Thinking about the environment in all the wrong ways

by Logan Froerer

Senate Bill 21, sponsored by Margaret Dayton (R-Orem) would rearrange the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). While its proposals would not be a huge change from the present set up, the bill is grounded on an attitude that is dangerously disconnected from what should be the department’s core purpose: creating a healthy environment for Utah citizens.

There are currently five boards overseeing air quality, water quality, drinking water, radioactive materials, and solid and hazardous waste. Almost all members of the board come from what an explanatory handout provided by Dayton’s intern Max Britton terms “stakeholder groups.” That Orwellian term should be read as “industry and business interests.”

SB 21 would “change the board membership from 11 to 9 members, and make membership more uniform” in the search for “certain expertise” said Donna Kemp Spangler, the public information officer for the DEQ. One of the nine seats on each board would be reserved for a representative from nongovernmental organizations, the avenue by which an environmentalist voice could join the group.

The rationale, for Senator Dayton, is to make the board more efficient. A companion bill, SB 11, would move adjudicative proceedings, those dealing with appeals on regulations, out of the hands of the board and under the control of the executive office at the DEQ.

According to Spangler, that move, in theory, is a beneficial move for the DEQ, as it would free the boards to center their focus back on environmental protections rather than appeals and judicial proceedings.

Still, she expressed an uncertainty about how those changes would be implemented.

“The bill right now does not properly set up the transfer of power,” she said. “It just creates a massive undertaking for [the DEQ] to try and separate all the inconsistencies that this would create.”

Those inconsistencies alone should be sending up rallying an opposition who still cares about the world we live in. But even if the language were clarified and those issues cleaned up, the underlying attitude would still blindly miss the real environmental issues.

The regulation and management of our environment is not something that should be thought of in terms of “efficiency” or “cost effectiveness.” Moreover, it should not be governed solely by those linked in with the industries that cause the majority of our environmental problems.

Efficiency and cost must be considered, but they should not be the foundation of how our legislature discusses environmental regulations. Unfortunately, that is the case.

Meaningful legislation on behalf of our environment will require a more accurate definition of who the “stakeholder groups” in our community are.

Any Utah resident can tell the difference between a red air day, when just breathing can mean a fiery scratching in your throat and our homes are blanketed by a heavy grey inversion.

Salt Lake citizens know how much more inspiring life can feel when Mt. Olympus and the Twin Peaks break out crisp and clear in the morning, rather than shrouded by pollution.

The real “stakeholder groups” that our legislation should be addressing are the kids in Magna drinking water affected by Rio Tinto’s operations, or families in the Cache and Salt Lake Valleys using inhalers to suffer through another polluted red air day.

If SB 21 continues to roll through the Legislature, it’s an incredibly sad reflection on what stakeholders our representatives and senators choose to value.

Are they going to pass SB 128? By Enrique Jimenez

Senate bill 128 "modifies the Motor Vehicles Code by amending provisions relating to a person younger than 18 years of age using a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle," according to the bill text. This means that any person younger than 18 years of age would be banned from using a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. Whoever violates this section would be guilty of an infraction and fined a maximum of $50. "Those with the least experience driving operating a motor vehicle, should have their focus on learning how to operate a motor vehicle," Sen. Romero (D- Salt Lake) said, "if you are under 18 and you get into an automobile accident, you cause property damage or injure other people, and the parent is responsible for that." I feel this bill should be enforced to encourage kids to abide the law.

After its initial introduction, S.B. 128 has been amended to allow drivers to play music and use GPS features on a smartphone. There are also exceptions allowing calls to report an emergency or road hazard. But there would be no exception for using a hands free device. Romero said it doesn’t make a measurable difference in safety. On February 7th, the bill passed the Senate 19-9 and moved to the House.

Statistics showing cellphone use while driving gives backing to the bill, particularly those relevant to newer drivers. “In 2011, state statistics show 50 percent of high school students admit talking on their cellphone while driving. In 2010, 15- to 19-year-old drivers had the highest rate of crashes, injuries, and property damage of all driving age groups, and out of nearly 21,000 crashes that year, 17 percent of drivers were using cellphones at the time” (Utah transportation commission).

Nine senate members opposed this bill. Among them was Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who spoke out arguing that Utah law already bans sending text messages while driving and distracted driving. He also said many people use cellphones for more than just communicating. "This bill is vague and unenforceable," argued Valentine.

Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, said he was conflicted about the bill. "Government has its limitations," he said. "We’re not going to stop a whole lot with this, but I know in other states all of us are restricted from driving with that telephone stuck in our ear, and if this prevents even one or two teenagers from being killed on our highways, I’m sorry, but I have to support the bill."

When asked about her opinion on SB 128, Delaney Harrison, a 16 year old West High student, said “I think it does not pose a problem but is hard not to ignore your phone when driving”.

Making it illegal for teens to use their cell phones while driving is not a bad idea because it teaches teens to be more responsible. Personally, I would follow this bill by not using my cell phone while driving. I may be have the desire to look at my phone while I’m driving, but I’d keep in mind that, if this bill passes, it is illegal.

Update on S.B31 By Maricela Hernandez, Luisa Rodriguez, Viridiana Najera

Update on SB 31

This bill is going through the process very quickly, It has already been passed by the Senate and it is currently being introduced into the House of Representatives. Once this bill is passed the classes from K-3rd grade will be changed to 18-23 instead of having it be 22-25. This bill will be heard in a committee.

Senate Bill 31 Classroom Size Amendments - By Viridiana Najera, Maricela Hernandez, Luisa Rodriguez

Karen W. Morgan (D-Cottonwood Heights) is sponsoring S.B 31, a bill that would cap classroom sizefrom kindergarten to third grade. With this bill, the number of students will be limited to somewhere from 18 to 24 students, depending on the grade.Students work better with a smaller class, and studies have been shown that students have improved their test scores, grades, and attendance, by having smaller class room sizes. Senator Morgan suggested that we shouldn’t be one of the last states to have this law enforced.

On the other hand Peter Cannon (member of Davis School Board) disagrees with this argument and said, “We don’t need to be told to help our students the way every other school district does.” Instead he suggested that we could spend money on improving teachers’ quality through a performance- pay system instead of spending it on hiring new teachers.

This bill has been debated back and forth about how much it will cost. But Utah is financially stable enough right now to sponsor this bill.

Florida passed this law, and a good benefit was that teachers and the school board saw a big improvement in the students test scores and reading skills. But they did realize that it required a lot of spending and became unaffordable. That law wasn’t successful because they have such a big population that it was very hard for them to manage the money. We are in a better position.

8-year-old Mayra Limon said “I think I would work better if there was fewer kids in my class.” We asked why she thought that, and she said “ It's better if we have a smaller class, that way the teacher can pay more attention to me.”

Senator Morgan has great intentions for the school districts in Utah. She is trying to expand student’s education and their knowledge. S.B31 should be enforced because it gives students a great ability to learn a lot more by having one on one time with their teacher. It is important that we focus on our young students because at their age their mind is just beginning to expand and is more open to learn. It is also important that they learn because these students are our future.

We need to teach them well because our education system and school requirements get harder and harder every year. We need to prepare for their future, we need to prepare them for what they are going against. For example the University of Utah requirements are getting higher every year and if we aren’t giving them the resources they need we need to start doing that.

We support this bill 100% and hope it gets enforced by the beginning of the school year next year. We know it will make a difference in these students’ lives and education.

SB0144 “Immigration Consultants”: a Much Needed Bill by Jonathan Soto

Our government is meant to protect all people that are its main responsibility. But up to this day, some of the people that currently reside in Utah are left vulnerable to predators who want to cheat them into surrendering their money to them. Immigrants are currently vulnerable to people who know that they can outsmart them by translating legal documents wrongfully or by deceiving them. One of the problems is that the credentials and qualifications for becoming a notario in many Spanish-speaking countries are more stringent than the requirements to become a notary in the U.S. so many people who are unaware of the differences trust that a notary in the U.S can do more than they are actually eligible to do.

