Voucher Opponents Unconvinced by Shurtleff's Open Letter to Teachers

None by KCPW

(KCPW News) Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's open letter to educators was an attempt to set the record straight. He emphasizes that he has not taken a personal stance on vouchers. That his legal opinion urging the State Board of Education to implement vouchers was simply that - a legal interpretation of the law. Long-time teacher and state board member Dixie Allen isn't buying it:

"Just by how adamant he is about it, it tends to speak more than just his legal opinion," says Allen. "It tends to seem more personal."

Allen is referring to a letter Shurtleff wrote to his client - the Utah State Board of Education - urging the board to implement vouchers immediately. The letter was strongly-worded and used exclamation points to drive his point home. Shurtleff says that enthusiasm was not an endorsement of vouchers, but an eagerness to see the board comply with the law. But Allen doesn't see a difference, and doubts other teachers will:

"It's the tone of his legal opinion that is speaking louder than words," says Allen. "The dogged voracity in which he has stated his opinion, being forthright in coming out against the State Board of Education and against the other legal opinions that we have received. It's his tone, rather than what he has said."

Allen and other voucher opponents point to Shurtleff's campaign fundraising as proof of his pro-school-choice affiliations. In 2004 he took a one-thousand dollar donation from the pro-voucher group Parents for Choice in Education. However, public records also show that four years earlier, he took two-thousand dollars from the Utah Education Association, which opposes vouchers.

Here is the full text of the Attorney General's letter:

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. Copyright 2009 KCPW