♪♪♪ male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund.

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report" from saving the Great Salt Lake to putting restrictions on lobbyists, significant bills begin to take shape, legislators debate an important amendment to Utah's constitution that could change how education is funded, and the state begins to shift gears on addressing Covid-19 as leaders prepare to move to the endemic phase of the virus.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason: Good evening and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

I'm Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Covering the week, we have Representative Suzanne Harrison, Democratic member of the Utah House of Representatives.

Doug Wilks, Executive Editor of the Deseret News, and Derek Brown, Partner with Lincoln Hill.

So glad to have you all with us, we have a lot to cover.

I want to start on a more somber know however, a lot's happening in this world.

I want to talk to you about the Utah perspective on Russia invading Ukraine on Wednesday.

Before we talk about the politics though, Doug, I want to start with you because when it comes to the humanitarian side of something like this happening, Utah's been a state that has stood up in the past.

Doug Wilks: Well, we learned even this week, where Governor Cox talked about 900 Afghan refugees, who have come in through the Afghanistan Crisis, but in Ukraine, there's predictions of a great exodus of people from Ukraine.

At first they were gonna flee the occupied territories and then stay in country.

Now it seems clear that the whole country could be occupied.

They're already accepting people into Poland.

I happened to be with the International Rescue Committee in Washington D.C. this past week and they're anticipating a great humanitarian crisis of people having to leave Ukraine.

And so when you look at Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine, this impacts all of us globally, and we've already seen the impacts here in Utah, but that's why we really need to be concerned 'cause there's all the politics involved with Putin and Ukraine, but from our perspective, how do you help the people that are gonna be affected on the ground?

Jason: Representative, our own legislatures is going to be weighing in in some way here shortly.

Rep. Suzanne Harrison: Yeah, we're preparing a resolution condemning the actions of Russia in the strongest terms and yesterday, we had a real moment, a somber moment on the House floor.

One of our own, Representative Jordan Teuscher's family is from Ukraine, and they are in Ukraine, and my heart and goes out to the people of Ukraine and Russia must be held accountable.

Jason: You have some personal connection to Ukraine, Derek.

Derek Brown: I actually spent some time with the Lenin Institute there a number of years ago, working in teaching in law schools, and it's hard to imagine because for anyone who hasn't been there.

It's a modern country.

I mean, it's looks like the rest of Europe.

And this idea that you have a superpower that just can sort of waltz in and try to take over.

I mean, it's a foreign concept to any of us 'cause it's never happened in our lives.

And I think the real issue is also if we look out sort of strategically, you know, a few are Latvia, or Estonia, who also have pretty substantial Russian speaking minorities.

You've got to be concerned as well.

And I think the sort of the global impact of this has yet to be seen because I think this has much more to do with the entire region and not just Ukraine.

Doug: It's moving quickly, obviously, right?

There'll be more actions today and through the weekend.

So it'll be very interesting to see where this goes.

Jason: Derek, we had some of our elected officials weigh in pretty quickly too.

I wanna highlight one from Senator Mitt Romney because he-- this is not a new issue for him to be talking about but you wouldn't have wanted to be right about this.

It was an interesting comment he made immediately after the invasion.

He said that, "Putin's Ukraine invasion is the first time in 80 years that a great power has moved to conquer a sovereign nation.

It is without justification, without provocation, and without honor."

Derek: And can I just mention that this was the issue that Romney was mocked for when he ran for president because he was asked, you know, point blank what do you think one of the greatest issues is that we need to look at and he mentioned Russia and Putin, and there was this collective gasp, mocking, and, you know, he was ridiculed.

I remember at the time I think it was Obama that said, "The 80's called, they want their foreign policy back."

Well, you know, fast forward now a decade and we're all looking back at that statement and thinking he was right on.

Jason: Doug, I want to talk just a little more about this from the Utah perspective.

Deseret News, Hinckley Institute recently did some pulling on this very issue before the invasion happened and we asked Utahns how concerned they were about the build up of Russian troops.

Interestingly enough, 76% of Utahns were concerned, 19% said no.

But also about the question, which was one of your ideas, the follow up of whether or not troops should be involved.

This was a little closer, but still 46% of Utahns said they would support if that came to that.

Doug: The hard part is what's the exit strategy if you go in with troops, right?

What was the exit strategy out of Afghanistan?

We didn't really have one that was well crafted.

