State Legislative Process Episode 8 >>Hello. My name is Bill Sederburg, President of Utah Valley State College. Prior to being a state college president, I had the pleasure of serving for twelve years in the Michigan State Senate. During that time I quickly discovered that the public at large didn’t know a great deal about the legislative process. And thus when Professor Rick Griffin volunteered the idea of having a class about the state legislative process, I enthusiastically signed on. Today we are here in the State Senate of the State of Utah where it is very quiet right now. It happens to be a Friday morning when we are filming this. Nothing is going on. But when the session begins, this chamber fills up with twenty-nine State Senators elected from throughout the state coming together to debate the critical issues facing the State of Utah. This chamber will be filled with impassioned speeches, such as should we give this surplus that we currently have back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, or maybe we ought to spend that money for critical needs in education. Some might even argue that there isn’t a surplus; there has just been a history of under spending in critical areas. So this chamber is going to be filled with exciting debate, and that is what the program today is all about, debate on the floor of the State Legislature. I am going to now turn the program over to Professor Rick Griffin, who will go through an overview of tonight’s program. >>Welcome to State Legislative Process. I’m Rick Griffin and today’s episode is Debate on the Floor. Our lesson points are Legislative calendars, debate and voting on the floor, voting cues, and decision making modes. We begin with legislative calendars. Once a bill is reported out of standing committee, there’s no guarantee that it will be successful on the floor, or even that it will make it to the floor for consideration. To be considered on the floor, bills need to be placed on the House or Senate calendars. Types of legislative calendars vary from Legislature to Legislature. However, many Legislatures will have calendars associated with the reading and debating of a bill, such as the third reading calendar in the Utah House of Representatives and the second and third reading calendars in the Utah Senate. Also, Legislatures will typically have a consent calendar. This calendar contains less controversial bills that are voted on in block, unless a certain amount of members object. Another type of calendar is the concurrence calendar. This calendar is used when the originating house’s bill passes the other house, but is amended in the process. When this occurs, the amended bill must return to the original house for that body to reject or concur with the amendments. How does a bill get placed on a calendar? In a few states, bills go directly on the calendar in the order they were reported out of Standing Committee. However, in most states, a Rules Committee or Calendar Committee works with the presiding officer of the House to decide which bills make it on the calendars. These committees are largely directed by leadership and play a major role in the screening and sorting of bills. Bills important to the function of government, such as appropriation bills, or other bills supported by leadership, are usually placed on the calendar at the top of the list. In contrast, bills that leadership does not support may be buried in the Rules Committee and never make it to the calendar at all. Or the bill may make it on the calendar, only to be substituted out, amended, or abandoned until the legislative session is over; thus killing the bill. Speaking of the role leadership plays in the calendaring process, Professor Alan Rosenthal states: >>[graphic] >>Lesson point number two addresses what happens to a bill once it is on a calendar and has brought before the floor. In this age of political talk-show mania, one might be surprised to discover that the debating of bills, even controversial ones, is usually done in a very orderly and professional manner. Although there may be on occasion heated moment behind the scenes, or even on the floor, generally the debating of bills in state legislatures is done in a very professional fashion—which, as you will see, is not always the case in some legislatures throughout the world. >>[indistinct commotion] >>Fortunately, debate in the Utah State Legislature is done in a little more peaceful manner. Floor debate is tightly regulated by the Presiding Officer of the House, the house rules, and standards of decorum. All three of these factors control the time and manner of the debate and help the Legislature to function in a productive and professional fashion. To learn more about the important role house leadership, house rules, and decorum play on the floor, we turn to Representative Lorie Fowlke of Orem. >>I think it is important because you have seventy-five people in a chamber, and you are discussing an issue that is of critical importance to somebody. And if you don’t have that decorum, you are going to have a lot of hurt feelings, because there is no way that seventy-five people are going to agree on everything. And if your colleagues agree with you on this bill, they may disagree with you on the next one. So it is very important to maintain that professionalism. And a couple