Vouchers fans the flames

The gloves were off in an all-out brawl between lawmakers and Utah Board of Education officials Wednesday as they debated who calls the shots in public education.

It has long been unclear whom the board reports to, whether a checks-and-balances system is even in place for the board and whether it answers to the people who elected the members or to the legislative or executive branch.

And the current controversy over a school voucher program has brought the simmering power struggle to a head.

"This 4,000-pound elephant existed long before vouchers came to be," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who led the discussion. He said the board, as a constitutional body, has the power to create rules that have similar effects of law as state statute, but the Legislature has the power of the purse, which gives public education the wherewithal to operate.

"The prerogative of the school board is seen as defiance," he said. "There's a sense of contrary-ness permeating out of the state Office of Education."

Kim Burningham, chairman of the Utah Board of Education, said the elephant spoken of is only "perceived."

"Our only intent is to take the laws as they're made and implement them," he said. "We don't seek to change their meaning."

When asked if they thought of themselves as a fourth branch of government, board member Thomas Gregory said the board doesn't fulfill the responsibilities of any one branch, be it judicial, legislative or executive.

"We all have different roles to play," he said, adding that he believes their rules hold up just as well as law but are not superior to statute.

The board recently OK'd the conferring of diplomas to high school students who didn't pass the state-issued skills competency exam, an act legislators say was wrong. However, the two bodies' interpretation of the law was different.

"It is difficult to interpret the laws the way you mean them unless you state them that way," said board member Dixie Allen. She said the board has asked for clarification, and none was ever obliged in this and many other matters.

Stephenson said apart from the language of the statute, "the board for some reason felt strongly that they should provide them with diplomas. It's tough love, but we need to start somewhere," he said, calling their claim for a lack of clarity an excuse.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington admitted that the board had made mistakes in the past but confirmed that every time it had an issue with legislation, potential or in effect, the topic was "taken back to the sponsor to meet your expectations."