Zachary Knight

Posted By Zachary Knight on September 3, 2010

Come this November, Oklahomans will have an opportunity to drastically alter the way we fund our education system. Yet, there are many questions in regard to this proposal that lead one to wonder if this is the right way to go.

Here is the language of State Question 744:

The measure repeals a Section of the State Constitution.  The repealed section required the Legislature annually to spend $42.00 for each common school student.  Common schools offer pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.

The measure also adds a new Article to the Constitution.  It sets a minimum average amount the State must annually spend on common schools.  It requires the State to spend annually, no less than the average amount spent on each student by the surrounding states.  Those surrounding states are Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico.  When the average amount spent by surrounding states declines, Oklahoma must spend the amount it spent the year before. The measure deals with money spent on day-to-day operations of the schools and school districts.  This includes spending on instructions, support services and non-instruction services.  The measure does not deal with money spent to pay debt, on buildings or on other capital needs.

The measure requires that increased spending begin in the first fiscal year after its passage.  It requires that the surrounding state average be met in the third fiscal year after passage.

The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements.

So what does this question actually propose? First, it is a proposal to amend the State Constitution and change how much money we spend on education. Second, it takes how we determine that spending and put it in the hands of other states. Third, it provides no direction on where that money should come from.

Let’s look at those three points one at a time:

Amending the Oklahoma Constitution to change how much we spend on education

Let me be honest here. I do not advocate trying to fix problems by throwing more money at them. It did not work with our economy, banks, housing or auto industry. In each of these cases, the Federal government decided that throwing money at a problem would fix it and all would be well. We know that did not happen. We are still losing jobs, banks are still suffering, the housing market is still at record lows and auto sales are still slumping. So why are there people out there that think throwing more money at education is going to improve our graduation rates and test scores?

Taking control of our spending and putting it in the hands of other states

This proposal will force our state to spend at the average spending of those states in our region. So in effect, other states will determine our minimum level of spending. If we cannot afford to increase our spending when other states do, we will be forced to do so any way. We will not be allowed to adjust our spending as we see fit. Why would any person want to leave our budget and education in the hands of people with no vested interest in our well being?

Provides no direction on where the money will come from

It says it clear as day in the question: “The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements” So where will the money come from? Last I checked, money does not grow on trees. So it will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere will either be increases in taxes or decreases on other services provided by the state of Oklahoma. While I support decreasing spending in areas of government that are not for the public good, I do not support taking that money and putting it elsewhere in government. I also support decreasing our tax rates to make it more attractive for people to live and work here. So why are people clamoring to increase taxes and decrease other necessary functions of government?

Vote No on SQ744 and fight for real reform

I ask that everyone vote ‘No’ on SQ 744. I propose that we fight for real reform of our education by putting the power of education back into the hands of the people most vested in the welfare of the children of this state, the Parents. I propose that instead of throwing money at the problem of failing public schools, we give the parents the power to direct their children’s education by instituting a voucher program.

By providing a voucher program, parents will be given a certain amount of money each year to go toward their school of choice. If a parent decides they want their child in the public education system, the money will go to that school. If the parent decides to put their child into a private or charter school, the money will go toward that. If the parent decides to home school their child, they will get money to pay for those expenses.

By doing this, Oklahoma will allow our education system to have a true open market. This will put pressure on all schools to provide the best education possible through true competition. This is the only way to improve our education.

Category: Education Reform, On the Issues, State Questions | No Comments »
Tags: Education, Fair Taxation, Reform, SQ744

Posted By Zachary Knight on September 1, 2010

Every 10 years the Federal Government holds a nation wide census. This census is done to count the number of people living in the nation. This counting greatly affects many aspects of not only the Federal Government but also our State Governments.

One of the biggest effects had by the census is in our representation in both the State and Federal government. The census determines how many Representatives each state has in the Federal government. Oklahoma currently has 5. This number is not expected to change, but if it does, the census will let us know.

