Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Expanding Charter Schools to Logan County
The House of Representatives recently approved an importation education reform measure that I believe could have a significant impact on education in Logan County. House Bill 2753 is sponsored by Representative Lee Denney who represents part of eastern Logan County, including the town of Langston. Her legislation would enable Langston to play host to a charter school.
Currently, state law limits the establishment of charter schools to Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties where the constituents are ill-served by failing school districts. In the past, I have written about the importance of providing these individuals with relief and enabling their children to experience the opportunity of a quality education. However, it is important to realize that there are other areas of the state which are in significant need of education alternatives and school choice. One of these areas is the Logan County community of Langston where Representative Denney has heard from her Langston constituency about the need for a charter school in the town.
This proposal would have several exciting potential applications. A Langston charter school would not only return a common eduction opportunity to the town of Langston, but this school could also be integrated with the University of Langston. Students participating in the charter school could progress through a system which prepared them for and provided them with a seamless integration into the college experience.
In other words, students would be expected not just to complete 12 grades of common education schooling, but 16 grades of common and higher education schooling. This education strategy would match that which is implemented in the highly successful KIPP charter school system about which I have written in the past. This integration with the college environment could also provide Langston college students with the opportunity to practice teaching in an on-campus environment where they could receive real-world teaching experience.
One of the most exciting aspects surrounding the passage of House Bill 2753, was the margin by which it passed the Legislature. The bill received a bi-partisan composition of 63 votes. In 2007, legislation expanding charter schools received 51 votes and was approved by just one vote. I believe this expanding margin of support has been made possible by the many success stories the charter school environment has produced over the past few years. It is becoming harder and harder for defenders of the status quo to demonize change.
If House Bill 2753 is approved, I hope the Langston community will take advantage of this reform to enable better education opportunities for Logan County residents.
Currently, state law limits the establishment of charter schools to Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties where the constituents are ill-served by failing school districts. In the past, I have written about the importance of providing these individuals with relief and enabling their children to experience the opportunity of a quality education. However, it is important to realize that there are other areas of the state which are in significant need of education alternatives and school choice. One of these areas is the Logan County community of Langston where Representative Denney has heard from her Langston constituency about the need for a charter school in the town.
This proposal would have several exciting potential applications. A Langston charter school would not only return a common eduction opportunity to the town of Langston, but this school could also be integrated with the University of Langston. Students participating in the charter school could progress through a system which prepared them for and provided them with a seamless integration into the college experience.
In other words, students would be expected not just to complete 12 grades of common education schooling, but 16 grades of common and higher education schooling. This education strategy would match that which is implemented in the highly successful KIPP charter school system about which I have written in the past. This integration with the college environment could also provide Langston college students with the opportunity to practice teaching in an on-campus environment where they could receive real-world teaching experience.
One of the most exciting aspects surrounding the passage of House Bill 2753, was the margin by which it passed the Legislature. The bill received a bi-partisan composition of 63 votes. In 2007, legislation expanding charter schools received 51 votes and was approved by just one vote. I believe this expanding margin of support has been made possible by the many success stories the charter school environment has produced over the past few years. It is becoming harder and harder for defenders of the status quo to demonize change.
If House Bill 2753 is approved, I hope the Langston community will take advantage of this reform to enable better education opportunities for Logan County residents.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Oklahoma Responds to Federal Health Care Legislation
Over the past weeks and months, I continue to receive e-mails from constituents who are frustrated by the debate over the expansion of the federal government's role in the health care industry. These constituents feel their voices are not being heard and are extremely frustrated because they feel helpless to effect change. This frustration has only increased over last weekend as part of the legislation was approved by Congress.
In light of these events, I felt it would be important to provide an update about the progress we are making in the Oklahoma Legislature to combat the federal government's power grab.
I have been a strong advocate for the idea that Oklahoma must aggressively assert its role as a state under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers designed our system of governance so that the power of government was localized as much as possible. This means that an individual's voice makes a difference because an individual citizen is more likely to be heard at the local level of government.
For example, the helpless feeling that many constituents are currently feeling would not be so prevalent if this issue were under consideration by state government instead of federal government. Their calls for action would make a big difference because local legislators would be responsive to the level of citizen outrage expressed about this issue. This is why the Tenth Amendment delegates so much authority to state governments.
In order to assert Oklahoma's rights under the Tenth Amendment, several legislators filed states' rights legislation during this session. The Oklahoma House of Representatives recently voted by a 77-10 vote to approve House Joint Resolution 1054. If HJR 1054 is approved by the Legislature, it will allow you to have an outlet to express your opposition to the federal expansion. The proposal would allow Oklahoma citizens to vote in November to amend the State Constitution so that no law or rule will require an Oklahoman to purchase health care insurance and no penalties or fines could be imposed on someone who chooses not to purchase health care insurance.
