CDPHE helping to connect groups with pro bono environmental lawyers for community groups. Fair or no? The perennial teacher "shortage" may not be what you think.
The state helping connect groups with pro bono lawyers? Is that fair? Do we all get the same chance?
The article linked below details how the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) at the state health department (CDPHE) is helping connect community groups with lawyers to represent them in hearings before the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC).
Before anything else, let me cover some prerequisite material. When a board like the AQCC (this holds for boards like the PUC as well) holds a hearing there are two levels, two tiers, of involvement. One tier is plain old public comment. I'll assume that if you read this page you know what that is. The other tier, one level up in terms of involvement and likely attention paid by the board, is being a "party" to a rulemaking.
Being a party to a rulemaking involves more sophisticated timing and etc., but it also means you'll have more time in front of the board and likely more influence. As evidence of this last claim, I would point you to the fact that the companies that the rules pertain to are often signed up as a party to a rulemaking.
It's a little dispiriting to consider, but let's be honest. If public comment and being a party were equal to each other, companies wouldn't be investing the time and lawyerly resources in being a party to rulemaking if it were equivalent to public comment.
Now, you could make yourself a party to a rulemaking. I know individuals who have more time and are more sophisticated than myself who have done so in things like PUC hearings, but it's not common.
Okay, back to the article.
So. what we have here is a bureau at the state health department (APCD) helping to connect community groups (such as those interested in environmentalism) with lawyers who will then work to help them become parties to AQCC hearings, and thus putting them on par with bigger companies who also have lawyers and are parties to hearings.
Fair enough. But this tingled my curiosity. After all, how fair a process is this? How much is CDPHE putting their thumb on the scale here? Could I have the same chance at representation? Could a "community group" of farmers get this same benefit?
To try and get more detail, I emailed APCD with a list of questions and a response came recently. The questions and responses from the spokesperson at CDPHE are below (taken from my email--presented here unedited and with the embedded links in the answers kept in).
QUESTION: “The idea originated in your office rather than at the request of any group. That is, this idea and the work started at CDPHE and not in consultation with anyone else. Is that right?”
ANSWER: The 2019 Climate Action Plan To Reduce Pollution Act directed the state health department’s Air Pollution Control Division to do additional engagement with disproportionately impacted communities on our work addressing climate change. The division researched many ways to increase community representation at every step of the rulemaking process. The division recognized the need for the pro-bono lawyer program through conversations with community members and environmental groups that said they want their voices to be heard in the rulemaking process, beyond existing public participation opportunities.
QUESTION: “At that point, your office reached out to a group of environmental attorneys and asked them if they'd be willing to represent groups pro bono at rulemaking hearings. Is that right?”
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: “If that is right, did your office then supply the list to the environmental groups? Did you make introductions? Did you ask specific attorneys to represent specific groups?”
ANSWER: The division frequently meets with a wide variety of stakeholders, including environmental groups. Through these meetings, the division has ensured environmental groups and community members are aware that the program is an option. After working to launch the program, the division now maintains the list of attorneys available at a given time. The division does not make introductions, match attorneys to certain groups, or vouch for certain attorneys.
QUESTION: “Is the list of attorneys available to the public? That is to say, could I find the list and start asking attorneys if they would represent me or my group?”
ANSWER: The division can provide the current list upon request, as described under the “Community representation in the rulemaking process” section on the division’s Climate Change Program website.
QUESTION: “If it is not, what would one need to do to qualify for an introduction or to be given the list?”
ANSWER: Any community member or coalition can request the current list if they are interested in becoming a party to a certain rulemaking related to greenhouse gas emissions. The division does not facilitate introductions.
QUESTION: “Lastly, are there any other rulemakings that CDPHE is helping to connect people to attorneys?”
ANSWER: In addition to the upcoming Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Management for Manufacturing Phase 2 rulemaking, the division anticipates the program could also be used for rulemakings it may bring before the Air Quality Control Commission related to the forthcoming Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0.