So, emotionally you might feel like yes, we need to go and defend freedom.

We need to go and defend Ukrainians from this encroachment, but putting boots on the ground as it were, putting in a full force, I don't think there really is an appetite.

Certainly half of Utah doesn't think that should happen.

The nation doesn't think that should happen.

So you're looking for a stranglehold on the money really is what will make a difference there in Ukraine as it relates to Russia.

Jason: No doubt the state of Utah will step up when our time comes to help in some way or we can.

I want to get to the legislative session for a moment 'cause we have a lot of bills that started come forward.

Sometimes there's some strategy as to when the controversial ones come, when some of the ones that are easy at the end, but I want to start talkin' about water for a second but not the kind of it might be thinkin' about, about lakes.

Two bills talking about lakes and I want to start with that for a second, Representative, first big investment plan from you and your colleagues on the Great Salt Lake, a 40 million dollar trust.

Talk about what that is and why the Great Salt Lake keeps being discussed with our legislature.

Rep. Suzanne: Well and really the Speaker Wilson deserves a lot of credit on his leadership on identifying the need for water conservation and saving the Great Salt Lake.

It is at the lowest level it has ever been recorded and many legislators have the opportunity because of the amazing Utah National Guard to actually go out and see the lake for ourselves.

It was part of their regular training session, but we were able to fly out there and see for ourselves that the crisis that the Great Salt Lake is in and Speaker Wilson is really spearheading financial resources and also legislation to keep water in those rivers to get back to the Great Salt Lake.

It has economic impacts and especially, you know, a lot of people think well what does that matter?

It's the Great Salt Lake but if you care about clean air, you care about air quality in the state, the Great Salt Lake needs to be saved, and we need to have a healthy Great Salt Lake.

Otherwise toxic dust storms are part of our future and it really could impact our economic and health future.

Jason: That's true.

Derek, it's interesting this is a bipartisan issue here.

These environmental issues Representative was talking about.

This is something we're seeing more and more of.

Talk about that from that perspective, because the lake is lower, I understand 11 feet lower than when Brigham Young first-- Derek: The pioneers had a method of actually marking the level of the lake and so I mean, we could, we know exactly where it was.

And so but I echo that I think Speaker Wilson has done a good job of sort of taking this issue on and it has become bipartisan and in part because it is I mean, it's an it's an economic issue, and you've got, I mean, there's a lake effect and that in fact that impacts the snow, right?

In terms of, you know, how much snow we have in the state.

But I love the fact that it is becoming a or it has become a bipartisan issue.

I think everyone recognizes that we need to do something about this and it doesn't mean that as a state we are--or as an area we need to look like Tucson, and have zero scaping everywhere.

What it means is we need to get serious about the issue and we need to look at creative ways to conserve water and to preserve this.

I mean, there's also this is one of the most important stopovers or refueling areas for migratory birds, tens of millions going north.

And so those are the kinds of things we need to protect and if we lose that I think there will be impacts for generations to come.

Rep. Suzanne: And it really raises the issue of water conservation, which we're behind on compared to our neighboring states, but I hope this is the first step in continued efforts in water conservation at every level, whether that's agricultural efficiencies.

We have some great legislation to increase water metering, which has been shown to increase conservation of water.

There's more work ahead and I think this is a great downpayment.

Jason: Mhmm, that's kinda how the Speaker is referring to it too.

Doug: If i could say one thing about it.

We've seen a change from the media perspective about awareness from Utahns that the Great Salt Lake was kind of there and we've had tough years before.

We had floods in '83 was it?

And so they put the pumps out there which haven't needed to be used really.

But now everyone recognizes the ripple effect of that lake going away.

You mentioned air pollution, you mentioned the ski industry and lake-effect snow.

You mentioned, the environmental consequences of migratory birds not coming through.

That has a tremendous ecological factor.

So now there is a solution based approach and the $40 million.

They don't have everything earmarked.

I mean, what do you do with that money?

You create plants to save wetlands to do things in place.

So to have a mechanism now to do that is commendable.

Jason: Right, we'll watch this one closely.

The first step we understand.

Let's talk about Utah Lake, alright, Derek start, there's something that I'm hearing on the Hill a lot the last couple of days.

I think it's gonna occupy some attention too, 34 artificial islands in Utah Lake, that's one of the proposals.

Talk about that for just a moment because the ground has been paved for this for a couple of years about this possibility.