Senator Luz Robles has recently presented a bill to the senate, that will help protect the immigrants that currently reside in this country, the bill is known as SB0144: "Immigration Consultants." This bill will require people that translate documents and help immigrants with all types of their paper work, ranging from citizenship papers or mortgaging a home. This bill will require the person offering certain professional services to obtain a license in order to provide this services.

An example of why these consultants are needed is in a case that a friend of mine had to witness. This crime took place in Phoenix, Arizona but I’m sure there are many people that have been put through the same situation. In this case my friends parents who chose to remain anonymous, said that they felt "cheated “and "ignorant" the criminal had advised them to stop paying their mortgage, so that eventually they would obtain a deal with the home owner that would bring the price of the house to what it would currently be priced at by a bank. Well this person in the end took about ten thousand dollars from them, and the main factor in them falling for this scam was because they did not know the complete meaning of the papers that had been presented to them.

This is a prime example of why the people who provide these services should be licensed. We must protect all people in the United States, the immigrant. The main purpose of this bill is to make people who are already consulting immigrants, have to obtain a license before they go out and help them. The reason for needing to get this license is to provide some protection for these immigrants, just like there are laws that protect people from false advice from lawyers there should be some cushion that protects immigrants from being hustled out of their money.

According to the fiscal notice that is located on the legislative website, this bill will bring in a revenue of 200 dollars, which is not a big number, but according to representative David Litvack (D) who is the minority leader in the House of Representatives, “Regardless of the impact financially, I think it’s consistence, no matter what someone’s personal view is about government, which is what’s debated up here. It sounds, to me that it is very consistent in terms with what government should be doing, in protecting Utah and Utah residents.” Our government’s job is still mainly to protect its people and not worry about the financial issue if it is going to protect the people.

Representative Litvack made a clear point that the government’s job is to protect the people of Utah, whether you were born here or you migrated here. This bill will help protect many immigrants in the state of Utah and will also help improve the living conditions of the many immigrants in Utah. That is why SB0144 “Immigration Consultants” should pass in this year’s legislative session.

Affirmative Action: Where'd it Go?

It’s hard to believe that we all have the same opportunity to succeed in society, especially when some may be dirt poor and many obstacles get in the way, such as money, education, institutional racism, gender, and race.

However there are some individuals who believe that we all have the same opportunities and we should do away with any and all affirmative actions. Representative Curtis Oda, chief sponsor of the 2010 resolution HJR 24: Joint Resolution on Equal Treatment by Government, believes that our government should prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment as stated in the description of the resolution. This resolution would have made it possible to amend the state constitution to end any and all programs that are part of the national affirmative action programs.

The implementation of affirmative action programs in the USA began in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, additions were made in 1965 and gender was added in 1968. The purpose of action programs is to provide equal opportunity employment regardless of race, gender, religion, and national origin.

Affirmative action has increased to not just workplaces, but also to universities who want to have a diversity of students attending their school. However, this is sometimes referred to as reversed racism. Jennifer Gratz who sued the University of Michigan after being denied admission based on their affirmative action policy and Ward Connerly, former member of the University of California Board of Regents have been fighting against affirmative action since the 1990s. They have succeeded in creating initiatives to repeal affirmative action in California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona. They found their way to Utah in 2010 and tried to pass HJR 24 in the last days of the legislative session without much public input. Rep. Oda brought the resolution up for discussion in a House Committee just the morning after the full text of the resolution had been released and in a party line vote the committee members passed it right away. Luckily, the resolution was circled, or put on hold, until the very last day of the legislative session that year. The legislation decided to defeat the resolution without any vote on it. This may have been because of way the resolution was brought up, or possibly because Congressmen decided that a change to the state Constitution was a delicate topic that needed more than one session to make a decision. It may also have been that heavy-handed lobbying that was pushed on the fence-sitting legislators.

