SB, Possession of Graffiti Parahernalia, by Sergio Brito

Art is part of our lives, whether you create it or collect it. Art is a thing we always see in our daily lives; art can portray emotion or disaster. There is also some art that is a big problem for the community; one that costs money to repair. I am talking about graffiti; graffiti should be stopped with proper actions to improve our community’s appearance. By proper actions I mean if anyone is caught vandalizing someone or somewhere they should be the ones who shall clean it up and pay a fine.  Karen Mayne, wrote a bill, SB107, as a solution to try and stop vandalism. SB107: “Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia,”  says that anyone who possesses any “instrument, tool, or device that is commonly used to make graffiti with the intent to deface the property of another” can be charged with a class C misdemeanor. For example, a student carrying a can of spray paint or a marker, could potentially be charged under the provisions of this bill.  The trick, of course, will be determining “intent.”  How will a police officer know what a person’s intent is? 
Cecilia, a student at West High reacted,  “That’s stupid, what if you use it for art or an art project?” Likewise, Mr. Marston, a teacher at West argued, “It will create a lot of conflicts, there is no law that says you can own spray cans.” Another student Daniel Tabares, “Possession of spray cans or painting supplies should not be a reason to charge an individual for a crime they have not committed.”
Vandalism should be stopped, but we should not assume anyone who is caught with paint supplies will use it to write creative art on a wall. Vandalism should be stopped, but with the right type of actions and then, only then, our community will begin to look more descent. This law is judging by first appearance.  We should let the individual explain why they possess the items and only press charges if someone is actually committing a crime, not just under the suspicion of having the “intent” to commit a crime.

SB107- Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia - by Jennica Trujillo

Senator Karen Mayne presented “Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia” (S.B. 107), which was defeated. This bill tried to prevent almost anyone from owning anything that could be considered graffiti paraphernalia, these items include: spray-paint cans, paint markers, or various types of other markers. Anyone who owns any instruments capable of making graffiti of any kind is at risk of obtaining a class "B" misdemeanor.

Senator Mayne, the sponsor of this bill, said that “[the] burden of proof is on the police.”

What she meant by this is that it would be up to the police officers to determine and prove whether or not the suspect who owns the spray-paints cans or markers is actually engaging or will engage in graffiti making. This bill would have punished the intent to commit a crime, regardless of whether a crime had actually been committed.

If the burden of proof is on the police, does that mean officers could have assumed anyone who owns a spray-paint can or paint markers is guilty and should automatically receive a class "B" misdemeanor? One should not be able to punish a person until he/she actually commits a crime.

For example, although someone may really want a new pair of shoes he or she cannot afford, he or she cannot get charged with theft until he or she physically takes them from the store.

If this bill had been put into action it may have led to a rise to racial profiling in our state as well. For example, take the story of my fellow West High School student, Kaleb Winston.

During a gang sweep at West High School on December 16, 2011, Kaleb was questioned by police officer if he was participating in any gang activity. He denied the accusations, and the police officer questioned him about the graffiti-patterned backpack he wore and asked to search his bag. They found paint markers in the bag, and some teachers had given the police officer information that he had been tagging the moniker “Maze” around the school. They then photographed him holding a sign that said “My name is Kaleb Winston and I am a gang tagger.”

His parents were outraged, and claimed the police had broken a law by photographing the boy without his parent’s permission. They also contacted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) because they believe the police targeted Kaleb simply because he is black. It was later proved that the paint markers found in his backpack had been used for an assignment in his art class and the "tags" on his backpack were actually the design printed by the backpack manufacturer. Kaleb was just one of the many kids that were questioned that day at the school, though no other names have been released.

These are some of the many reasons that S.B. 107 was just not a very good piece of legislation. We are very lucky it did not pass, or we may have faced with more situations like Kaleb Winston’s in the future.

S.B. 139 - Letting Youth Testify in Divorce Cases - By Van Le

Grant Durtschi told The Senate Judiciary, law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee of being a father with joint legal and physical custody of his children who faces the prospect of his children moving to Texas, in compliance with the court's decision, with his ex-wife.

For Durtschi, that move would mean drastically less time with the children. His weekly visits will perhaps be reduced to one or two yearly visits, even though his “children have stated that they do not want to go to Texas” when they have extensive relations of grandparents, cousins, and aunts and uncles in Utah.

“This is where everybody in our family has established," Durtschi said. "They [the children] do not have any family in Texas.”

S.B. 139 Child Custody Proceedings, sponsored by Senator Luz Robles (D), would give the opinions of children fourteen years old weight in deciding future custody. If passed, this bill could favorably change situations like Durtschi's.

In divorce cases, the court commissions a custody evaluator to examine the finance, health, and parental practices of both parents upon awarding child custody. Children, regardless of age, may tell the judges which parent they would like to live with, but under the Utah law, only the opinions of those sixteen or older are taken into consideration. For example, a judge cannot include the wish of an eleven year old who expresses a desire to live with his or her dad in the decision-making process.

Jackie Warren spoke about how relocating to Utah has helped distance her and the children from an abusive ex-husband and father. Neither Warren nor Durtschi have children who are sixteen or older. In compliance to the current statue, Jackie's children must travel to Maryland to see their abusive father, while Grant's children have no input in the decision to move to Texas with their mother.

Senator Lyle Hillyard and Senator Stephen Urquhart contended that letting young children express their parental preferences will put them under tremendous pressure in a divorce, especially when they are told to make the choice about their future. As long time family law attorneys, both senators have witnessed divorce cases where parents “lobby” their son or daughter with new things and privileges in order to become the child's preference. The situation could be reversed with the child demanding things in exchange for his coming to live with one parent over the other.

If a child decides to reveal his or her parental preference to the judge, he or she must do it on camera. According to Senator Hillyard, the judge sometime does not have the power to protect that child's opinion from being heard by the parents, and the parent-child relationship could be damaged.

Even though Sen. Hillyard and Sen. Urquhart's concerns are legitimate, passing S.B. 139 will bring more positive changes than negative ones. The primary motivation behind the proposal is, as Sen. Robles said, to “give voices to the children” during a a heartbreaking process that is largely beyond their control.

The language of S.B. 139 makes it clear that children only need to express their preferences if they wish to. Even if a child chooses to state a preference, the current statute dictates that a judge cannot award custody to one parent solely upon that child's preference. He or she must include other factors such as financial stability, parental practices, and physical and mental health and decide which parent will serve the child's best interest.

In a way, a child's preference can work as a checking device on the judge's thought process. For example, during a divorce case, if a judge believed that it is best if the child stay with the dad; but, the child expresses a desire to live with his or her mom, the judge can use the child's preference to double-check his or her decision, re-examining whether awarding custody to dad is truly the best choice.

Madelyn Meyer, a fifteen year old teen whose parents are divorced, testified during a committe that “Lowering the age... is probably a wise choice. A child understands that her parents or his parents are going to get a divorce. If that is what's happening then a child understands that. They may not like it, but they understand that.”

Both children and parents are equally important parts of a family. During divorce cases, it is wrong to only consider the opinions of the parents and the conflicts between them, leaving out the opinions of the children simply because of the belief that children cannot and should not be involved.

By being a part of a family, children are already more involved than a judge or a custody evaluator. Sometimes, it is the children who actually grasp the situation of their homes better than any outsider, and they should be given the chance to express their views.

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.