of ways that they do that is that all of the comments are directed directly to the Speaker. If you want to ask the sponsor of the bill a question, you actually ask the Speaker if the sponsor will yield to the question, and the Speaker will ask the sponsor if they will yield to a question. Everything goes through the Speaker. So the Speaker is like the Committee Chair with even more power. The other thing that they do is instead of speaking…if you are going to reference another Representative, you are really not to supposed to reference that Representative by name. You should reference them as the Representative from Utah County, or from Weber County, or whatever, so that it is not personalized. So that if you say something in opposition to a bill, or in opposition to something that someone else has said, you can emphasize that it is not a personal remark on their character or anything about them. It is simply and attempt to stick to the issue, which is important. >>[graphic] >>The floor time and the way that you handle yourself on the floor helps you to keep that decorum, but it is important that you keep it all the time, because you may, as I said, agree with someone on this bill or disagree on the next issue. So you can’t afford to make a lot of enemies, because it is not personal. And it shouldn’t be personal. We are here to talk about policy decisions. Now as an attorney I am kind of used to doing that in some respects anyway, but even attorneys tend to sometimes be more personal. And we just have too many issues and too short a time to get personally offended because somebody doesn’t vote for your bill. What you typically try to find out is if there is something in that bill that they particularly object to. Could you amend the bill to meet their concern? Typically what people will do is come me, or I might go to someone else, and say, “What is your concern about my bill? What is it about my bill that leads you to oppose it? Is there something that I can do or change in that bill that would address that concern?” And you have a lot of those types of conversations going on all the time. And it is just more formal on the floor, because sometimes you haven’t had a chance to have that personal conversation. >>[graphic] >>Although bills are unofficially debated in the lobby, cafeteria, and other parts of the State Capitol, there are only certain times and certain ways a bill can be debated on the floor. In the Utah State Legislature, a bill can originate in either house, the House of Representatives or the Senate. The bill has three official readings in each house , and must pass both houses by a majority vote. In the Utah House of Representatives, for example, a bill is introduced by title and is read for the first time before being referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee examines the bill and recommends to the Speaker a standing committee (which it believes the bill should be referred to).The second reading of the bill occurs when it’s reported out of standing committee, and its committee report is read to the House and adopted by motion. The motion must pass by a majority vote for the bill to be placed on the House third reading calendar. During the third reading, the sponsor explains the bill and answers questions, and other representatives may speak, or propose amendments to the bill. The debate and the amendment process proceeds and later is closed by a motion for the “previous question.” The bill is then voted on, and if it receives at least thirty-eight votes, a majority of the seventy-five representatives, it passes. If the bill passes, it goes to the other house of the Legislature, the Senate. In the Utah Senate, the bill’s title is read for the first time and referred to the President of the Senate. He or she assigns the bill to a standing committee. If the committee reports the bill out, the committee report is read to the Senate and the bill is put on the Second Reading Calendar. The bill is then read a second time to the Senate and debated and voted upon on the floor. To be advanced to the third reading calendar, the bill must pass by a majority, at least fifteen of the twenty-nine votes. The bill is then read, debated, and voted on for a third time. To pass the Senate, the bill has to again receive a majority, at least fifteen of twenty-nine votes. Note that unlike the House of Representatives, a bill in the Senate is debated and voted on during both the second and the third readings. To advance to the governor, a bill must pass both houses with the exact same language. Thus, if a bill is amended by the other house after leaving its originating house, it must return to the originating house and be placed on its concurrence calendar for a rejection or concurring vote of those amendments. To learn more about the readings of bills and debate on the floor in the Utah State Legislature, we return to Representative Stephen Clark and Val Peterson. >>So the second and third reading calendar in the House is different than the second and third reading in the House in the Utah Legislature. Can you talk to us a little bit about that? >>It is. The House of course, the second reading is the perfunctory. It is read up and down and put on the board. The third reading is where the debate really takes place. On the Senate side, the second and third