The first round of parades is over, and I am still achy--note to self, sandals, no matter how comfortable, are not made for walking 4+ miles!
For the last four years, my oldest son and I have walked in the Murray Fun Days Parade, first for Rep. Tim Cosgrove and, this year, for my own campaign. We have enjoyed being part of the parade (though one year I would like to actually see the other entrants), but I learned this year that the view from the post of "candidate" is much different.
As a supporter, you walk and wave. As the candidate, people actually seek an opportunity to talk to you along the route.
Granted, a few just wanted to know how to get one of our lovely purple t-shirts (pledge to make a monthly donation!), but other people wanted me to know how glad they are I am running, to wish me luck, and to give me the ten second snapshot of their concerns about the office I seek.
What was most surprising and enjoyable about these brief conversations, however, was the sense of hope that people seem to be experiencing in this election year. While the parade route may not be the most scientific method for determining which way the political winds are blowing, this brief moment of connection with voters did give me the sense that voters are eager for something better that the status quo we have all dealt with for so many years. Best of all, voters have real choices among candidates this year in most state and national races. Not only can they hope for better, they can actually vote for better! Now there's something to celebrate at a parade!
Monday, July 7, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Pay day Lending and Liquor Stores
As I was driving home yesterday, I heard an interesting radio ad from a pay day lender. After touting the virtues of overpriced loans, the ad ended with the comment "always use pay day advances responsibly."
This struck me as very similar to the comments made at the end of beer and other liquor commercials that end "please drink responsibly."
And that's when the idea hit that perhaps the solution to pay day lending is to treat this business the same as we treat the sale of alcohol. Pay day lenders already have mark-ups on their products almost as high as the alcohol tax (though without the public benefit the alcohol tax provides since the tax pays for school lunch programs across the state), all we need to do now is limit all pay day lendors to 1 per 100,000 people, locate them in the most out of the way spots, perhaps right next to our liquor stores, or, if they are more centrally located, charge a membership fee to enter!
Okay, perhaps its not a perfect solution, but if the lenders recognize the dangers of "overindulging" in pay day loans, shouldn't they also be willing to accept some common sense protections for those who have a tendency to do so, just like our local bars, taverns, and clubs?
This struck me as very similar to the comments made at the end of beer and other liquor commercials that end "please drink responsibly."
And that's when the idea hit that perhaps the solution to pay day lending is to treat this business the same as we treat the sale of alcohol. Pay day lenders already have mark-ups on their products almost as high as the alcohol tax (though without the public benefit the alcohol tax provides since the tax pays for school lunch programs across the state), all we need to do now is limit all pay day lendors to 1 per 100,000 people, locate them in the most out of the way spots, perhaps right next to our liquor stores, or, if they are more centrally located, charge a membership fee to enter!
Okay, perhaps its not a perfect solution, but if the lenders recognize the dangers of "overindulging" in pay day loans, shouldn't they also be willing to accept some common sense protections for those who have a tendency to do so, just like our local bars, taverns, and clubs?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Education Interim Committee Meeting
Listening in on the Education Interim Committee meeting held on May 21, I am struck, once again, by the continual contradictions expressed by certain legislators. Two not-so-shining examples reared their heads in this meeting.
But first, some background. Item 4 on the committee's agenda was a discussion of class-size reduction. Two legislative auditors presented a brief summary of their December 2007 audit of school district use of class size reduction money. The auditors reminded the body that it reduced any reporting requirements for districts in 2002. The auditors were able to track fund uses for 18 districts and found that 100% of the money had been used on teacher salaries. The auditors also noted that the class-size reduction has been underfunded for three of the last seven years and not funded at all for four of those seven years.
The auditors made at least one very sound recommendation–allocate class-size reduction money based on need rather than the current system which gives the money to all schools based on enrollment. This means that schools with declining enrollment and charter schools, which cap their enrollment at a set number, receive the funds despite a lack of need.
Now to the examples of less than clear legislative thinking: In response to the audit recommendation, one legislator suggested that legislation is needed to ensure that districts use the money to meet set targets or they can't participate in the program. This legislator is also known, however, for pushing unlimited open enrollment for schools. How schools are supposed to open their doors to all while still maintaining classroom targets was not explained, and the contradiction in these positions was not questioned.
A second legislator suggested that charters with enrollment caps should still get class-size reduction money because they "make tough choices" in order to keep class sizes small. Actually, charters set their enrollment in their charter application, allowing the schools to plan every year for the exact number of students that will attend. Charters are also able to avoid providing expensive extras, such as football teams, and send students who want those programs to the local district school. District schools, meanwhile, are expected to be open to any and all who want to attend at any time during the school year and still have workable class sizes.
The sheer audacity of these legislators who regularly and publicly announce their assumptions that all districts are misusing class size reduction funds while actively advocating for charters to receive the funds despite their already smaller class sizes–and therefore lack of need for the funds-- is appalling.
District schools will never be able to institute enrollment caps. And charter school funding needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. But fiscally responsible legislators should be working to ensure that limited class size reduction funds are used by schools with the greatest need, and proposing legislation that assists with class size reduction without also advocating for greater class sizes through other legislation.