Derek: Well, they've talked about quite a bit.

I think my understanding is this would be the largest public private partnership ever in the state of Utah and what they're trying to do is be creative about solving a problem.

The problem is that Utah Lake isn't what it used to be.

It's got algae.

It smells.

It's this amazing natural resource that we have in Utah County that no one really uses.

All we do is just drive around it.

No one gets on it.

No one uses it the same way we have other reservoirs.

And so I mean, I think it's a creative way of combining resources to to dredge the lake in a way that will fix a lot of the environmental problems, but then you've got that that compost, and the other stuff that is down there that needs to be put somewhere.

And so to create islands I think it's a clever solution, but what I like is that there are environmental benchmarks that they have to achieve for it to work.

And so the EPA is currently looking at it.

And so it's not just like they were going to turn it over to a private company.

I mean, there are benchmarks that they need to achieve otherwise it won't take place.

Jason: Representative, get your comment too but one of the this-- this is what we've heard terms of this argument here is on average it would be 7 feet deeper by dredging it and creating this island, the islands, which some say, at least the proponents are saying would impact the algae blooms that kind of thing.

Talk about that for just a moment because you're hearing on the inside but we're not.

Rep. Suzanne: While I think everyone agrees that Utah Lake needs help.

Just like the Great Salt Lake there's algae blooms, there's pollution issues.

We're on the same page about helping Utah Lake.

The conflict is in how and building a whole bunch of islands in a developer giveaway scheme is not gonna help clean up Utah Lake.

It will disrupt the natural ecology of the lake and it will really just be a boondoggle for Utahns.

And one of my concerns is that many in the in the scientific community, a professor down at BYU, who's been speaking out about this.

You know get slapped with a 3 million dollar lawsuit.

The science doesn't back this up.

I'm really grateful for Representative Kevin Stratton's bill that will really put some guardrails in place to mandate that there's science before we do this big giveaway to developers.

Doug: Well, you've kinda see what side do you come down on.

One, does it help the environment down there?

Will the dredging help or hurt it.

There have been plans to put a bridge across Utah Lake before, right?

So there's been different things that have been proposed.

Now what's happened is the community of vintage is growing up that's supposed to be a 40,000 person community.

Saratoga Springs, you have Eagle Mountain.

So that lake is being circled.

So if you look at the next 30 years, how does that become a strong resource?

The bill to give more oversight to the legislature to the Governor's office, you know, those are things in place because people aren't sure what the impact will be.

So is it a boondoggle?

I don't know yet, but clearly you've gotta follow science and that yeah, we weren't-- we had a healthy debate in the pages of the Deseret News about the lawsuit and when the professor spoke out because you want to have a healthy dialogue around this issue to see what will come next.

Rep. Suzanne: And the science community is saying the science doesn't back up the claims that building a bunch of islands in Utah Lake will clean it up.

Derek: Which is why the EPA of course is involved and if it doesn't back it up then they won't do it.

So I think putting those guardrails in place makes a lot sense.

Doug: --process too, isn't it?

Derek: Oh yeah.

This is a long term play.

Jason: You'll see why this is going to be interesting this last week on this one.

Can we get to the revenue numbers for a second because I want to talk about how that impacts education in particular.

And the reason I mentioned this is since our last show we have the consensus revenue numbers for the state.

So I want to get your your response to this.

What the plans are, Representative, the final numbers for this session $1.46 billion of one time money, $570 million of on going money.

Talk about how that is going to be used with you and your colleagues, particularly when it relates to education.

Rep. Suzanne: Well I think Utah has weathered the pandemic better than almost any other state and I think a lot of that credit goes to our industry, our values, and our hardworking people here.

It depends on who you talk to where that revenue should go certainly.

I would like to see a more robust investment in our kids, in their future, in public education.

I love that we're doing some of these generational investments in our Great Salt Lake, water conservation as we've talked about.

Now is the time to invest in our future and a downpayment on making sure every child has the resources and skills that they need to thrive in the future economy by investing in public education is money well spent.

I'd love to see full day kindergarten, optional full day kindergarten fully funded, making sure that our teachers are supported and well paid.

And that we're, you know, there's a lot of concern from our teachers that many of them because of the pandemic, they're thinking about leaving.

It's been a really tough couple years and we need to make sure that we have our best and brightest going into the classroom.

Jason: You're working on this full day kindergarten issue.