The Senate has already approved a sister resolution to HJR 1054, known as Senate Joint Resolution 59. SJR 59 was approved by the Senate by a vote of 30-16 and is also designed to amend the Constitution in order to counter some of the possible new mandates from the federal government.
I believe this is one of the most important issues to be considered by the Legislature during this year and I am co-sponsoring both of these efforts. If these proposals are approved, Oklahoma will join a number of other states who are also exercising their rights under the Tenth Amendment.
Shortly after I joined the Legislature, we approved a measure to let Oklahoma join with a number of states in opposing the federal government's effort to enact a REAL ID (national ID card). I believe it was this opposition that forced the federal government to back down and remove the proposal in its original form. I am optimistic that the states can force a similar reaction on this issue as well. The refusal of Oklahoma and other states to cooperate with this latest expansion could be vital to defeating the effort to move towards a socialized health care system.
In light of these events, I felt it would be important to provide an update about the progress we are making in the Oklahoma Legislature to combat the federal government's power grab.
I have been a strong advocate for the idea that Oklahoma must aggressively assert its role as a state under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers designed our system of governance so that the power of government was localized as much as possible. This means that an individual's voice makes a difference because an individual citizen is more likely to be heard at the local level of government.
For example, the helpless feeling that many constituents are currently feeling would not be so prevalent if this issue were under consideration by state government instead of federal government. Their calls for action would make a big difference because local legislators would be responsive to the level of citizen outrage expressed about this issue. This is why the Tenth Amendment delegates so much authority to state governments.
In order to assert Oklahoma's rights under the Tenth Amendment, several legislators filed states' rights legislation during this session. The Oklahoma House of Representatives recently voted by a 77-10 vote to approve House Joint Resolution 1054. If HJR 1054 is approved by the Legislature, it will allow you to have an outlet to express your opposition to the federal expansion. The proposal would allow Oklahoma citizens to vote in November to amend the State Constitution so that no law or rule will require an Oklahoman to purchase health care insurance and no penalties or fines could be imposed on someone who chooses not to purchase health care insurance.
The Senate has already approved a sister resolution to HJR 1054, known as Senate Joint Resolution 59. SJR 59 was approved by the Senate by a vote of 30-16 and is also designed to amend the Constitution in order to counter some of the possible new mandates from the federal government.
I believe this is one of the most important issues to be considered by the Legislature during this year and I am co-sponsoring both of these efforts. If these proposals are approved, Oklahoma will join a number of other states who are also exercising their rights under the Tenth Amendment.
Shortly after I joined the Legislature, we approved a measure to let Oklahoma join with a number of states in opposing the federal government's effort to enact a REAL ID (national ID card). I believe it was this opposition that forced the federal government to back down and remove the proposal in its original form. I am optimistic that the states can force a similar reaction on this issue as well. The refusal of Oklahoma and other states to cooperate with this latest expansion could be vital to defeating the effort to move towards a socialized health care system.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Oklahoman - Article by Paul Monies - Social media records pose archiving woes. http://ping.fm/q0NTd #gov20
Monday, March 15, 2010
House Video Feed Yields Positive Results
I have enjoyed observing first signs of tangible impact from the recent decision by Speaker Chris Benge to provide a live video feed of House proceedings on the Internet.
When I served as a City Councilman in Guthrie, I made the observation that the city policy makers' decision to televise city council meeting had an impact on city policy. No longer could councilmen count on supporting bad policy with the knowledge that the public would be unable to see their actions in context. This important transparency limited policy leaders' ability to cloak their opposition to good policy in the usual cliches and sound bytes because they could not risk the fact that the public had seen the whole debate and were aware of the true context of the issue.
Providing a video feed of House proceedings will have the exact same impact. Legislators are professionals at opposing change based on the flimsiest excuses. Earlier this year, the House debated a bill to put in place new openness policies and expand the ability of the public to access government performance data online. I believe these types of initiatives will revolutionize the way citizens are able to hold government accountable and and has the potential to help put an end to abuses of the taxpayer dollars in Oklahoma government. As an example, with strong performance data made available to the citizens regarding state agency performance I believe it will become very difficult for past scandals such as the ghost employee scandal to re-occur.
Those debating against the effort pointed to tired old arguments against transparency such as the minimal cost of allowing access or utilized scare tactics to inaccurately claim that such openness would provide too much information to citizens. Had this debate occurred last year, I suspect that would have been the end of this story. However, a writer with the Oklahoman posted a link to the video of the debate on the NewsOK.com web site and the public became aware of the debate and the effort to prevent transparency. By the end of the week I was being contacted by citizens outraged by the disingenuous debate, people wanting a breakdown of the votes, and a candidate who wanted to talk about the issue in his campaign.
As more and more instances like this take place, lawmakers will learn the power of this new medium. I suspect they will greatly fear being exposed on sites such as YouTube when they debate against a transparency proposal using the same tired excuse-based logic. Because many lawmakers aspire to higher office, the last thing they want is to have a future opponent expose their opposition to good policy by simply sending a link to a video clip.
Providing a live video feed of House proceedings took great courage by House leadership. I believe that this single act will provide the leverage necessary to enable a series of good policy legislation to meet with success.
When I served as a City Councilman in Guthrie, I made the observation that the city policy makers' decision to televise city council meeting had an impact on city policy. No longer could councilmen count on supporting bad policy with the knowledge that the public would be unable to see their actions in context. This important transparency limited policy leaders' ability to cloak their opposition to good policy in the usual cliches and sound bytes because they could not risk the fact that the public had seen the whole debate and were aware of the true context of the issue.
Providing a video feed of House proceedings will have the exact same impact. Legislators are professionals at opposing change based on the flimsiest excuses. Earlier this year, the House debated a bill to put in place new openness policies and expand the ability of the public to access government performance data online. I believe these types of initiatives will revolutionize the way citizens are able to hold government accountable and and has the potential to help put an end to abuses of the taxpayer dollars in Oklahoma government. As an example, with strong performance data made available to the citizens regarding state agency performance I believe it will become very difficult for past scandals such as the ghost employee scandal to re-occur.
Those debating against the effort pointed to tired old arguments against transparency such as the minimal cost of allowing access or utilized scare tactics to inaccurately claim that such openness would provide too much information to citizens. Had this debate occurred last year, I suspect that would have been the end of this story. However, a writer with the Oklahoman posted a link to the video of the debate on the NewsOK.com web site and the public became aware of the debate and the effort to prevent transparency. By the end of the week I was being contacted by citizens outraged by the disingenuous debate, people wanting a breakdown of the votes, and a candidate who wanted to talk about the issue in his campaign.
As more and more instances like this take place, lawmakers will learn the power of this new medium. I suspect they will greatly fear being exposed on sites such as YouTube when they debate against a transparency proposal using the same tired excuse-based logic. Because many lawmakers aspire to higher office, the last thing they want is to have a future opponent expose their opposition to good policy by simply sending a link to a video clip.
Providing a live video feed of House proceedings took great courage by House leadership. I believe that this single act will provide the leverage necessary to enable a series of good policy legislation to meet with success.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Debate over online licensing and permitting (HB 2310) in Oklahoma House on Wednesday. #gov20 http://ping.fm/mARiB
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Yesterday's House debate over social media policy. Thanks to @capitolkiesel for his help. #gov20 http://ping.fm/ak7FO
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Maybe NIC can steal this for Oklahoma. Alabama Debuts iPhone App for Government Info http://ping.fm/tVFIZ
Monday, March 8, 2010
Murphey Legislative Update
This week marks the House deadline for voting on legislation before it goes to the Senate, so this is the time of year when Representatives begin to spend a significant deal of time on the House floor. It is also the first major test for many of the more interesting and controversial issues.
One of the bills recently considered by the House was House Bill 3393 which was sponsored by state Representative Jason Nelson. Nelson has invested significant effort in developing HB 3393 which provides a method for special needs students to go to schools which provide them with needed support.
In the past I have written about the immorality of state government's policy regarding inner city students in failing school districts. State government could enable these students to be placed into an environment which is more conducive to their success by refunding their tax contribution to the education system in the form of a refund such as a voucher or tax credits.
A similar issue exists in those areas where parents have disabled or challenged children who cannot receive the help they need in many school districts. The districts simply do not have the resources necessary to properly assist these children with their education. House Bill 3393 takes a step towards the implementation of a common sense school choice policy by providing an opportunity for school choice to disabled students. The bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 78-19. In my view, this strong vote reflects real progress on the school choice issue.
Speaker of the House Chris Benge won approval for the first of what I believe will be several consolidation and money savings proposals. House Joint Resolution 1080 would allow Oklahomans to vote on consolidating the Pardon and Parole Board with the Department of Corrections. The consolidation should save the taxpayers several thousand dollars each year as these two groups will be able to use the same infrastructure to provide service to their respective boards. Since the subject matter is often duplicative, this is an extremely common sense approach to savings. It is important to note that the members of the Pardon and Parole Board will still be independently appointed and as such, should not lose their independence in making the important decisions they are charged with considering.
The Speaker used the opportunity of this legislation to explain to the Representatives that because of the state budget shortfall, our state government will look much different after this legislative session comes to a close.
Speaker Benge's proposal was approved by a vote of 64-30 and will be sent to the Senate for consideration.
One of the bills recently considered by the House was House Bill 3393 which was sponsored by state Representative Jason Nelson. Nelson has invested significant effort in developing HB 3393 which provides a method for special needs students to go to schools which provide them with needed support.