But first, some background. Item 4 on the committee's agenda was a discussion of class-size reduction. Two legislative auditors presented a brief summary of their December 2007 audit of school district use of class size reduction money. The auditors reminded the body that it reduced any reporting requirements for districts in 2002. The auditors were able to track fund uses for 18 districts and found that 100% of the money had been used on teacher salaries. The auditors also noted that the class-size reduction has been underfunded for three of the last seven years and not funded at all for four of those seven years.
The auditors made at least one very sound recommendation–allocate class-size reduction money based on need rather than the current system which gives the money to all schools based on enrollment. This means that schools with declining enrollment and charter schools, which cap their enrollment at a set number, receive the funds despite a lack of need.
Now to the examples of less than clear legislative thinking: In response to the audit recommendation, one legislator suggested that legislation is needed to ensure that districts use the money to meet set targets or they can't participate in the program. This legislator is also known, however, for pushing unlimited open enrollment for schools. How schools are supposed to open their doors to all while still maintaining classroom targets was not explained, and the contradiction in these positions was not questioned.
A second legislator suggested that charters with enrollment caps should still get class-size reduction money because they "make tough choices" in order to keep class sizes small. Actually, charters set their enrollment in their charter application, allowing the schools to plan every year for the exact number of students that will attend. Charters are also able to avoid providing expensive extras, such as football teams, and send students who want those programs to the local district school. District schools, meanwhile, are expected to be open to any and all who want to attend at any time during the school year and still have workable class sizes.
The sheer audacity of these legislators who regularly and publicly announce their assumptions that all districts are misusing class size reduction funds while actively advocating for charters to receive the funds despite their already smaller class sizes–and therefore lack of need for the funds-- is appalling.
District schools will never be able to institute enrollment caps. And charter school funding needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. But fiscally responsible legislators should be working to ensure that limited class size reduction funds are used by schools with the greatest need, and proposing legislation that assists with class size reduction without also advocating for greater class sizes through other legislation.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I attended the Children's Justice Center Program and Utah Prosecution Council's Children's Justice/Domestic Violence Conference this week and came away amazed.
While the entire conference was fabulous, one of the most moving speakers was a survivor of domestic violence.
This woman described her experiences, part of which was captured on videotape by her then 13-year old son, at the command of her ex-spouse. The horrific moments captured in that tape were just a snapshot of her existence.
Despite all that she endured, this incredible lady came to a room full of 500 strangers to share her personal story. Her courage in the face of all that had happened and all that she continues to do was inspiring.
It was also informative. As she described her daily life, many in the room asked the common question, why stay? She explained how the abuse built over time, beginning with many attacks on her self esteem so that, by the time the abuse became physical, she did believe to some extent that she was at fault. She also explained the desire to keep her family together. Anyone who has ever contemplated divorce can understand the myriad emotions that such a decision raises.
Then she explained how hard it was to leave. Not because of a desire to stay, but because of the many risks involved. Leaving an abusive situation, without any information about how or whether a victim can be protected, is a frightening process. The presenter noted that it takes the average victim seven opportunities before she will leave the relationship.
Perhaps the most distressing point of the presentation was a picture the presenter showed that her son had painted. She explained that her son loves art and has always drawn pictures of animals and other bright things. After his father was sentenced to prison for his abuse of his mother, he drew a very dark picture with a small spot of light. He explained to his mother that the small light area was the little corner of his life where he feels safe.
Domestic violence, including teen dating violence, is a widespread issue that needs ever more attention and resources. No woman, child, or man should have to experience what the presenter and her children endured.
While the entire conference was fabulous, one of the most moving speakers was a survivor of domestic violence.
This woman described her experiences, part of which was captured on videotape by her then 13-year old son, at the command of her ex-spouse. The horrific moments captured in that tape were just a snapshot of her existence.
Despite all that she endured, this incredible lady came to a room full of 500 strangers to share her personal story. Her courage in the face of all that had happened and all that she continues to do was inspiring.
It was also informative. As she described her daily life, many in the room asked the common question, why stay? She explained how the abuse built over time, beginning with many attacks on her self esteem so that, by the time the abuse became physical, she did believe to some extent that she was at fault. She also explained the desire to keep her family together. Anyone who has ever contemplated divorce can understand the myriad emotions that such a decision raises.
Then she explained how hard it was to leave. Not because of a desire to stay, but because of the many risks involved. Leaving an abusive situation, without any information about how or whether a victim can be protected, is a frightening process. The presenter noted that it takes the average victim seven opportunities before she will leave the relationship.
Perhaps the most distressing point of the presentation was a picture the presenter showed that her son had painted. She explained that her son loves art and has always drawn pictures of animals and other bright things. After his father was sentenced to prison for his abuse of his mother, he drew a very dark picture with a small spot of light. He explained to his mother that the small light area was the little corner of his life where he feels safe.
Domestic violence, including teen dating violence, is a widespread issue that needs ever more attention and resources. No woman, child, or man should have to experience what the presenter and her children endured.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
