
    • This bill modifies provisions of the State System of Public Education code relating to the use of public school buildings and grounds as a civic center. It appears to limit the school boards ability to restrict access to school property. Formerly, they did not need to have a reason other than the use is "inadvisable". Under this bill it has to interfere with a school function or purpose to not be allowed.
  • HB0410 Restricted Accounts Amendments--Nay
    • This bill moves interest from certain accounts into the General Fund to the tune of about $1.66 million dollars in 2009 and again in 2010.
  • HB0466 Title Insurance Recovery, Education, Amended In Committee--Nay
  • HJR004 Joint Resolution Urging School Closings to Recognize Veterans Day--Nay
Overall, I'd say I agree with his positions, where I understand the particulars. Keep in mind, these bills all passed and will be law, like it or not. He took fiscally conservative positions where applicable. In one case he took a position that would have given local school boards greater latitude to do their jobs.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Davis School District: Stacking The Deck

Randy Smith, who speaks for Davisparents.org, has a good point.

Davis County School District has adjusted the population of certain schools in the County in order to get federal grant dollars. It would seem that this is not simply an oversight by the district, but an intentional way to get extra money from the federal government. The district drew boundary lines that drew students away from underpopulated schools, sending them to schools that now exceed 1,000 students.

Schools exceeding 1,000 students become eligible from grant dollars under "No Child Left Behind". These are called "Smaller Learning Communities" grants.

For example, Davis High school has 400 open seats with students only a couple of miles away busing to Viewmont. Viewmont is three times further from these these student than Davis High.

PRESS RELEASE: DavisParents.org - Legislative agenda

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2007
For more information:
Randy Smith, Spokesman
801-548-3403

Subject: DavisParents.org - Legislative agenda

o Public Education - Fiscal Accountability
o School Choice – (Intra-District)

DavisParents.org, a grass roots parent organization from the Davis School District supports Governor Huntsman’s goal to increase funding for education this legislative session if the spending is tied to an increase in accountability and oversight. As the legislature considers the increase, DavisParents.org offers Davis School District as a case study for discussion.

With four schools listed among the top high schools in the United States, our great teachers, in partnership with parents, have shown how much can be done with just a little. However, recent events have highlighted the need for better oversight. In fact, without enhanced oversight and accountability, experience tells us that the proposed increase may never reach the classroom and therefore be insufficient to address the needs that parents, teachers, and the legislature are hoping to meet. The examples below show that the enemy of public education is not the parent asking for accountability and choice, but a system that is complacent in its way of doing things, and resistant to input and review.

In order to ensure that Utah’s children receive the maximum benefit from increased educational spending, there are at least two areas of improvements that should be addressed this legislative session, before any substantial increases in funding are authorized – (1) fiscal accountability and (2) intra-district school choice. The need for both areas of improvement are clearly demonstrated with current examples from the Davis School District.

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Davis School District Problems


Example 1:

Apparent lack of oversight appears to have allowed an alleged multi-million dollar fraud to continue for years in the Davis School District. A review of the Board Minutes from October 2005 through December 2006, did not find any discussion of how the abuse was allowed to continue or what is being done to prevent it in the future. While litigation and personnel issues may have been closed to the public, any discussion of improvements to internal controls was required to be in Open and Public Meetings. There were none.

Example 2:

The new high school in Syracuse and the recently rebuilt Davis High School were built for 2350 students. The budget for High School #8 was $50,000,000 or $21,000 per student. However, the district’s target numbers, which drove the recent boundary changes, had a maximum student population of 1900 students at both Davis High and High School #8. When asked, neither Superintendent Bryan Bowles nor former Superintendent Darrel White would explain why the district built these schools, but now refuses to fill them. Mr. White reported to the School Board that new home development in the Davis High School boundaries would not have a significant impact on the Davis High School student population over the next ten years.

Example 3:

Rather than moving students out of portables at Woods Cross High School and into the empty classrooms at Bountiful High School, just two miles away, the District is planning to expand Woods Cross and bus students from Farmington to fill the Bountiful area schools. The District’s staff has advocated this plan since the August 1st School Board meeting, but has never reported the costs associated with transportation or the costs of the new classrooms that will be required at Woods Cross. Paula Alder, Farmington City Council member and member of the 39-member Boundary Committee said that “we were repeatedly told that transportation is a State, not District cost, so we should not consider it”

Example 4:

The Davis School District has chosen to spend scarce education dollars to fight a legal battle to avoid compliance with the Open Meeting laws, even though the 2nd District Court, the Editorial Boards of all three local daily papers, the Davis County Republican and Democratic Chairmen and parents have all criticized the Davis School District’s failure to comply with the letter or intent of the law. What public benefit can result from the District’s decision to incur these legal expenses? And, why resist open government?