reading they debate both times. And so there is kind of a little more thorough look at the bill in the Senate. But they can do that because there are much fewer members. They can move a lot quicker. They don’t have as much debate because they don’t have as many members. They are a little bit more efficient in their process. The House is a little more disorganized and I wouldn’t want to say anything against my good colleagues, but we are a little more messy that the Senate. >>You brought up the topic of debate. And it plays a key role in both the House and the Senate. One of the things I noticed in this session is sometimes a controversial bill would come up. It was very interesting to see who debated, who didn’t debate. Talk to us a little bit about who debates bills, what the strategy is, how much discussion goes behind the scenes about bills, and how we are going to vote, and how you come up with a floor strategy for your bill. >>I don’t want to deflate your opinion of the legislative process, but the debate in the House on the third reading is just window dressing, in most cases, because the bill has been debated behind the scenes with the special interests, with the members, with the leadership, with the Governor, long before it comes to the floor. Now votes can be changed on the floor through debate. But most of the time the designation as to who is going to stand and who is going to discuss and who is going to debate is all decided. And it is kind of I would say orchestrated by the sponsor and by those who want the bill. And then of course it is interesting also that the Speaker runs the show up there, and he calls on those who he wants to debate the bill. And if he doesn’t want to hear from a certain person on a certain bill, and I wouldn’t say this is what he does all the time. He is fair, and usually lets anybody who wants to stand and talk, but if you are short for time, or if it is an issue that can wander off into other areas, he will keep that shortened by who he calls on to speak to the bill. It is a very skillful thing. It happens. All speakers have to do that, and it keeps the debate short and moves the bill on. >>Part of the power of the Chair is actually to call who gets to speak, and to call those different voice votes on amendments, and things like that, on the floor. Is that right? >>Exactly. If he wanted to be totally unfair he could certainly manipulate the system by who he calls on and who he allows to speak. But in the seven years I have been up there, I don’t think there has been a Speaker that hasn’t been fair and allowed as many people who want to speak to the bill to speak, unless there is a time constraint, or unless it broadens the issue out to other issues that he doesn’t want to get into. >>Doesn’t the Speaker also have people in key locations? If he wants a previous question to be called, that a previous question gets invoked in the floor? >>Exactly. And that is the job of the Whip. The Whip tells the members on the floor whether we want to continue to debate, or whether we want to call previous question. He kind of walks around and talks to each one of us and says, “This is the way we would like to do this.” And he kind of postures the whole system. Now you will notice the Speaker is on his telephone most of the time. He is incredibly skillful to run all those electronics and speak on the phone, and be able to go through the dialogue he does, and kept the system going. It is an incredible talent. But he will be on the phone and he will call someone and say, “I would like previous question on this. Will you do that?” And then of course the person will stand and offer previous question. >>So leadership really does manage the floor and the floor time pretty closely, what is happening what is going on, and how long they want to spend on bills. >>Leadership manages everything. And that is why they are in leadership. Had we not had leadership, the whole system would go awry. There would be no organization. We would get nothing done. Time is of the essence. We only have forty-five days up there, and it goes rather quickly. And when you get ground down into discussion minutia, you can waste a lot of time and sacrifice a lot of good pieces of legislation. >>To further illustrate the debate and voting process in the Utah State Legislature, we turn now to Senate Bill 70, Utah Valley University Institutional Name Change. As the title suggests, Senate Bill 70 calls for Utah Valley State College’s institutional name to be changed to Utah Valley University. Senate Bill 70’s Chief Sponsor is Senate President John Valentine, and its House sponsor is Representative David Clark. The bill was also co-sponsored by twenty-six other members of the Legislature. Senate Bill 70 originated in the Senate, where it had its first reading. The bill was then referred to a Senate standing committee and was eventually reported out of committee and read for a second time before the Senate. The bill was then debated and voted on. Let’s take a look at how the bill did during its second reading on the floor of the Senate. >>We will now take up consideration of our time certain matter, Senate Bill 70. >>Senate Bill 70: Utah Valley University Institutional Name Change. Senator Valentine. >>Senator Bramble. >>Thank you, Mr. President. Fellow Senators, I have been asked to