Derek: Yeah, that's one of those sort of generational investments and I think the federal money that's coming in, I mean, the idea is that we create generational investments.

Things that will outlast us and I used to serve the House of Representatives and whenever there was a surplus it actually was much more difficult as a legislator, and Representative Harrison knows this, because when there's not enough money, it's very easy for all these requests to be told sorry, there's just not the funding but when there is just just gabs of money like there is right now, I mean, it's it really requires the legislature to go through and prioritize and to have some difficult conversations with their colleagues to say look, this is a great project, but it's not one we're gonna fund.

So contrary to what you might think having more money is actually in some ways more difficult for the the legislature.

Jason: Doug, I want to talk about one of the difficult conversations that's happening around this very issue has to do with something that's been percolating for a while.

The difference between sales tax revenue and income tax revenue.

So for the last couple of years, our legislatures talked about there's a problem, there's a discrepancy between these two, 'cause income tax keeps growing, sales tax is not, and income tax is tied to education, which is why once again this last week, even though it's not going to move forward, our legislature once again talked about, this is somethin' legislative leadership talked about, maybe getting rid of that constitutional earmark, tying income tax to education.

Doug: Well, first off if you're getting rid of and something related to the Constitution eventually it would have to come to voters.

So there is that protection that voters will have a say on this no matter what.

When we poll about education, everyone wants more money for education.

Where the rubber meets the road is how do you do it?

People want local control, all day kindergarten is one way, if you give that opportunity to a district then the district can decide is that what our constituents, what our parents want.

There's been a lot of conversation about supporting teachers.

Before the pandemic many teachers wouldn't last five years.

Now that number is even going down.

There were bills in the legislature discussed about having oversight of curriculum, meaning a teacher would have to file their lesson plan, and then follow that lesson plan.

Well you can put guardrails.

You can put parameters in place for your curriculum and parents certainly need to know what's being taught but that's not how you teach on a day to day basis.

When a student asked you about race, or they ask you about a controversial issue, or they ask you, you know, what do you hear about the new math?

You need to teach and express the importance of that content.

So focusing money on teachers, having flexibility.

The income tax is tied to a food tax.

We polled on the food tax.

People wanted-- don't want a food tax.

So there's a lot surrounding this.

And I agree, I think it is more difficult when you have a lot of money because there's a lot of needs.

Jason: There are and a lot of asks that for sure too.

Talk before we leave this, Representative, so some are calling this the firewall that exists in the Constitution separating these two.

Just give your perspective on that understanding that one side is going up faster than the other side.

Rep. Suzanne: So and and just last election, Utah voters supported a change in the Utah Constitution to allow some of that money that's dedicated to the education fund to be used for services for kids or people with disabilities, and this is the first fiscal year that that is really gone into effect.

And I do appreciate the tension between the general fund and the education fund, but I think the way to address that is not the last week of the session.

I'm really grateful that legislative leadership is gonna push pause on that and we'll, you know, talk about it further in interim but I think the best way to move forward is to invest in our kids, invest in our schools now.

Put that down payment on to build trust that the legislatures really gonna step up and adequately fund education.

We're still near the bottom of the country in per student funding and you talk to any parent or any teacher, so many of our kids have needs that aren't being adequately met either at home and our school systems are are often one of the only ways that kids get services.

Jason: Before we leave this one I appreciate that.

Doug, we did some polling on this too.

What's interesting too Representative's comments here.

When Utahns were asked what should happen with the surplus, they also said education.

Doug: They will always say education, but how do you do that?

I think if you have as a guidepost flexibility for parents.

Especially coming out of Covid.

Every person I talked to has a unique family situation, whether who's working, who's not working, the ability of their student to learn.

And so if you can get enough flexibility within education to support teachers, to support students, I think that's where you need to start.

Rep. Suzanne: And we can target that to things that we know make a huge difference.

You know we know that mental health services, our kids are coming to school with more stress, and more mental health issues, helping get those resources in our schools, making sure that our kids have those literacy, early literacy investments, 30% of Utah children are not reading at grade level by third grade.

This is a crisis and needs to be a call to action.

You know all day kindergarten, early literacy, these things are key to every child being able to be a thriving, tax paying, you know, industrious member of the future.

Jason: We gotta get you, Derek, about a couple of other bills interesting, but I got one just special for you.

Derek: Okay.

Jason: Lobbyists.

