Earlier this year, I wrote to you about House Bill 3342 which purported to fix a problem with the way roads are funded in Oklahoma. Each year, about $447 million are collected in motor vehicle fees. These fees are then used for the state government’s general fund. House Bill 3342 would have redirected $227 million of this money back to funding roads, where it belongs.

I have always strongly supported using all road-related user fees for the purpose of funding roads. A recent survey of House District 31 constituents found that an overwhelming number feel the same way.

It is important to note that many section line roads remain unpaved. For example, according to recently produced facts, approximately 16% of Logan county roads are hard surfaced. Of the 229 county-maintained bridges, 125 are structurally deficient and 8 are functionally obsolete. Only 30% of county roads in the entire state of Oklahoma are hard surfaced.

This problem is set to worsen, as the Legislature was unfortunately not willing to make the hard choice of redirecting the user fees back to their proper place. Instead, the Legislature took the financially irresponsible step of issuing new debt and approved a bond issue of $25 million. It appears that the $25 million will be set aside in a special fund available to County Commissioners who can borrow from it if their projects are approved by a majority of Commissioners within their regional Circuit Engineering Districts. Not only must this money be paid back, but it appears that it will not have a significant impact on paving roads. The fund is supposed to beavailable to Commissioners in time of emergency.

Remember that state government sits on its $500 million reserve fund which is supposed to be used in times of emergencies. I feel that it is nothing short of insanity to place the taxpayers in debt for the next 15 years in order to set up a second fund for emergencies. Imagine if as part of your personal budget you had a fund set aside for emergencies. Would you then go and borrow money to place in a second emergency fund? Of course not.

By indebting the taxpayers, the politicians are able to claim that they are working to solve the road problem. Many in the public will simply think that $25 million has been budgeted for roads, without realizing there will be little or no difference in actual road maintenance.

This has also allowed politicians to sidestep the tough challenge of reducing government spending from the general fund in order to stop the very inappropriate policy of misusing the motor vehicle user fees.

And now, because the government will be saddled with paying back this new unnecessary debt for the next 15 years, it will be harder than ever to force politicians to make the hard choices of exposing the government inefficiencies so that roads can be properly funded.

I believe that all new debt spending should be approved by the people. As the Legislature continues to incur more and more debt, it will be much harder for true government reform to occur in the future.

In the meantime, those of us who support the proper funding of roads have our work cut out for us. I look forward to the challenge.

It was late on the night of the final day of the legislative session. Legislators were tired from a two-day marathon session in which over 10% of the session’s votes had been held. Those who had been trying to keep up by reading bills as they were posted were more than likely exhausted from the effort. Most of the Representatives were eager to leave the building, and over 10% of them were leaving for the last time.

It was at this time that Senate Bill 1288 made its way to the floor. And those who were still reading their bills would have realized for the first time what was being planned for ten million dollars of the peoples’ money.

Senate Bill 1288 was posted to the legislative calender at 8:40 p.m. By 9:20, it was being voted on. That 40 minutes was the only time legislators had to figure out why and where the $10M was being spent. During that time, several other legislative initiatives were also being voted on, so it was almost impossible to research the spending.

Six million dollars was being funneled through a third-party group to assist with the buyout of the former General Motors plant. This was being done even though Oklahoma County voters had already approved the buyout with local funds.

A key revelation of the series of recent federal prosecutions involving ex-Oklahoma Legislatures was the exposure of how the Legislature funneled money through third-party groups and into their own pet causes from which they sometimes received a direct personal benefit. Usually these are third-party groups with legitimate sounding names like “Development Association,” that lead the public to think that the money is used being used for a good purpose. Based on these revelations, I feel the last thing the Legislature should be doing is using third-party groups to funnel expenditures.

Another expenditure in the bill was $1M for the Southwest Oklahoma Development Authority, a $500K payment to the Comanche County Industrial Development Authority for a contract with Delta airlines, and $2.5M for the Southern Oklahoma Development Association.

How, in only 40 minutes, are legislators supposed to determine if these are justifiable expenditures or just money being funneled to third-party groups to be used for inappropriate or illegal purposes like those in the past?

There is no doubt in my mind that this particular bill was deliberately posted at the last minute in order to avoid close scrutiny. It certainly creates the appearance of impropriety when Oklahoma’s elected Representatives are given only 40 minutes to discover, analyze and consider how $10M of the people’s money is being spent. This is not a small amount of money! To put this into perspective, $10M is nearly enough to run the City of Guthrie for a whole year.