In the past I have written about the immorality of state government's policy regarding inner city students in failing school districts. State government could enable these students to be placed into an environment which is more conducive to their success by refunding their tax contribution to the education system in the form of a refund such as a voucher or tax credits.
A similar issue exists in those areas where parents have disabled or challenged children who cannot receive the help they need in many school districts. The districts simply do not have the resources necessary to properly assist these children with their education. House Bill 3393 takes a step towards the implementation of a common sense school choice policy by providing an opportunity for school choice to disabled students. The bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 78-19. In my view, this strong vote reflects real progress on the school choice issue.
Speaker of the House Chris Benge won approval for the first of what I believe will be several consolidation and money savings proposals. House Joint Resolution 1080 would allow Oklahomans to vote on consolidating the Pardon and Parole Board with the Department of Corrections. The consolidation should save the taxpayers several thousand dollars each year as these two groups will be able to use the same infrastructure to provide service to their respective boards. Since the subject matter is often duplicative, this is an extremely common sense approach to savings. It is important to note that the members of the Pardon and Parole Board will still be independently appointed and as such, should not lose their independence in making the important decisions they are charged with considering.
The Speaker used the opportunity of this legislation to explain to the Representatives that because of the state budget shortfall, our state government will look much different after this legislative session comes to a close.
Speaker Benge's proposal was approved by a vote of 64-30 and will be sent to the Senate for consideration.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
A Common Sense Answer to Lobbyist Gift Giving
As candidate for State Representative, it was my pledge to the citizens of House District 31 to not accept personal gifts from lobbyists. At that time I had no idea how challenging it would be to enforce this pledge. In the past, these gifts have been mailed to my home, left at the office, or placed on the desk of my legislative assistant even when she was not in the office. These actions force me or my staff to spend resources and time tracking down the lobbyists and returning the gifts. In addition, sometimes lobbyists would enter reports of across-the-board gift giving, such as dinner for an entire committee or lunch for the whole Republican caucus which included my name, even though I wasn't even present to accept the gift.
As a way of helping legislators avoid going to these lengths to return gifts, I believe an online no gift list would draw a clear line in the sand by which legislators and lobbyists could establish a firm relationship based on professionalism. I also believe it would start putting an end to the perception that all legislators and lobbyists engage in an inappropriate game of quid-pro-quo.
In the past I have sought to establish this list through a legislative initiative. Even though the idea was approved by two House committees, it was not given a hearing on the floor of the House. I suspect it will be very difficult to receive legislative approval. However, the list could be established by a simple vote of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to provide an official no gift list on its web site where Oklahoma legislators could request to be placed.
In speaking to other lawmakers, I am convinced that a number of them would avail themselves of this service. Several legislators do not enjoy their names being listed in the paper for receiving gifts they did not desire in the first place. I also believe there are a number of lobbyists who would be supportive of this feature. In my view there are a number of lobbyists who do not appreciate the public perception that all lobbyists advance their position based on the size of their expense account, rather than the merits of the position.
It is my opinion that any minuscule investment required to maintain this feature on the existing Ethics Commission web site would be offset by a corresponding decrease in expenses related to processing lobbyists' reports. In a down budget year, this idea would present the Ethics Commission with the opportunity to save taxpayer funds.
It is my intent in the upcoming days to formally request that the Ethics Commission consider this option as a valuable tool for saving taxpayer dollars and restoring some trust in the legislative process.
As a way of helping legislators avoid going to these lengths to return gifts, I believe an online no gift list would draw a clear line in the sand by which legislators and lobbyists could establish a firm relationship based on professionalism. I also believe it would start putting an end to the perception that all legislators and lobbyists engage in an inappropriate game of quid-pro-quo.
In the past I have sought to establish this list through a legislative initiative. Even though the idea was approved by two House committees, it was not given a hearing on the floor of the House. I suspect it will be very difficult to receive legislative approval. However, the list could be established by a simple vote of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to provide an official no gift list on its web site where Oklahoma legislators could request to be placed.
In speaking to other lawmakers, I am convinced that a number of them would avail themselves of this service. Several legislators do not enjoy their names being listed in the paper for receiving gifts they did not desire in the first place. I also believe there are a number of lobbyists who would be supportive of this feature. In my view there are a number of lobbyists who do not appreciate the public perception that all lobbyists advance their position based on the size of their expense account, rather than the merits of the position.
It is my opinion that any minuscule investment required to maintain this feature on the existing Ethics Commission web site would be offset by a corresponding decrease in expenses related to processing lobbyists' reports. In a down budget year, this idea would present the Ethics Commission with the opportunity to save taxpayer funds.
It is my intent in the upcoming days to formally request that the Ethics Commission consider this option as a valuable tool for saving taxpayer dollars and restoring some trust in the legislative process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)