Lobbyists and running campaigns.

So interesting, we saw this conflict of interest amendment entering from Phil Lime and so the idea is this if you run someone's campaign you can't lobby them.

That's essentially.

Derek: I mean, I'll just be blunt, I think it's kind of a clown bill.

I mean, just to be really honest.

When I was in the House of Representatives I would always have people that would say well those darn lobbyists.

And I'd always say, okay, so what do you think about lower taxes?

Well, I really like lower tax.

What do you think about LGBTQ issues?

Well, I think those should be pushed as well.

I'm like well, all these issues that you care about, you have individuals and groups on the Hill that are representing you.

Should they not be representing you?

Well no, I'm okay with that.

I just don't like lobbyists.

Okay, hang on, that's not how-- this is a first amendment right to advocate with the government.

And so, you know, these are the kind of bills that I think are just someone trying to send a message but the reality is it's not going to go anywhere because it's not a serious piece of legislation.

And not only that, it has major constitutional issues with it as well.

Jason: So statements been made, I guess we'll see that this one probably won't go forward, but one that is interesting is going forward, Doug, is there's been a resolution in the Senate and now in the House restricting access of the media to certain parts of the Capitol.

Doug: Yeah, I think it's it's a bad rule.

There are protections in place already to have reporters registered, cleared, they're not a threat.

This is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist 'cause they suggest it's because of security issues.

There's plenty of security up there.

With this, what reporters are doing is it allows them to come and say hey, you know, I see your bill, but I don't quite understand that.

Can you clarify it for me?

And then you represent the publican and the lawmaker in a more honest way.

You get the story right.

So to put roadblocks in place to make it harder to get a true story out there, I think is bad.

That's not helpful.

Rep. Suzanne: And I think both of these bills raise important issues of transparency and the work of the people because we need our free press to be holding power to account and we need laws in place that makes sure that the interests of the people are really the top priority, not the interests of the politically powerful or power brokers.

And so I really am concerned about these restrictions on our media.

I think they play a vital role in shining a light on what happens in the houses of power.

Derek: Just as a side note I was in D.C. about a month ago and the Speaker Pelosi has effectively shut down all of the House buildings, to get even inside the front door after you get through security, you need to have someone from a congressional office come and get you, and you need to be approved.

And so those are security issues is what they're saying on that issue, but I think that reasonable restrictions for security purposes makes sense.

And I think what they ought to look at doing is having sort of a press corps in the same way that they do in D.C. Where you have people who have security, but I think, you know, having some of these restrictions in place, I don't think it's-- I think it's sensible.

I don't think you want for instance, a camera if you're going to have a camera or a bunch of cameras coming up behind the dayas.

You know in a committee hearing, to simply ask the chair is this-- is it okay if we have people now up and crowding around?

Is that okay?

I mean, I think those are the kind of restrictions that they're looking at.

It's not a wholesale band on the media at all from what I understand.

Doug: It's not a wholesale ban, but it's making it more difficult because if someone's walking off the floor and you need to ask them a question, but all of a sudden you need to ask someone can I have permission to go and ask this question, that makes the work product very, very difficult.

The work flow very, very difficult.

The sense of having a media coalition that has been voiced through this session and there's support from the media to do that.

So this isn't done, hopefully we can progress and make sure there's access to the media for the public.

Rep. Suzanne: And also, I haven't heard of an incident or a problem that, you know, was the why these bills were brought forward.

Our media has been very responsible and I think this might be a solution looking for a problem.

Jason: There hasn't been like when you're sitting on the stand there, you'll experience that media right over my shoulder, taking pictures of my materials.

Derek: That is going on, I mean, you do have cameras behind the dayas that are, you know, and they'll have shots of like what the the legislator is working on their computer, and there's been comments by folks in the actual hearing on this one of them mentioned, sort of poked at legislators that said, you know you're you're doing work that isn't people's work as we can see on your computer.

So I think comments like that make them a little bit sensitive.

And you can obviously speak to this better than I can because you're there, but I think a lot of them, it makes them wonder kind of what's, you know, if restrictions do makes sense as long as there's still open access to the members.

Jason: And it's going to have to be-- Doug: The public's business should be done in public.

That should be the principle.

Jason: It's gonna have to be the last comment.

Thanks for that, thank you for your great insights this evening.

And thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

The show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org/HinckleyReport or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

See you next week.

♪♪♪