make the floor presentation on Senate Bill 70. This bill is really rather innocuous. The operative lines are on page 6, lines 155 through 161. And is simply says, “Beginning on July 1, 2008, Utah Valley State College shall be known as Utah Valley University. The University is a continuation of Utah Valley State College, and shall possess all rights, title, privilege, powers, communities, franchises, endowments, property and claims of the College, and fulfill the formal obligations of the College, including addressing any outstanding debt.” That is what the bill does. As presented, the bill has a fiscal note of ten million dollars. For Utah County and for the State of Utah this is a really big deal. UVSC is the fastest growing institution in the State. It has an overwhelming demand. Moving it to University status will assist in meeting the demands that our sons and daughters have in going to college. Now there are several questions that have been brought up, and I would like to touch on a couple of those. Is this a wise expenditure of State dollars? Well, this change is going to be funded by the State. Education the public at UVSC will still be nearly fifty percent less expensive than education students at other schools. Will tuition go up? The Board of Regents, who set tuition, made it clear that the mission will change, but it will not be on the backs of students. That is why the appropriation. Is this bill going to hurt other universities in Utah? The answer is no. Our economy is growing. There is a demand, and this meets that demand. Will University graduates be more employable? You know, it is interesting, and I didn’t realize this until we started this debate about UVSC more than several months ago, but last year a study by the Utah Foundation said that UVSC graduates already have the highest starting salaries of any institution in the State. And I didn’t realize that. Having a university degree rather than a college degree will only enhance that. Will the culture change at UVSC? I don’t think so. You know, Brigham Young University has been the staple south of point of the mountain for college education and university education. They have changed their mission, and it is appropriate now for us at this time for us to consider this change. The trades will continue. There is a great partnership with the Applied Technology College, Mountainland Applied Technology. They have a great partnership, and to the non-degree seeking and training programs, those will still happen at the MATC. And UVSC will issue college or university degrees. With that, Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to any questions on this proposal. >>Thank you very much, Senator. First up is Senator Knudson. >>Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I don’t want to have you misconstrue that my comments are in opposition to this legislation. I am making the comments because I would like some clarification First of all, a few years ago I served on the Higher Ed Appropriations Sub-committee. And at that time, the current President of the Utah Valley State College appeared before that body and clearly indicated that his main goal was to establish a very strong basic college education program, with no desire to move forward to university status, or that type of thing. Apparently that has changed, and I would just like to know, why now? >>Thank you. Senator Bramble. >>Thank you, Mr. President. That is a great question, Senator. The mission of BYU changed, the market has changed, the economy has changed, the demographics have changed, and it is appropriate that through the dynamic process, that the mission and the objectives of UVSC keep up with those changes. >>Senator Hillyard. >>Let me raise the concern that I have heard. And I think Senator Bramble tired to address it, but I think the message we need to give hear very clearly. It is the fact that as I dealt with higher education for a number of years, the big complaint has always been that we have not, on a state level, properly funded them. And I think we have seen the charts that show how much tuition has gone up, and how we place this education cost on that of our students. And because of that, I personally believe there are a lot of students now who don’t go, or are very limited in what they can go, because of that cost. The concern I hear by educators outside of Utah Valley is the fact that we haven’t really funded, as well as we should have done, all the schools that are present here. >>I didn’t intend to speak to this, but the issue that Senator Hillyard raises makes me stop to think, and maybe I have a question of Senator Goodfellow because of this, but I am wondering with the change of mission from the college status to the university status, is this going to push additional students towards the Salt Lake Community College that is already, seems to me, over-burdened, and are we going to have room for those that are trying to keep their costs down and get the basics out of the way at a community college first? I don’t know the answer. >>When this was in committee, I voted against the bill, because I still had some questions that I thought needed to be answered. And I would like to pose those now to the sponsor if I might, or the sponsor, yourself, or to the floor sponsor. >>Proceed with the floor sponsor. >>Thank you. The