Shurtleff Explains His Actions on Vouchers

None by KCPW

"Conciliatory" Letter to Educators Attempts to Smooth Feelings

(KCPW News) Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff hopes to set the record straight about his role in the voucher debate with a "open letter to educators" he sent out late Friday.

"They seem to have thought that I was the villain and I think it's been a lot due to some media and other sources," says Shurtleff. "They've made me the leader of the voucher movement, and there's just no truth to that. I wasn't involved at all during the legislative process. The only time I got involved was when I was doing my job when the Governor asked for an opinion."

That opinion concluded that vouchers should be implemented immediately based on a second legislative measure not affected by the referendum. Voucher opponents took issue with Shurtleff's conclusion, as did the State School Board. The Utah Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with the attorney general's opinion, as well. Shurtleff says he has expressly avoided taking a personal stand on vouchers and hopes to stay out of the debate between now and November's referendum:

"I don't think I have any other role, unless I'm asked to render another opinion," says Shurtleff. "If ultimately, for example, the referendum fails and vouchers go into effect I suspect we'll see another lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. And a main reason I haven't take a personal position on vouchers is that there still could be a challenge and I'll have to go into court and defend it."

Shurtleff says he took a "conciliatory tone" in the letter to educators, hoping to assuage concerns rather than fan the flames of further debate.

Full text of Shurtleff's letter released Friday, June 15, 2007:

AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UTAH EDUCATORS

Many teachers have approached me about the hurt and confusion they have
felt over the voucher debate and anger at my perceived role. I
understand the concern because my parents are retired teachers and I and
my children are the products of public education. The high stakes and
emotions have made it difficult for many good people to differentiate
between the law and the end in mind. Some biased and erroneous reports
have added to the confusion and dissension. The fact is I did not
initiate nor pursue a particular outcome regarding vouchers. My only
interest is that if people disagree with a law, they obey it or use
legal means to try and change the law.

Neither I, nor my office, was involved in the voucher debate until
Governor Huntsman asked for an opinion on the effect of House Bill 174
and whether it could stand on its own should HB 148, the other voucher
bill, be rejected on a referendum vote. State law required me to give
my legal opinion, and to begin with the presumption that HB 174 was
valid.

With the help of several attorneys within our office (Democrats and
Republicans, voucher proponents and opponents) we arrived at the
conclusion that HB 174 was imperfect, but it still contained enough
information to be considered a valid law. It was passed as a separate
bill and signed by the governor and was not challenged by the referendum
process. The Utah Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. I
respect the judicial process and am pleased there is clarity for
voters.

My record shows that I am not afraid to buck political power brokers or
go against popular opinion to see that the law is followed. Let me
share with you some examples of where I attempted to do that concerning
vouchers:

● By state law and the Constitution, I am designated as the sole
legal advisor to the State School Board. I gave board members several
options on how to get this issue quickly and legally before the courts
for a remedy, and in a manner that best protected them in doing their
duty. However, the board rejected this advice.

● The school board turned to me as their attorney, and cited their
own governing law to request my answers to 25 legal questions about the
voucher program. That same law required the board to accept my opinion
as "correct and final" until a court ruled otherwise. The board did
not wait for a court ruling and again rejected my advice.

● Some board members also used two "special assistant attorneys
general" to file a legal brief with the Supreme Court that
contradicted the position of the Attorney General's Office. A special
assistant attorney general is required to follow the legal direction of
the Attorney General and thereby become answerable to "the people."
Those lawyers could no longer represent our office after creating such a
clear conflict of interest.

You chose your profession because you care and know the importance of a
child's education. I am certain that most educators teach their
students to obey the law and respect the democratic process. As Supreme
Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said, "Education is not the
teaching of the three R's. Education is the teaching of the overall
citizenship, to learn to live together with fellow citizens, and above
all to learn to obey the law." I trust you'll agree that if the
means includes breaking the law, then the end will never justify those
means -not even when it comes to vouchers.

Mark Shurtleff
Utah Attorney General

Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage, and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2009 KCPW