Lawmakers defer tough decisions for 'study hall'

The 2003 Legislature may well go down in history as the one where lawmakers tried to eat the elephant in one bite . . . only to decide to think about what was on their plate for a while.

During their 45-day session, deeply divided legislators wrangled with more weighty issues than they could ultimately swallow, from tuition tax credits to hate crimes. In the end they put off making many hard decisions, relegating them to further study.

Two of the toughest decisions — the bank/credit union fight and what to do with radioactive and hazardous wastes — will be put off until 2005, when a rookie crop of lawmakers will join the Legislature.

"I don't think the Legislature is guilty of putting off difficult issues by studying them," said Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas. "But I do think we're guilty of not using our interim study time effectively."

It is anybody's guess how they will use their "study" time when they meet every third Wednesday of the month until the 2004 general session. But they will have another full plate.

Lawmakers have agreed to study 218 issues during interim committee meetings, everything from whether lobbyists should be required to wear ID badges to insurance for acupuncturists. Among the issues scheduled for debate are three dozen bills that could not muster enough votes to pass the 2003 session.

Add to the list four new legislative task forces: One to study gravel pits, another to look at strategic planning for transportation needs, another to look at public education reforms and another to look at Utah policy toward radioactive and hazardous wastes.

Rep. Jeff Alexander, R-Provo, saw his bill to tax the largest nonprofit credit unions in the state resigned to the study heap after spending the entire session getting beat up and vilified — and wrangling with 14 different versions of the bill.

Alexander, speaking with a hoarse voice strained from debate on the issue, said he understands why it was sent to a two-year study.

"Of course, from a personal viewpoint, I wish we'd made the decision," said Alexander. "But an in-depth study of banks and credit unions hasn't taken place for 20 years."

Will two more years of study, public testimony and political posturing really solve the nasty dispute that has become an annual ritual on Capitol Hill?

"There's the likelihood that in two years we'll be right back where we started — the banks and credit unions not reaching agreement," Alexander said. "And it could be in two years we do nothing."