Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Charter Schools: Legislators should not profit from building charter schools
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Conflicts of interest are nothing new in the Utah Legislature. In a body of part-time citizen lawmakers, who have to earn a living outside of elected office, they are inevitable. But we can't think of any case that quite equals the brass of the coterie of lawmakers and former lawmakers who have turned charter schools into a cottage industry for their own benefit.

As The Tribune reported Sunday, former Rep. Glenn Way of Spanish Fork manages U.S. Charter Development, which lines up investors and contractors to build schools. Rep. Mike Morley, R-Spanish Fork, is a contractor who is building four schools for U.S. Charter. Rep. James Ferrin, R-Orem, arranges financing for the projects.

Ferrin sponsored three bills affecting charter schools in the last legislative session. One of them altered city and county land use regulations affecting charter schools. The 22-page bill was enacted into law.

This should raise taxpayers' eyebrows because charter schools are public schools financed by government money. The schools exist to provide and encourage innovative teaching methods and curriculum, but their operations are financed by the public education system, they do not charge fees and they must accept all students.

The private sector enters the picture to finance and build the schools, although charter schools can be located within public school buildings. While The Tribune's story does not contain any allegations of lawbreaking, we agree with critics who question the propriety of legislators making the rules that govern charter schools while they also participate in businesses that benefit directly from them.

Ferrin and Morley currently serve in the Legislature. Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, also makes his living by building and managing charter schools, but he says he will never sponsor legislation affecting them.

We can appreciate that people trying to create charter schools need help navigating the bureaucracy. We also can understand why private lenders might be leery of the risks of financing a building for a charter school, which occupies a gray area somewhere between public and private education. Would consultants provide a valuable service overcoming these obstacles? Sure.

But we don't believe that the same people should be filling the public role of making state policy for charter schools and the private role of building and financing them at a profit.

Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners