OCR Text |
Show -- 4UAnnliAail Arguments Against While there are worthwhile revisions in the proposed article, there is one concern that is so important that the article ' should not be passed until this matter is properly addressed. The new wording changes the current relationship of church and state in the law regarding aid to religious instituti-ons. In existing law, the state may not make any appropriation to aid in support of schools or institutions owned in whole or in part by any religious organization. The new wording prohibits the state only from making any appropriation for direct aid, leaving the door open for the giving of indirect aid to church-owne- d facilities. As church-owne- institutions test this new law to find out what indirect aid they will be entitled to, the state of Utah will then have to turn to the federal constitution for its guide in attempting to resolve the issues. Obviously, if this revision Passes, we are setting the state up for countless law suits at taxpayer expense, as the courts will have to decide what is meant by indirect aid in light of the federal constitution. It does not make sense to word our state constitution so that it is not clear, and require the state to go through court cases to determine what indirect aid is. If indirect aid is '"tended, it should be defined and clearly .stated. The principles governing the separation of church and "ate should be clear if both entities are to coexist in a friendly atmosphere. Representative Dale Warner 1761 Hillside Circle Ogden, Utah 84403 Proposition 8 doesn't revise anything! All this revision does is restate the status quo. It doesn't give more flexibility to Legislature, and it doesn't solve the problems of education in "'ah. Changes are needed in education, but this revision cuts off Possibility of change! The Legislature should make the basic decisions about cation. Any revision should allow the Legislature to deter- - what educational systems are needed, and where cuts ld be made. Proposition 3 limits what can be done to solve ""cation's problems. Proposition 3 ignores vocational education! This revision f0 not make clear where vocational education belongs. In tact, up a turf battle between public and higher education over whill administer vocational education. Vocational education been a stepchild to the rest of education all too long, but Proposition 3 does nothing to solve this problem. Proposition 3 kavea vocational education in Umbo! , Proposition 3 prevents the legislature from streamlining Ration and reducing the bureaucracy. This region retains State Board of Education in the constitution. HP.d' "Mature will be unable to increase efficiency in education ty "eamllning the educational bureaucracy. . Defeating Proposition 3 will send a message to our elers that in the it's time for efficiency and a reduction "weaucracy in education. vote "AGAINST" Proposition 3! Reoresentative Scott W. Holt 1327 West 1700 South Syracuse, Utah 84041 hiatcairi tne ciassruurn lur ins ui ne. ui. som ii'.ichersj Rebuttal to Arguments Against Proposition No. 3 Proposition 3 revises the constitution to bring it in line with statutory practices, such as the board of regents, which have evolved over many years. The current system is working well, and should be placed in the constitution to eliminate confusion and court challenges. Within the basic structure outlined by Proposition 3, the Legislature can make meaningful changes to save money and improve education. Proposition 3 does not ignore vocational education! Proposition 3 ends the confusion over vocational education governance by allowing the Legislature to decide which board should govern various vocational education programs and P1 institutions when the two boards cannot agree. Some areas of vocational education are best handled by the public education system, while others are best handled by the higher education s system. It would be expensive and wasteful to create a separate fa: constitutional board for vocational education! Ith bs Proposition 3 prohibits direct state support of church ro schools, while allowing flexibility that will serve the state's j interests. By forbidding indirect support of church schools, the current constitution may prohibit contracts that could benefit 0 the state between the state and church schools. Proposition 3 ( forbids only direct support. It is more in line with the U.S. s Constitution and federal court decisions allowing limited . Indirect aid to church schools. By following the federal constitution, Proposition 3 gives greater flexibility and uni- - formity with other states. ' This revision is supported by both the Board of Education n . 1 and the Board of Regents! It clears up conflicts about governance while leaving the power to improve education with th j the Legislature. n We need Proposition 3! s Senator Lyle W. Hillyard sh 175 East First North bee, Logan, Utah 84321 ji b Representative G. LaMont Richards ''n P.O. Box 25717 :rtec Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 Di ick it i: oks ; ni ;ctio; that le yo r th( rn a ;e mi ibitec its. S wear urch eels ; I thei !m on uple ( und vboy ngs. ' in.. in Jlen X ' a gre. Pane 19 - ll r urn II I |