information the committee was given showed, or at least implied, that as a university, the Utah Valley institution would want to look more and more like other universities in the State as far as cost, and teaching loads, and percent of adjunct faculty. The thing that I have often spoken favorably of in regard to the UVSC model is that it is the State’s low-priced leader in the cost of higher education. It expanded during years when we weren’t giving them the same amounts of money as other institutions in their growth, and therefore they just basically grew leaner and meaner, and became an institution that is truly cost-effective on any model. Their reliance on state finding is the lowest in the state. And they still have competitive tuitions. And so I have often felt that was the model that other institutions ought to be emulating, rather than the Utah Valley institution wanting to look like all of the rest. >> Thank you, Mr. President. This school falls in my district, and I would like to comment on some of the introductory statements that have been made. It is appropriate that we acknowledge that seventy percent of the college-bound students in Utah County area do go to this school. It is not a school that has dorms that belong to the school. A lot of the kids stay at home. This is essential for meeting the needs of the students in our valley. It is also significant that Senator Bramble mentioned the high starting pay for UVSC graduates. I would like to acknowledge that we have a number of impressive schools there, but the one school that has contributed most significantly to that is the School of Computer Science and Engineering. And there is a real desire on the large part of the faculty in that area to have a real emphasis on the computer technology, with computer engineering and other such programs, which is highly appropriate when you consider the geographic location of so many computer companies in that area. >> As the other Senator from Utah County, I rise in support of this bill. I watched this college grown when it was a technical college during the days of Senator Ernest Dean. And many of us remember him. But I have watched it meet the needs of the State of Utah, and especially that valley, to what it is now. It is probably one of the better universities south of Salt Lake. There is one better a little further south than Utah Valley. But I just think this will do a great thing for especially the community colleges in Utah. I think Snow will benefit, I think CEU will benefit from it, and it will make all our institutions more practical. So I strongly support this being a university status. Thank you. >>Thank you, Senator Dmitrich. Next up is Senator VanTassell. >>President, I would like to rise in support of this. In my district, the Wasatch Campus, which is part of this new university, will benefit greatly. And I certainly want to support this, Thank you. >>Thank you, Senator VanTassell. Further debate on the bill? I see none. Back to you, Senator Bramble for summation on the bill that has the effect of cutting off debate on the bill. Senator Bramble. >>Thank you, Mr. President. You know, other institutions, when they made this change, it was by legislative fiat. We simple passed a bill and said the institution will now be a university. This is a little different proposal. We are taking time and being deliberative. That is why there is a delayed-effective date of July of 2008. With that, Mr. President, I would call the question. >>Thank you. The question has been called. The question is, “Should Senate Bill 70 be read for the third time?” Roll call vote. >>Senator Bell? >>Aye. >>Bramble? >>Aye. >>Buttars? >>Aye. >>Christensen? >>Aye. >>Davis? >>Aye. >>Dayton? >>Aye. >>Dmitrich? >>Aye. >>Eastman? >>Aye. >>Fife? >>Aye. >>Goodfellow? >>Pass. >>Greiner? >>Aye. >>Hickman? >>Aye. >>Hillyard? >>Aye. >>Jenkins? >>Aye. >>Jones? >>Aye. >>Killpack? >>Aye. >>Knudson? >>Aye. >>Madsen? >>Aye. >>Mayne? >>Aye. >>McCoy? >>Aye. >>Neiderhauser? >>Aye. >>Peterson? >>Aye. >>Romero? >>Aye. >>Stephenson? >>Pass. >>Stowell? >>Aye. >>VanTassell? >>Aye. >>Waddoups? >>Aye. >>Walker? >>Aye. >>Senator Stephenson? >>Aye. >>President Valentine? >>Aye. >>Senator Goodfellow? >>Aye. >>Senate Bill 70 having received twenty-nine yes votes, zero nay votes, with zero being absent, will be read for the third time. I want to indicate that there are a number of people who are in the overflow room who are watching this from the student body of UVSC. Thank you very much for coming. We acknowledge you, as well as our gallery, which is very full. >>Receiving a unanimous tw3ntry-nine to zero vote, the bill went on to a third reading in the Senate. After being read for a third time, the bill was debated and voted upon, passing the Senate by a twenty-eight to zero and one- vote, a unanimous vote of the senators present. With a tremendous amount of momentum, Senate Bill 70 was sent to the other House of the State Legislature, the House of Representatives. The Bill was introduced and read by title for its first reading before the House. After its first reading, the bill was sent to the House Rules Committee, where it was eventually sent to a second reading before the House. The bill’s standing committee report was then adopted by motion, and the bill was placed on the third reading calendar. Note: unlike