Example 5:

The district has announced plans to implement Small Learning Communities at Woods Cross, Bountiful and three other high schools, at a cost of over $800,000 per school. Small Learning Communities were created, after the Columbine tragedy, as a way to mitigate some of the negative effects of large high schools (student populations greater than 1,000). Why is the School District spending this money at the same time they are busing students to artificially inflate the student populations of these same schools?

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY – RECOMMENDATION

* Require that at least 70% percent of every education dollar be spent IN (not on) the classroom.
* Require that a Fiscal Note be attached to every proposal presented for action by a School Board that will result in an increase in spending of either state or district funds.
* Provide funding for the State Auditor to create “best practices” and then audit the internal controls and financial oversight of our school districts.
* The State School Board should review the Federal Sarbanes Oxely Act and then develop procedures that will assist local school boards in maintaining the independence necessary to hold administrators accountable to the public.

SCHOOL CHOICE (Intra-District)

Davis School District Problems

Example 1:

Ninety students applied for a variance to attend Bountiful High School for SY06-07 but the district denied seventy1 of those requests. Bountiful High School is 170 students under capacity this school year. Had parents been able to choose how to fill the school, there would be no need to bus students to fill Bountiful High School or add classrooms to Woods Cross High School.

Example 2:

Against strong opposition from parents because of safety concerns, the Davis School District plans to move 150 students, who live just 2-3 miles from the approximately 400 empty class room seats at Davis High School to commute 3 times further to Viewmont High School.

SCHOOL CHOICE (Intra-District) – RECOMMENDATIONS

If each school district applied the current law (53A-2-213) which allows students to choose any school in the district, more resources would be available for our children’s classrooms. As every child is different and has different needs, only the parents can know what is best for their child. Please help parents regain the ability to make decisions concerning their child’s educational needs.

The legislature should remove the loopholes in (53A-2-213) so that this law can achieve its original intent. Please enable parents to have greater influence over the education of their own children.

Monday, November 20, 2006

[Davis County Watch: Spending and Waste] D.A.R.E.: On the Chopping Block

During the Republican Convention, Sheriff Bud Cox, pledged his support for the D.A.R.E. program. Meaning he intends to continue to use the Federal money he receives for it. Because, it turns out that this program depends upon the Byrne Grants. The Byrne grants are dollars given to local law enforcement to assist in fighting against drugs, and drug related crimes.

Up to now, funding for local drug education efforts have been given with no strings attached. Since 2004, however, the Whitehouse has made a continuous recommendation that the program either be cut, or that metrics be put in place to provide justification for the grants. The Whitehouse tried to cut them from the 2005 budget, but they were saved by the Legislature, funding them, at the previous years levels.

The Byrne Grants could be in jeopardy, again, unless local law enforcement can provide better metrics of their performance. Orrin Hatch, as recently as March 2004 has pledged his support for these grants but the Whitehouse has continued to identify these grants as 'Not performing'. To date no one has suggested how the success, or failure of these programs should be determined.

Accusations have been leveled at this Administration for overspending Federal dollars. Yet, we can't seem to stop begging for more from the same Government. How do we hold ourselves accountable for money we receive from the Federal Government? The answer is that we don't, unless it is required of us. If the Federal government does require that we report back on D.A.R.E, would Bud Cox think it is worth saving? Could we wean ourselves off of Federal handouts?

P.S. I had this post completely written when I came across this article echoing my sentiments. It gives, much better than I have here, some background on the Byrne grants, and reasons why they should only be given with the requirement of accountability. Now that the balance of power has shifted, so drastically, towards the Democrats, it is incumbent upon them to prove they can live without earmarks.

--
Posted by Tyler Farrer to Davis County Watch: Spending and Waste at 11/20/2006 02:29:00 PM

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

The Sunlight Foundation: Earmarks in FY2007

According to The Sunlight Foundation, Utah has requested $2,575,000 in earmarks in the up and coming Labor HHS Bill.

How much of the total 2.5 million is coming to Davis County? The answer below.

(click and drag your mouse over the text here: $0.00 to see the answer)

Well done Davis County!

Monday, March 27, 2006

Washington Post: Up to Their Earmarks

Due to the money spent on earmarks and porkbarrel tripling over the last decade according to CRS, some legislators are asking the President to instruct his department heads to ignore the pork, instead of asking for line-item veto to do, essentially, the same thing in a more problematic way.

CRS has said that over 95% of all earmarks are not written into law but merely reported on. The President could choose to save the funds ordinarily spent and not overeach his authority.

Utah's, U.S. Senators are silent on some proposed legislation to take care of this problem, S.2265: The Pork Barrel Reduction Act.

The efficacy of the above bill and others are considered by CRS here.

Hat tip: RealClearPolitics: Robert Novak