The state also has an opportunity to redraw our State and Federal Representative districts the year following a census. That will be happening this coming 2011 Session, but with a potential change. On the November Election Ballot, the voters will be asked a question that changes the way the commission assigned to redrawing the districts is formed. The text is as follows:

This measure amends Sections 11A and 11B of Article 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.  These provisionsdeal with how the Legislature is divided into districts.  This process is known as apportionment.  The Legislature must make an apportionment after each ten-year federal census.  If the Legislature fails to act, an Apportionment Commission must do so.  The measure changes the name of this Commission.  It removes all three existing Commission members.  It removes the Attorney General.  It removes the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  It also removes the State Treasurer.

The measure increases the number of members from three to seven.  The President Pro Tempore of the Senate appoints one Democrat and one Republican.  The Speaker of the House of Representatives appoints one Democrat and one Republican.  The Governor appoints one Democrat and one Republican.

The measure provides that the Lieutenant Governor chairs the Commission and is a nonvoting member.  It requires orders of apportionment to be signed by at least four members of the Commission.

The proposed change will change the way members are added in a supposed “bi-partisan” way. This will include 3 representatives of the Republican Party and 3 representatives of the Democratic Party. This sounds good on the surface, but there a couple of big issues. Why are there no representatives of the over 300 thousand registered Independents in this state? Additionally, this language would exclude any new parties that form in this state.

As a supporter of voter freedom and Ballot Access Reform, I cannot support any effort to write any political party into our state constitution. The language of this amendment flies in the face of what I hold a supreme right of the people of this state. What will happen when one of these parties fails and is no longer recognized in this state (not that that will happen since both the Democratic and Republican Parties are written into our election laws, but that is a topic for another article)? The people will once again have to amend the State Constitution to account for that change.

With all that in mind, I will be voting no on this measure and I recommend that all people do the same.

Category: On the Issues, State Questions, Voter Rights | No Comments »
Tags: Ballot Access, open government, SQ 748, Voter Choice, Voter Rights

Posted By Zachary Knight on August 27, 2010

Tonight, Newcastle Elementary held their annual Back to School Carnival.

I volunteered to run a Pie in the Face booth. It was seriously a blast. Kids lined up and threw a total of 150 pies in my face.I had a number of repeat customers in there as well.

This was a great opportunity to get my name out there and visit with a lot of people in a casual environment and discuss my views on many of today’s issues.

I had a lot of fun and would gladly do this again.

To see more photos of the event, you can visit my Facebook Photo Album.

Category: News, On The Trail | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Zachary Knight on July 31, 2010

Earlier this year, Representative Jason Murphy of Guthrie went around our legislature to get support of a “No Gift List.” The purpose of this list is to allow State Representatives and Senators to identify themselves as legislators who will not accept gifts from lobbyists and special interests. This list would allow our legislators, the people we elect to represent us, to show they are only looking out for our interests and not those of lobbyists and special interest groups.

This effort has been met with opposition from those very same people.

This year, he did manage to get the support of six other legislators, State Senators Bill Brown, Anthony Sykes and Randy Brogdon and State Representatives Charles Key, Mike Reynolds and Mike Ritze.

It is a shame that only a total of seven legislators are willing to show their support of the voters.

What is really a shame is the lack of my opponent, Scott Martin, on that list of supporters of the “No Gift List.” So where was he when Rep. Murphy was seeking support? Probably out to lunch with one of the number of lobbyists who have wined and dined him since he was elected in 2006.

Since 2006, Scott Martin has accepted $2,966.39 in lobbyist gifts. These include everything from meals to banquets to watches to season tickets to OU football. He wasted no time in buddying up to lobbyists and accepted his first lobbyist gift within a month of being elected.

Do you really want someone who is willing to sell themselves off to the highest bidder representing you? I know I don’t.

I promise to never accept gifts from any lobbyist or special interest while I am running for office and when I am elected. I am here to represent you, the voters and citizens of House District 46. I am not here to represent lobbyists and special interests.

When I am elected, I will work with Representative Murphy, Senator Sykes and others to get this “No Gift List” passed and put into effect. We owe it to those who elected us to show our support of you.

If you would like to see for yourself who Scott Martin really serves, you can visit the State Ethics Commission’s Public Disclosure website.

Category: Ethical Government, On the Issues | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Zachary Knight on July 29, 2010

Zachary Knight, Profile Photo

We had our primaries and have made decisions. Some of those decisions resulted in a final choice for office. Some decided who we are going to vote for come November.