You now have the information I do.
Let me close by returning to the top line. Is this a fair program? Let me distinguish here between "legal" and "right". I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that there is nothing that goes against the law or the Constitution (Federal or State) in this program.
What about fair in the sense of being right? To me this means that everyone would get the same chance and that no one individual or group gets a boost.
In that sense, I do take exception to the law that created this sort of thing (HB19-1261, linked above) and the special attention paid to "disproportionately affected communities" (a wiggly and incomplete term which takes its definition in the link right behind the one for HB19-1261). Go and look at the definitions in that second link and think whether you feel the list is complete; if it's not ask yourself why one group that CDPHE thinks is deserving outweighs anyone you would add.
If we couldn't agree on who should be on the list or if the list had to expand to include everyone's preferred groups, why should we have a list at all?
But provided that the government agency simply acts to compile a list of attorneys who would consider representing people, doesn't act in any way as an intermediary, and makes that list available to everyone, they're acting in good faith. 3
We all know none of these lawyers would likely represent someone concerned about the rules being too harsh, but that's the lawyers and not the government.
One last thing. I did actually email and ask for the list. If I have time I may try contacting lawyers and seeing what parameters they'd put on who they'd represent. For example, would they represent a group of farmers who'd be hurt by the rules? If I have something worth sharing, I'll share.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/07/26/colorado-greenhouse-gas-pollution-pro-bono-lawyers/
Pushing back on the dogma that we're short on teachers (and thus need to resort to extraordinary measures, i.e. dump more money into the education machine).
When you hear statistics, you should always make sure you understand what you're told.
And you should make sure you understand what you're NOT told.
If I simply told you that the number of teachers is remaining flat over the last four years, you might get a little nervous. After all, we need teachers. We need good ones. We can't afford to lose any.
At that point, it starts to get tempting to consider what we need to do to hold on to teachers. And what we need to do to attract more of them into the business.
It really gets tempting when I tell you that 722 (seven hundred and twenty two!) teaching slots sat empty last year.
I hope, however, that if you've read enough from me that I have convinced you to, one, not react until you know more, and, two, make sure you're understanding what you've been told (and, just as importantly, what you've NOT been told).
The reason why is that if you learn more, if you stop and ask what those numbers are relative to, where they fit in the context of education, you'll see the picture isn't quite as bad as my urgent reports above.
The reason why is that the pupil to teacher ratio (a number that we want to be small) for last year is actually among the lowest in the last 10 years.
You can get a clue as to why (even with teachers leaving the biz and unfilled slots) if you understand the nature of ratios. I made a little info graphic for you to diagram it out. By the way, this infographic is valid for any set of relative numbers.
What we have going on with student to teacher ratios right now is Case #3. Teachers may enter or leave but when we have declining public school enrollment the top of the fraction and the bottom are moving in opposite directions so the ratio stays relatively level.
Now, you need to bear a couple things in mind.
--There is a shortage in filling special educator positions. God bless the people that do SpEd. The paperwork, the job, and the pay are nowhere near commensurate. This is one case where we should be investing extra money (not just blindly throwing it at schools).
--Second, student to teacher ratio is one, but not the only, measure of education quality. Let me give you an example. If you take a school where a huge percentage of the experienced teachers quit and you fill those jobs with new teachers, you've not changed either the number of teachers or the student to teacher ratio. You have, however, changed the experience of the teachers. New teachers are bad. There's no other way to put it. It takes about 2 years to get anywhere near being decent as an educator. Give one student year after year of new teachers and put him or her against someone who's had a mix of experience levels from their teachers and I'll bet you my lunch the "new teacher" student will not be as advanced.
More than anything, just keep your thinking cap on when people are trying to throw numbers at you. Life is much more complicated than some (particularly the some who want something from you) would have us believe.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/colorado/article_3eb2d960-2bb9-11ee-b127-27d0663d74af.html