After current Utah State Board of Education Chair James Moss was knocked out in the GOP Convention, Republican Cole Kelley is duking it out against Jason Allen, who is running unaffiliated, for a chance to represent District 12 this November. The district includes eastern Utah County as well as Wasatch, Duchesne, Daggett and Uintah counties.
Allen is an assistant park manager for Utah State Parks, according to his candidate filings.
Kelley is a longtime educator and currently a teacher and wrestling coach in the Alpine School District.
To better understand the candidates’ positions on issues readers told The Salt Lake Tribune were important in this general election, a reporter reached out to Kelley and Allen with the same set of questions, on topics from the now-voided income tax amendment to book bans.
The questions and their answers that appear below — with the candidates listed in alphabetical order — may have been edited slightly for length, style or grammar.
Amendment A is now void. But as written, it would have removed the current constitutional requirement that Utah’s income tax revenue be used only for 1) public education, 2) services for children and 3) people with disabilities, allowing lawmakers to direct some of those funds toward a broader range of “state needs.”
Do you support removing that constitutional spending restriction? (Yes or no).
Allen: No.
Kelley: No.
In 100 words or less, please explain why you do or do not support removing that constitutional spending restriction.
Allen: Legislative spending on public education has always fallen short of the requested needs. The current legislative desire to remove this source of funding makes me very uncomfortable and confused about their true intentions and reasoning behind this proposal. Few can deny that there is a lack of trust currently between many Utah residents and our legislative body. This Amendment proposal does not help build that trustful relationship. I want to see public education funding secured whenever possible.
Kelley: I don’t like when politicians believe that they need to bribe voters to push an idea that they want to move forward. In Amendment A you have the carrot of removing sales tax on food in return for removing the earmark for education on income taxes. I think that removing the sales tax is a stand-alone issue. I think it would be a great help to Utah families, but to use removing sales tax on food as carrot to eliminate the current earmark for education is disingenuous. If the Legislature wants to remove the earmark and change our state constitution, they should take that issue alone to the voters. I anticipate that they recognize that the public would reject the idea. We may trust our current legislators, but we can’t know what legislators get elected in the future, and I would not want to put this funding in jeopardy.
This year, 13 books were banned from all Utah public schools under a new law requiring a book’s statewide removal if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material.”
The law grants USBE members the opportunity to overturn statewide bans if at least three members move to hold a vote.
If elected, would you exercise this option for future bans? If so, under what circumstances? Please explain in 100 words or less.
Allen: I would consider exercising this option if stakeholders I represented expressed concerns about possible overreach.
Kelley: I challenge voters to look at the books that are being banned from schools. The books are pornographic and have no place in our school libraries. I recognize that many want to make this a free speech issue, but this is about age-appropriate materials. We know enough about the development of the brain to know that young kids are not ready to responsibly process pornographic materials and school board members have the responsibility to protect kids from materials that their brains are not ready to process. If elected, I would not exercise this option if the book exposed pornographic material to students.
Do you support the use of state-funded vouchers to cover private school tuition and homeschooling expenses in Utah? (Yes or no)
Allen: No.
Kelley: Yes.
In 100 words or less, please explain why you do or do not support the use of state-funded vouchers to cover private school tuition and homeschooling expenses in Utah.
Allen: I support every parent’s right to educate their child as they see best. However, I do not support the current voucher program for two reasons. I feel there is insufficient accountability on what exactly the taxpayer dollar is being used for. Students who attend public schools have ongoing assessments and expectations that the USBE has set for each year that the child attends school. Those same assessments and expectations are not required of the recipients of the voucher program. This is unfair, and funds assigned to the voucher program should be redirected to public education.
Kelley: All citizens pay taxes. All citizens who have children should have access to funds to subsidize a students education. Parents have a right to choose the option that best works for their student. If a parent chooses an option that government does not provide, I support the opportunity for them to have support in those efforts. All public money should come with accountability for those funds. If a parent chooses to accept the funds they should also accept the accountability measures that come with accepting the assistance.