Even though the bill was approved, it is my hope that the revelations of legislative abuse from recent federal prosecutions and the pending change in leadership in the Oklahoma Senate will lead to reform in the way future business of this type is conducted in the Legislature.

During a recent update, I wrote about some of the circumstances surrounding the close of the 2008 session. During the last two days of session, there were 145 recorded votes. This accounts for more than 10% of the votes for this year’s entire session. To make matters worse, a proposed piece of legislation is normally required to be posted for a certain number of hours in order to be reviewed properly. This requirement is suspended during the last two days of session, and as a result, many bills were brought to the floor without having sufficient time for review.

You can imagine how challenging it is for legislators to read new bills while voting on other bills that have just been posted for review.

I wanted to explain my observations of some of the reasons why I this has occurred.

Part of the problem has been the equally divided partisan membership of the State Senate. This anomaly has essentially created a three-headed monster that transforms an already cumbersome two-party legislative process into a three-party affair that is very vulnerable to being the cause for delaying the consideration of legislation to the last minute. The process consists of the leadership of the House, and two leadership teams in the Senate, all of whom can pretty much determine if a bill lives or dies.

For instance, for the past two years, at least one of the groups in the Senate dragged their feet until the last minute when it was time to appoint members to conference committees that approve bills waiting for consideration. This meant that many bills were jammed up until the very end of the session because they could not be approved without having a conference committee named.

This year, a late session breakdown in negotiations on one of the key end-of-session issues led another Senate group to stop signing conference committee reports shortly before the end of session. Once again, this had the effect of delaying consideration of bills until it was too late to allow them proper review.

During the last week of session, the House simply stopped consideration of Senate bills. Why? Because the Senate was not hearing House bills fast enough. House leaders were obviously afraid that House bills would die simply because the Senate might adjourn without hearing them. As author of some House bills that were pending in the Senate, I can testify this was certainly a reason for concern. This action pushed a large number of pending Senate bills before the House into the last two days of session.

I do not believe this process is a conspiracy designed to allow mischief for mischief’s sake. Some, if not all, of the above steps may have been very justifiable actions by the groups involved. However, there is no doubt that the door is wide open for bad legislation to sneak through the system, which is exactly what occurred this year. And the dynamics of the system must be reformed sooner, rather than later. Next week I will write about a bad bill I believe was intentionally timed to take advantage of the chaos with just minutes left in session.

Much has been said over the past four or five years about the immigration reform issue. As a candidate for office in 2004 and 2006, I can certainly attest first hand to the fact that immigration reform has been one of the top issues where people desire action. As an officeholder, I supported House Bill 1804 which provided for a series of immigration reforms.

One of the most important reforms was for a way to hold employers responsible for hiring those who are legally eligible to be hired. Probably the most important component of reform in HB 1804 was a part of the bill that encouraged employers to verify the legality of an applicant’s social security number.

I think the sentiment of the people on this subject was expressed very well by Senator Patrick Anderson in a recent speech he gave at the Guthrie Lions Club. In his presentation, Anderson described how a small businessman approached and told him that he appreciated the reforms in HB 1804. The business owner explained that he had been at a competitive disadvantage because his competitors would hire illegal laborers while he was conscientious about following the law. The provision of HB 1804 that encouraged employers to verify social security numbers leveled the playing field between those who followed the spirit of the law and those who turned a blind eye to it.

Because of the passage of House Bill 1804, this verification process was set to start July 1st.

Unfortunately, a recent decision by an activist federal judge placed a hold on Oklahoma’s ability to enforce this most important provision. The judge stated she was placing the hold because there was a likelihood that a lawsuit against this provision would be successful.

This ruling was made possible because of a lawsuit filed last February by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the State Chamber, the Oklahoma City and Tulsa Chambers of Commerce, and the Oklahoma Restaurant, Hotel and Lodging Associations, contending that it places unreasonable burdens on businesses.

If this judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will greatly damage Oklahoma’s attempt to provide a solution to the illegal immigration issues. Quite simply, the problem has been fueled by those who are turning a blind eye to the law when it comes time to hiring illegal labor.

As your State Representative, I remain committed to defending this important legal reform through the introduction of additional legislation if necessary and I am deeply disappointed by the actions of the Chambers of Commerce. I think they are attacking a law that is helping their most conscientious and law-abiding members.

During last week’s column I talked about some of the challenges faced by legislators during the final two days of session.