Now our focus should be on the November election.

Here in House District 46 we have two people running, Scott Martin and myself. I am an Independent who believes in personal as well as economical liberty. I support an open and ethical government.  I want to give the people of Oklahoma the deciding vote in their future.

Over the next 3 months I will be working hard to get to know the people of District 46. I want to find out what it is you are looking for in a Representative. What issues you find most important and why. I am running to be your spokesperson in the Capital. I am not here to make the decisions for you. Our government was designed to give you the voice not a small group of people who sit in a conference all day for four months out of the year.

If you would like to schedule me to speak at an event or be available for a question and answer session please contact me using any method provided in my contact page.

Additionally, I am in need of you support. You can support me by making a donation of your time, talents or money. Any help provided will be in support of personal and economical liberty for the state of Oklahoma. To donate your time or talents, you can contact me directly, or if you would like to make a monetary donation, you can use the donation form available.

I want to thank everyone that has shown their support already and those that will be providing their support in the future. I look forward to representing the people of Oklahoma and specifically those living in District 46.

Category: News, Press Releases | No Comments »
Tags: Campaigning, District 46, ethical government, open government

Posted By Zachary Knight on July 19, 2010

Today marked the end of my first official week of campaigning. During this week I have visited the City Council meetings of Newcastle (July 12), Norman (July 13) and Noble (July 19). I was able to introduce myself to all three city councils and hear some of the issues facing these fine cities.

I enjoyed the opportunities that I had to visit with the city councils, listen to their meeting proceedings and speak with the people attending. I really look forward to meeting more of the citizens of these fine cities.

Unfortunately, I noticed, despite the wonderful people attending, there was an unfortunate lack of community involvement. Newcastle had about 10 people from the community attending, out of a population of 7,400. Norman had between 20 and 30 people attending out of a population of 111,357. Noble had 4 people attend out of a population of 5,700. It is unfortunate that so few people are taking an interest in the direction of the cities they call home.

I will admit that I do not attend all city council meetings here in Newcastle, but I have tried to attend as often as I am able. I wish more people would take the initiative to attend and help guide the direction of their cities. We as citizens have as much right to direct the affairs of our cities as those we elected. We should exercise that right.

Category: News, On The Trail | No Comments »
Tags: Campaigning, Newcastle, Noble, Norman

Posted By Zachary Knight on July 18, 2010

“All elections shall be free and equal.” – Oklahoma Constitution, Section III-5

Those words are found in our state’s constitution. Yet, our state legislature is not living up to that standard.

I am running as an Independent in the race. This is because I do not agree with the Republican or Democratic party enough to ally myself with either of them. Part of this is because of what happened in 1974.

In 1974, the Legislative branch of Oklahoma decided they did not want competition in the Gubernatorial or Presidential elections from any person that was not a Republican or Democrat. They decided that they did not want any other parties rising up in Oklahoma to throw them out.

So they did what any fearful legislative body would do. They changed the laws to suit their own ends. They did this in two ways: First they wrote themselves into law. Second they put up extreme barriers for any other party.

Let’s think about that first one. They wrote themselves into law. Prior to 1974, Oklahoma recognized any party that met the state’s guidelines on membership and election status. After 1974, Oklahoma recognized any party that met the new higher threshold of membership and election status and those parties that were on the ballot in 1974. (Section 26-1-107 of Oklahoma Statutes) So what parties were on the ballot in 1974? The Democratic and Republican Parties. You heard that right. Those two parties will always be on the ballot even if they do not meet the requirements that other parties are subject.

Now for the second issue, the barriers on other parties. Prior to 1974, Oklahoma only required 5,000 signatures to organize a new party. From 1924 to 1974 the most parties on any one ballot was four. In 1974 the legislature changed that requirement to 5% of the total votes cast in the last General Election (either Gubernatorial or Presidential)(Section 26-1-108 of Oklahoma Statutes). How many is that? For a Political party to be organized for the coming Gubernatorial election it would have been 73,000. That is a really high jump from 5,000. In order to retain party status in Oklahoma, a Political party would have to have a minimum of 10% of the vote in the last General Election.(Section 26-1-109 of Oklahoma Statutes) This is up from the 1% required prior to 1974.