the Senate the House only debates a bill once, and that occurs during the third reading of the bill. At the third reading of Senate Bill 70, the bill was read by title, the bill’s sponsor in the House, Representative David Clark, explained the bill and answered questions. The bill was then debated and voted on. Will Senate Bill 70 have as much support on floor of the House as it did in the Senate? Let’s find out: >>Senate Bill 70, Utah Valley University Institutional Name Change. John Valentine et al. This bill did not have a Houses Standing Committee Hearing. >>Representative Clark. >>Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to begin by moving Amendment Number Two under Representative Bigelow’s name. >>Motion to amend is Amendment Number Two under Representative Bigelow’s name. Would you like to speak to that, Representative Clark? >>I will. This just puts the appropriation amount in touch with what Executive Appropriations has allocated for this switching of UVSC to UVU. >>Further discussion on the motion to amend? Seeing no further lights, anything in summation, Representative Clark? >>Waived. >>Summation is waived, Amendment Number Two under Representative Bigelow’s name. Those in favor say “Aye.” >>Aye. >>Any opposed? Motion passes. The bill is amended. Representative Clark, speak to the bill. >>Thank you very much. As I mentioned, this is an opportunity for UVSC to switch to university status. And I might talk about, even though we just didn’t appreciate the passing of the amendment, an allocation of eight million dollars, in helping them with this transition. UVSC will continue to still be one of the lowest in appropriations per student in the State of Utah. The money that we are appropriating, the purpose in this bill in granting not only the name change, which is a major portion of what this bill covers, is also allowing the opportunity for Utah Valley to move fifty-four percent of its adjunct professors to down to forty-six percent, some of the accreditation requirements. It is good to mention that UVSC will continue as UVU in still fulfilling a major role when it comes to fulfilling their community college mission. And they will still continue to have two- and four-year programs. UVSC has had three independent groups look at the funding in order to make this move to university status. Each one of these groups came up with separate kinds of conclusions in that eight to ten million dollar range. We have appropriated eight million dollars, that was the amendment, in order for UVSC to move to university status. And as I mentioned earlier, even with UVSC and this appropriation to university status, it is still, per student, the most efficient education institution that we have in the State of Utah. And with that much, Speaker, I would ask for everyone’s support, and be happy to answer anyone’s questions in this important move as we begin creating UVU, a lean, mean, educating machine. >>Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank my good brother for a wonderful presentation of this momentous and historic bill. I want my colleagues to know that I live across from BYU. I went to BYU and graduated. All my seven brothers and sisters went to BYU and graduated. I have nine children. Five of them went to BYU and graduated. But the last four couldn’t get in BYU anymore. Now I guarantee you there isn’t a dime’s difference of intelligence between the first five and the last four. The issue here is that BYU is an international school now. And it is bringing students in from all over the world, because it is an international church. And so the local, state, and Utah County students are in a void. We can’t get a university education. So I just want to say this is a very, very good move. >> I am going to stand in support of this very important issue of changing to a university status. I believe so firmly in the concept of access to higher education, the opportunity for everyone who is prepared to have a university degree. >> You know, when I attended BYU some years ago, there was a small trade tech campus up in Orem. And that is where a few students went, and then they transferred over to BYU. It has been really amazing to see the transformation and growth of what is now Utah Valley State College. And to see it become a very integral and important part of my community, and to be something that we are so proud of, and so glad to be a part of. Utah Valley State College is a wonderful school. It provides a wonderful education for the students that go there. I, too, look forward to sending my children to Utah Valley University, and I would urge your support for this bill. Thank you. >>Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this bill. My daughter graduated with a two-year degree from Utah Valley State College, and would have loved to continue her studies there. She loves that school, and had to go on to BYU and the University of Utah, and then back to BYU, where she will graduate this next month and then plans to go on to her Master’s Degree so that hopefully she can return and teach at a college level at Utah Valley University. So I encourage your support of this bill. It is a great school. >>It is with grand jubilation that I stand to support this bill. This is a huge event for the people in Utah County, and the entire State of Utah. I