During those last two days, important safeguards are suspended that allow enough time for the review of legislation. Normally, a proposed piece of legislation is required to be posted for a certain number of hours in order to be reviewed properly. This time requirement is suspended during the last two days of session and as a result, some bills are brought to the floor for a vote just minutes after being posted.

On Thursday morning (the second-to-last day of session), the House of Representatives started by 9:30 and held session until midnight. Session reconvened on Friday and legislators stayed in session until after 10 p.m. During these two days, there were 145 recorded votes. This accounts for more than 10% of the votes for the entire 2008 session, and included a vote on one bill that was 388 pages long.

I accepted the challenge of quickly and carefully going through the legislation in an effort to find those pieces that intended mischief, but I don’t think it is very realistic for legislators to read and understand bills at the same time as they are listening to debate and voting on other bills.

Certainly most legislators will be less than enthusiastic about reading all the bills, giving careful consideration to their long-term effect, and taking the time to debate them if they are part of a 145-vote marathon legislative session in just two days’ time. I can certainly speak to the fact that investing the energy to understand everything over that two-day period leaves one with the distinct sensation that they have just been run over by a large truck (both as a participant in the process and as a taxpayer — more on that later).

I have learned to be especially suspicious of bills that create large new sections of law that have not yet been brought before the House for consideration.

For instance, one piece of legislation made significant changes in the makeup of a state board that oversees an important part of the Oklahoma economy. I was contacted by a constituent who explained the inside story about how the Legislature was taking action to reconstitute the board in an attempt to eliminate one side of an ongoing dispute. This was obviously done with little notice to most legislators, who likely had no knowledge of the hidden motive behind the bill. That bill passed by a wide margin, despite opposition from a few legislators.

Another piece of legislation took sides in a union dispute by allowing a bigger union to maintain its authority over a smaller group. I doubt there were very many legislators who had any knowledge that this was the actual intent of the bill.

There are any number of reasons why the 2008 session finished in this manner, one of which is because of complications arising from the Senate being evenly divided between the two parties. This results in complicated negotiations that were very time consuming. However, there is no doubt that in future years this system of governing must be reformed.

Last week marked the end of the period during which the Oklahoma Legislature could act on legislation. During the normal course of business, a bill has to be placed on the agenda for a certain number of hours before it can be acted on, so that legislators and others can review it before a vote. However, in the last two days before the legislative deadline, these rules are waived. This year, due in part to negotiations over a number of issues, a significant amount of legislation was held up until right before the deadline. This meant a large number of bills were considered by the House and Senate without giving legislators much time to read them.

Because of these circumstances, there was opportunity for significant changes in the law to pass through without proper consideration. I enjoy the huge challenge of carefully but quickly plowing through hundreds of pages of legalise in an effort to discover these last minute changes, some of which may need to be opposed (more on that next week).

This time, however, I was happy to discover and support a very appropriate and positive change to this year’s ethics reform bill. House Bill 2196, which I wrote about earlier this year, purported to place a ban on any political contributions during the legislative session. The logic followed that a politician should not be receiving donations at the same time he or she is voting on important laws.

However, this law would also apply to the challenger of an incumbent. It would have created an incumbent protection scheme so strong that it would have made it almost impossible for an incumbent to be defeated in the primary election process.

Many of Oklahoma’s legislative districts are heavily tilted in favor of one party. This means that the winner of the July primary is almost certain to win in the November general election. Because HB 2196 placed a blackout on the ability of a challenger to raise money from January through June (the legislative session), a challenger who decided to run for office after the blackout began would not be able to raise money until just days prior to the primary election.

This concern was expressed by several legislators. The author of the bill listened to these concerns and proposed a fantastic change to the bill. The latest version of his bill would simply prohibit lobbyists and groups that employ them from being able to give during the legislative session. The law would help restore the balance of power in favor of the people.

I have no doubt that legislative incumbents will adapt to the new law by raising even more money than before from lobbyists who will want to hedge their bets that a law that impacts their interests will be heard in each upcoming session. However, it will be much more difficult for a lobbyist to influence the process by giving well-timed political contributions. The bill was also approved in the Senate and is off to the Governor for his signature.

Coupled with the fact that the legislature failed to take action to reverse a recent decision by the ethics commission to cut lobbyist gift-giving by one-third, I am pleased to state that the people of Oklahoma will have a stronger voice during next year’s legislative session, compared to that of powerful special interests.

