Huntsman's heads-up vetoes

The founding fathers bestowed a great gift upon us all when they designed a system of government that provides checks and balances.

Case in point, Gov. Jon Huntsman's recent vetoes of three bills and four budgetary line items. In each case, Huntsman had sound rationale for his actions, whether he disagreed with lawmakers on philosophical grounds or he was merely cleaning up technical matters.

Take HB148. Its intent was to keep judges from awarding custody of a child to a nonbiological parent against a biological parent's wishes except in cases when a parent has been deemed unfit. In a letter to legislative leaders explaining the veto, Huntsman said he was open to the concept of legislation that protects parents' rights, but HB148 "goes too far and would create undesirable consequences not anticipated."

He's right. The one-size-fits-all solution would have been a disservice to complex and challenging family situations, which can include grandparents and step-parents raising children. Worse yet, lawmakers addressed this issue in the waning moments of the legislative session. A bill of this magnitude deserves deeper and broader contemplation.

Huntsman also should be commended for his veto of HB151, which would have allowed schools to charge students taking concurrent enrollment classes to cover the rising costs of the program. This year, a $2.3 million appropriation should cover those costs. Lawmakers should do whatever they can to protect this program, which enables high school students to earn college credits and is particularly helpful to low-income students. However, there needs to be a meeting of the minds to determine a means to continue to fund this program without inordinate financial burdens to the state's higher education system — one that also would provide sufficient resources for public schools to assist low-income students should class fees be instituted.

For the most part, Huntsman respected the labors of the Legislature and let the vast majority of its actions become law with his signature. But he deserves credit for rejecting legislation that could have resulted in unintended consequences, and for putting off issues that require complex solutions.