Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Senate rejects change to State Board of Education size after debate on cost and representation

Utah State Senate · October 29, 1991

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Senate debated a House-passed bill to expand the State Board of Education from nine to 15 members and found the measure failed on a procedural third-reading question. Senators split over representation, travel burdens for rural districts, and statutory benefits attached to board membership.

The Utah Senate considered House Bill 2, which would have increased the State Board of Education from nine to 15 members, but the measure failed the Senate's third‑reading question.

Senator Reese, speaking for the committee and sponsor, said the committee favored a 15‑member board to reduce travel burdens in large rural districts and improve subcommittee representation. He also noted a fiscal note estimating about $84,000 in additional annual costs for added members' compensation and benefits.

Opponents questioned the cost, efficiency and equity of expanding the board. Senator Byrd pointed to the fiscal analysis and asked why part‑time board members would receive full benefits; others noted that the benefits and salary levels are set by statute and thus not germane to the limited special-session call. Senator McMullen and others argued a nine‑member board had worked and that a larger board could become unwieldy.

The Senate considered whether to send the bill to third reading and to prepare a nine‑member substitute if sufficient support emerged. On the recorded vote to read the bill for a third time, the result was 13 ayes, 9 nays, 7 absent, and the bill failed to advance.

What it would have done: The bill proposed moving from a 9-member to a 15-member State Board of Education and included a fiscal note showing increased compensation and benefits; sponsors argued the change would reduce travel and improve local representation in rural areas, while critics questioned efficiency and statutory benefit entitlements.

Next steps: Several senators said the issue could be revisited in the general session or addressed via separate statutory changes; staff noted some reforms (including benefit rules) would require separate bills beyond the special-session call.