likewise, even though I graduated from BYU, attended the Tech while I was in high school and took drafting courses. This state college has filled a niche, and it has expanded. And BYU is not an option for the children of Utah County and this state like it used to be. I spent eleven years as a City Councilman working closely with the college and watching their expansion and their willingness to work with the community to develop a college that works for all. I think under the capable leadership of President Sederburg, this will now reach university status. You will see the tremendous benefits to our county, Utah County, and the State of Utah as a whole. So I urge everybody’s support on this bill. Thank you. >>Thank you, Representative Sandstrom. Seeing no further lights, I go back to Representative Dave Clark for summation on the bill. >>Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I just ask for your support for the lean, mean, education machine, UVSC transferring to UVU. Thank you. >>The voting is open on Senate Bill 70. >>Seeing all present voted, Speaker will close the vote. Senate Bill 70, having received seventy-two yes votes, zero no votes, passes this body, and is being referred to the Senate for further action. >>After passing in the Utah House of Representatives seventy-two to zero, a unanimous vote of representatives present, Senate Bill 70 was sent back to the Senate for a concurring vote due to a House amendment, which changed the bill’s monies appropriated from ten million to eight million dollars. Will the Senate reject or concur with this amendment? Let’s go back to President Valentine and the Utah Senate to find out. >>Senate Bill 70, University Name Change. >>I would move that we concur. >>Ok. I have to get it on the concurrence calendar, at the top. >>I would move that we put it on the top of the concurrence calendar. >>Motion is to place Senate Bill 70 at the top of the concurrence calendar. >>Those in favor of that motion say, “Aye.” >>Aye. >>Any opposed? So it passes. Now I need to have a motion to be made to dispense with the rules, because it has now been on our board for twenty-four hours. >>Mr. President, I would move for suspension of the rules that we concur with the amendments ion the House that would change the fiscal note which we anticipated would happen. So I proudly move for suspension of the rules, that we concur with the House amendment. >>Thank you. Any debate on the motion to concur? I see no debate. Roll call vote. I’m sorry. Motion to concur. Those in favor of the motion to concur say “Aye.” >>Aye. >>Any opposed? Well, it passes. Now, roll call vote, final passage. Senate Bill 70. >>Senator Bell? >>Aye. >>Bramble? >>Aye. >>Buttars? >>Aye. >>Christensen? >>Aye. >>Davis? >>Aye. >>Dayton? >>Aye. >>Dmitrich? Dmitrich? >>Aye. >>Eastman? >>Aye. >>Fife? >>Aye. >>Goodfellow? >>Aye. >>Greiner? >>Aye. >>Hickman? >>Aye. >>Hillyard? >>Aye. >>Jenkins? >>Aye. >>Jones? Jones? >>Aye. >>Killpack? >>Aye. >>Knudson? >>Aye. >>Madsen? >>Aye. >>Mayne? >>Aye. >>McCoy? >>Aye. >>Neiderhauser? >>Aye. >>Peterson? >>Aye. >>Romero? >>Aye. >>Stephenson? >>Aye. >>Stowell? >>Aye. >>VanTassell? >>Aye. >>Waddoups? >>Aye. >>Walker? >>Aye. >>President Valentine? >>Aye. Senate Bill 70, having received twenty-eight yes votes zero nay votes, with one being absent, passes this body. We concur with House amendments, and therefore return to the Speaker for his signature. >>In another tremendous show of support for the bill, the Senate concurred with the House Amendment by a twenty-eight zero to one vote, a unanimous vote of the Senators present. Senate Bill 70 is now being prepared for the Governor, who will likely sign it into law this month. This brings us to lesson point three, voting cues. In lesson point two, we learned about the debate and voting process. In lesson point three we will address the question, “How does a legislator determine how to vote on a particular bill?” Our author notes that legislators take voting cues from a variety of sources. Today, we’ll discuss just a few of the more prominent sources of information and voting cues which influence legislators’ votes. One source is the legislator’s own personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are an important source of information and voting cues for legislators. This is especially the case when a bill involves more controversial public policy and moral issues, such as abortion, gambling, cloning, and gay rights, to name just a few. Speaking of personal beliefs, our author states: >>[graphic] >>Another prominent source of information and voting cues is a legislator’s immediate family and close friends. It’s not just large corporations that lobby legislators. Sometimes the most effective lobbying is done across the kitchen table, at the Little League game, tennis club, etc. Sharing examples of how friends and family members act as a source of information and voting cues for legislators, Dr. Alan Rosenthal states: >>[graphic] >>Legislators’ colleagues are also an important source of information and voting cues. Speaking of the influence of colleagues on the legislators, Rosenthal notes: >>[graphic] >>Party leaders and party caucuses are also prominent sources of information and voting cues. They promote a specific legislative agenda and steer the members towards their positions on specific bills. Two other prominent sources of information and voting cues are the Governor and interests groups. The Governor’s thoughts about a particular bill have to be respected because of his power to veto and also his power of publicity. Special interests groups also have influence with legislators because of their source of information, especially on complex or politically charged legislation. To learn more about the sources of information and voting cues which influence a legislator’s decisions on bills, we turn to President Sederburg and Dr. Alan Rosenthal. >>As legislators decide about how they are going to react to different issues that are before them, I know one practice is taking cues from their colleagues. Another practice is to just kind of acquiesce to whatever the majority and the power structure wants to happen. >>Well, I think most legislators have an idea of how they are voting before they ever get onto the floor. I mean certainly in two party states you have got the majority party caucus. And legislators in the majority party caucus and in the minority party caucus pretty well review what is going to come up on the floor. And the decisions are made in caucus. And very rarely do those decisions change. I think on other matters that are very non-controversial, members acquiesce to the committee recommendation, or acquiesce to the way the leaders vote. And I think there are very few debates on the floor in most states, you know, where it is really open. Massachusetts is one state under this leadership but not under previous leaderships, where bills come to the floor of the House, and they don’t know whether they are going to pass or not. In most states, most chambers that I am aware of, you don’t bring anything to the floor unless you have the votes—anything important and any thing controversial unless you have the vote. The leadership is careful to have the votes before it brings something up to the floor. So I think the negotiations and the building of majorities goes on, but is usually settled before they are actually on the floor. >>We had a State Representative here in Utah, David Ure, who ran for Speaker of the House. And one of his platform items I thought was interesting. He did not want the electronic voting boards to be visible until all the votes were cast, because he wanted to remove the cue-taking process, where people watched how each other were voting. Do any states do that, where just everybody...? >>Not to my knowledge. I think it is a mistake. I think the Legislature is a cue-taking place. >>Now what do you mean by cue-taking? >>I mean that people rely on one another for advice, for suggestions. No legislator can be an expert, or near an expert, on all of the issues that come before the Legislature. No legislator who is really doing his or her job can read every bill. So therefore what Legislatures do is they delegate, and they defer, and they take advice from the committee. If the committee reports out a bill a bill unanimously, Republicans and Democrats going together and reporting on a bill, that is a pretty important cue for many legislators. If you are a legislator and you come from an urban district, and there is an agricultural vote and you have no idea what it means or what is it for, you go to somebody that you trust who comes from a farm district. And you ask them about it. So I think a Legislature is an institution in which people depend upon on another for votes, for advice. If anyone misleads another member, then the member doesn’t rely on that person anymore. So I think cue-giving and cue-taking is absolutely important, and I would disagree with that. I have run into a similar kind of situation, which I think is interesting. Some years ago I was in the Florida Legislature kind of observing the session, and I spent the whole session down there. And the legislative leaders and some of the Committee Chairmen refused to read any newspapers throughout the entire length of the session, because they didn’t want to be influenced by how the news was being spun and how it was presented. >>And that wasn’t just on the floor, because oft times students observing Legislatures will be distressed. But this was just… >>No, they didn’t want to be influenced by the coverage. And the press gives it a particular coverage. It highlights controversy, and it highlights the negative. They didn’t want to be at all influenced by any of that. So they got their information from their members. And they were not influenced by…and the newspapers in Florida and considered good newspapers. And there are about six of them that cover the Capitol fairly closely. So that is an example of not wanting to be influenced by others. But I don’t think that happens often. >>Somebody told me the other day that you don’t want to be confused by facts in your opinion. >>I don’t think reading the press is being confused by facts. >>[laughter] >>I think that is being confused by the press. >>It’s now time for today’s Term of the Day! Today’s term is Circled Bill. >>[graphics >>If you choose D, a bill that is temporarily tabled without being removed from its place on the calendar, you are correct! We hope you’ve enjoyed today’s program on Debate on the Floor. On behalf of President Bill Sederburg, I’m Dr. Rick Griffin, and we will see you next time on State Legislative Process.