Does it seem like you are getting less miles per gallon than you used to? You may have seen recent media reports concerning fuel efficiency. Car owners who had been tracking their vehicles’ fuel economy raised questions when they noticed a significant drop in their gas mileage. The cause of this drop was tracked back to the number of gas stations that are blending ethanol with traditional gasoline products. One media outlet reported that as many as 75% of gas stations were using ethanol blended gas. Research has shown that ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasoline and can actually damage older model cars.

I have been contacted on this issue by local constituents. People feel that it is unfair to have to guess at which gas stations are using these products. Even though this year’s legislative session had already started and no new legislation could be introduced to solve the problem, Representative Phil Richardson authored and modified a bill that required fuel retailers to clearly label any fuel blend containing 1 to 10 percent ethanol. Senate Bill 1451 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 99-2 vote and received final approval in the state Senate with a 44-2 vote, after which Governor Brad Henry signed it into law.

Recently there have been a number of news reports regarding concerns with the federal government’s policies of subsidizing the production of corn to be used for ethanol. Attention has been given to the federal government’s role in ethanol production due to rising food costs and possible shortages. A recent report from the World Bank states that almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio fuels production in the United States.

You might also be surprised to know that as an Oklahoma taxpayer, your state tax dollars are being used to fund the ethanol industry.

One reason that retailers may want to sell ethanol blended products is due to the fact that state government incentivizes the distribution of the fuel by allowing a 1.6¢ tax credit for each gallon of ethyl alcohol which is contained in ethanol sold by retail dealers. In other words, the taxpayers are put at risk of paying for this product to be distributed.

Not only do Oklahoma taxpayers foot the bill when ethanol blend gas is sold at the pump; they also pay tax credits to the producers of ethanol.

I feel that when government gets involved in trying to sway the market, too often there are unintended consequences. In this case, government involvement has resulted in increasing food costs and decreasing fuel efficiency. I think state and federal governments have made a mistake in using our tax dollars to tinker with the free market and I believe that eventually the free market will provide true solutions to our energy crises if the government would step back and allow the market to work unhindered.

Local State Representative Jason Murphey successfully won approval of a key reform property tax reform proposal that was requested by Logan County Commissioner Mark Sharpton. Sharpton’s plan would provide property tax relief across the board for all Oklahoma homeowners.”The people are sick and tired of just seeing increases each and every year,” Sharpton said. “This proposal would actually make it possible for people’s property taxes to decline.”

The proposal, approved by the House of Representatives as an amendment to SB 1956, would index each homeowner’s homestead exemption to the rate of inflation.

“Inflation and the rate of property tax assessments have gone up for years, but the homestead exemption has stayed the same. This is just wrong,” said Murphey.

Murphey said that the success of the reform proposal was greatly improved, thanks to the support of the Chairman of the House Revenue and Tax Committee, Randy Terrill. Terrill helped Murphey find a suitable place to attach the property tax relief amendment in one of Terrill’s bills. “Rep. Terrill made this opportunity happen,” Murphey said.

The proposal became the only across-the-board property tax relief proposal to remain alive this year after the House killed SJR 59, which would have lowered from 5% to 3% the ability of the County Assessor to increase property tax assessments.

Murphey said he knew property tax reform would be hard to pass. He avoided filing legislation and waited instead for an amendment opportunity. The effort paid off when opposition members of the House tried to kill the proposal on procedural grounds. The opposition was unable to use the rule that prevents already introduced legislation from being considered as an amendment.

Sharpton said the issue had added significance to him after a constituent and mother met him at the gate to the county barn. Sharpton said she was crying because she received her increased property tax bill and did not know how to pay it. “We have to do something,” he explained. “The people cannot take much more of this.”

Murphey said he gets many calls on the issue of property taxes; a recent survey of his constituents showed that 94 percent support roperty tax reform. “Just yesterday one of my constituents emailed me with a chart of how much his property taxes will be increasing over the next ten years. For a 1600 sq ft house he will be paying more than $2,000 per year. It is clear that the people really do care about these unfair increases and it will affect how much money they place into the economy,” Murphey said.

One of the biggest remaining issues yet to be settled by Oklahoma legislators concerns whether or not they will issue millions of dollars of new debt.

I have always been an outspoken opponent of new debt spending. One of my favorite quotes is from President Calvin Coolidge, who said, “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody.”

This is aptly illustrated when it comes time for lawmakers to spend the money of our children and grandchildren. It is irresponsible for politicians to saddle citizens with millions of dollars of debt and allow the bill to come due when they are no longer in office. This places debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren, and makes reducing the size of government difficult. Government will be forced to keep taxes high to pay off the debt, plus the interest that goes along with it.

It is also important to remember that the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits state government from going into debt without a vote of the people. However, years of creative interpretation by the judiciary has made it possible for those who advocate public debt to open up a Pandora’s Box of spending. This allows politicians to load up debt proposals with legislative pork that they will get immediate credit for, while the bill for their spending will continue to come due years into the future.

If a proposal to create more debt is indeed placed before the Legislature, this will be the second year in a row that state leaders have attempted to incur new debt. One year ago, the governor asked the Legislature to expand the size of government by proposing to commit the taxpayers to more than $666 million of new bond debt. Fortunately, most of this plan was not implemented.

One of the leaders in the fight against debt has been state Senator Patrick Anderson. Anderson wrote to the members of the Legislature this week, encouraging them to avoid new debt.

It was an honor to be asked by Senator Anderson to be the House author of Senate Bill 1398, a bill he sponsored in the Senate. Anderson became concerned after learning that the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education had issued more than $250 million of long-term debt over the past few years. The debt was issued without legislative oversight or a vote of the people. No doubt the repayment of this debt will be reflected in the high cost of tuition. Anderson worked with officials from Higher Education, the Attorney General’s office and the State Bond Council to draft a proposal that would set a cap on the ability of Higher Ed to issue personal property debt. The proposal would also require Higher Ed to allow legislative oversight of other real property bonded indebtedness. That proposal was placed into Senate Bill 1398.

Anderson won approval of the Oklahoma State Senate for Senate Bill 1398, and I was able to achieve approval of the House of Representatives for the bill, which is currently in conference committee.

As your Representative, I remain committed to the avoidance of new debt and to the placement of limits on the ongoing practice of inappropriate debt issuance.

One of the most heartbreaking votes took place last week as the House rejected an important reform that had already received approval of the Senate. The proposal, named the “New Hope Scholarship Program,” would have provided tax incentives to those willing to donate to a scholarship fund so students who were trapped in failing inner city schools in Oklahoma City and Tulsa could attend private schools.

The Senate author of this bill, Senator James Williamson, described it as “a two-for-one deal. Two dollars of education for low-income students for every one dollar of effect on the sate budget.”

As I have mentioned in my previous updates, as a member of the Human Services Committee, I see firsthand that there are now 19,000 children in state custody. As a member of the Corrections Committee, I know that Oklahoma prisons are filled to capacity. There are no easy solutions to these problems because the massive cost falls upon the taxpayers; but these challenges, if left unchecked, will eventually be too large for the government to handle and will continue to usurp more and more of your taxpayer dollars.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. It is obvious that a key component of the crises that I described is the failure of the public education system in Oklahoma’s impoverished inner city neighborhoods. The New Hope Scholarship Program was designed to recognize this failure and try to solve it. Most importantly, it was designed to save the lives of the children who are facing the tremendous challenges of trying to get an education in a crime-infested impoverished setting.

It is wrong to continue forcing children to attend public schools where crime is high and test scores are low. With the exception of the pro-life issue, I believe this is one of the most significant moral issues the Legislature has voted on since I have been a member.

The opposition to the New Hope Scholarship Program comes from many in the public education industry. For some inexplicable reason, rural schools are especially opposed to this idea. They seem to think that any steps taken to encourage private schooling will hurt their funding. Ironically enough, some of the education money that would be freed up by the program would have gone back into the state education fund formula where it would have been re-distributed to all schools, including rural schools. In other words, rural schools opposed this reform even though it would have provided them with more funding.

As a result, the vote on the issue demonstrated the rural vs. city divide. Many rural lawmakers opposed the reform, and metro lawmakers often supported the change. There were some exceptions, as some rural lawmakers supported the bill despite the possible negative consequences from back home, they were willing to take a stand and do the right thing to try and rescue the kids who are trapped in the cycle of failure.

I find it hard to understand how lawmakers can turn a blind eye to the plight faced by the children trapped in failing schools, and I am committed to continuing to support these types of reforms in the future. I am especially appreciative of Senator Williamson and Representative Tad Jones who have led a valiant effort for this bill. I also was very impressed by the courage of Representatives Jabar Shumate and Rebecca Hamilton who were the two Democrat Representatives who broke rank with their caucus and not only voted for the New Hope program, but aggressively debated for its passage.

But for now, thousands of Oklahoma kids will remain trapped in the cycle of failure. This is wrong!