Of course, this might just be a matter of how you see yourself in this society. Are you the poor brown kid with a slim chance of getting away from the stereotypes and making it or the lucky person to have the right color of skin, within the right economic status, the strong dominant gender, and whose ancestors have been making it big since the roots of what we now call America. Unfortunately for some of us, like myself, we are a minority, female, and expected to have children by now, with little or no chance of even finishing college. And I’m really suppose to make it to the top with all this institutional racism and sexism involved? I think I’d rather have a little help even in this perfect post-racial society.

Fortunately for now the anti-affirmative action movement seems to have died down in Utah, possibly because Utah legislation has other things to worry about like immigration, education, or repealing daylight savings time. It may also be because Ward Connerly was recently accused of mishandling his non-profit organization money and receiving an exorbitant salary by non other than his sidekick Jennifer Gratz. You can read the story in the New York Times Article. Such controversy may not go well with a person who has said he worked hard for his money, regardless of his race.

Prescription Drug Access In Rural Areas (HB 54)

by Bekah Jung

Imagine you are on anti-seizure medications and you run low. You only have two pills left and ordering online, although considerably cheaper, would take your pills five to ten days to get to your home. You have no option, but to pay a higher copay and get your pills because to not take your pills for a couple of days is too much of a risk. That particular situation happened to my roommate, who, like most college students, has difficulty choosing the more expensive route, even if it is a life or death decision. Now imagine a world where drugs online and drugs at your local pharmacy cost the same. You now have an option to either have your prescription drugs delivered to your door and filled by an out-of-state mail-order pharmacy or to support your local pharmacy and get your prescription filled there.

House Bill 54 “Prescription Drug Access in Rural Areas” sponsored by Representative Dixon M. Pitcher, will, as the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices says, “prohibit Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) from charging higher copayments for prescription drugs if patients” choose to “buy locally rather than out-of-state mail-order pharmacy.” The bill will also require that PBMs be required to reimburse local pharmacists fairly for all prescription drugs they refill.

Not only are patients required to pay more copay for their prescriptions if they decide to buy locally, but local pharmacies are loosing money as well due to the lack of reimbursement from PBMs. As stated by Representative Dixon M. Pitcher in the Salt Lake Tribune, “[PBMs] control how much pharmacies get reimbursed for the prescription drugs they dispense… It can be a loosing proposition for both the patient and local pharmacists.” The patients lose because PBMs choose where to buy their prescription drugs by only covering drugs bought at certain big, online pharmacy companies. The local pharmacies are loosing because their costumers are buying online and when costumers do come in to buy prescription drugs, PBMs do not reimburse them fully, thus causing a loss in revenue.

For now, HB 54 will only apply to rural areas in Utah, but Pitcher is hopeful that it will soon become a statewide law. He also hopes that the bill will allow for better competition between big prescription filling companies and local pharmacies as well as lessen the influence of PBMs, which restricts and controls where patients should get their prescriptions and medications filled and where they should not. Because the PBMs rise to power has been gradual, HB 54 was mainly made to make an amendment to the Pharmacy Practice Act Rule, particularly to section R156-17b titled “Operating Standards for Third Party Payors” by stating that third party payers have to cover all prescription drugs the same amount no matter where the drugs are being bought.

Overall, HB 54, although presented by Pitcher as a pro-competition bill, allows for patients to choose where they get their prescription drugs. The bill also gives local pharmacists the chance to compete with bigger pharmaceutical companies and suppresses the power of PBMs. Prospects for the bill passing looks good. From a Democrat’s point of view, it is pushing for more insurance coverage so that insurance coverage is equal no matter where patients decide to get their prescription drugs. From a Republican’s point of view, HB 54 is pushing for boosting small businesses thus creating more competition in the pharmaceutical business world. From a patient’s point of view, HB 54 will allow for them to make a choice where to get their drugs, which could allow for more convenience on the patient’s part.