So were the members of the 1974 legislative branch afraid that they would not be able to get 5,000 people to support their respective parties? Were they afraid that they would fail to get 1% of the vote in a future election? Or were they just afraid that you the people would exercise your rights to elect those who truly represent your ideals and values?

This past Legislative session, a bill was introduced that would have reverted our ballot access laws to their prior 1974 status. This bill had passed the House and the Senate, but due to language differences, they had to be reconciled. A committee was formed to reconcile these differences in February and they just sat on it. This committee of a handful of legislative members decided that giving people a voice and a choice in our elections was not important enough to deal with.

My opponent, Scott Martin, was on that committee.

When I am elected as State Representative, I will reintroduce this bill and fight to give you a voice and a choice in our elections. I will not allow for any person or committee to block your constitutional right to have a free and equal election.

Category: On the Issues, Voter Rights | No Comments »
Tags: Ballot Access, Voter Choice

Posted By Zachary Knight on July 18, 2010

What makes the Oklahoma State Legislature so special that they can justify exempting themselves from our State’s open records act? Why are all other government bodies under threat of litigation if they do not fully disclose all their meetings to the public they serve, while our Representatives and Senators can hold secret meetings about our future without our knowledge?

Fear. That is the only thing I can think of. I think our government is so afraid of the people that elect them that they would rather hide themselves from the eyes of the people that they serve. What else could it be?

News 6 of Tulsa recently wrote a report on this corruption in our state. They came to the conclusion that the Legislature just didn’t want their bosses looking over their shoulders.

The Newcastle City Council is required by law to disclose the subject matter of all council meetings whether those meeting are open to the public or not. The city of Norman was sued and the charges later dismissed recently because someone felt they were not living up to the letter of law. Yet at the same time, our Representatives and Senators can hold any number of meetings on any number of subjects without informing those of us who elect them.

In most all jobs, the employees are given regular performance reviews. These happen at many stages throughout the year. There are the yearly performance reviews but also some done during the year. We have chosen our representatives and Senators to do the work we want them to do. By blocking our ability to perform our performance reviews of them, we cannot do our job properly when it comes election time.

During the last week of the Legislative Session, an $80 thousand dollar a year job was created with no evidence to point to who exactly wrote it into a bill. This is the kind of corruption that these exemptions from open records breeds.

When I am elected as State Representative, I will make it a point to fight to have all Legislative meetings disclosed to the public. I will oppose any effort to exempt the Legislature from full disclosure, unless there is an obvious and unavoidable need for confidentiality.

Category: On the Issues, Open Government | No Comments »
Tags: Corruption, Open Records, Public Disclosure

Posted By Zachary Knight on June 29, 2010

During the next few months, the Oklahoma Legislative Committees will be studying various proposals and items of interest for the upcoming 2011 Legislative Session. Of these studies, there is one that really stood out to me for two reasons. This study is described as “Flat-rate state sales tax in lieu of income tax”

The first reason this study interests me is that it is key to my proposed tax reform for the state. The second is who is performing the study.

Why a Sales Tax is Better than an Income Tax

The income tax adds unneeded hardships for people in this state. It reduces the amount of money that can be spent by the people who earn it. It decreases the ability for employers to hire new workers, as they have to pay their current employees more to offset taxes.

Additionally, we are subject to both an income tax and a sales tax in this state. So we are in essence being taxed twice. Once on our ability to earn an income and a second on our ability to spend it.

I propose that we eliminated our income tax and replace it with the sales tax.

Why would this be better than our  current system? For one, we would only be taxed once. This is the key. We would no longer be taxed on our ability to earn an income. This means that we have more money to spend.

It is also more fair. Since we are now being taxed on our ability to spend our income, the tax burden is more fairly distributed. Since those that earn a higher income can spend more, they will pay more in taxes. Those with less income will spend less and pay less taxes.

You get to keep your money if you don’t spend as well. If you decide to put your money in a savings account, that money will not be taxed until you decide to spend it. That means you will have more money to save towards retirement and emergencies.

I will not lie to you. If we do switch to just a sales tax, it will go up. That is an inevitable part of the change. We have to supplement the loss of income from the income tax. Yet, if we can work to decrease the amount of money the state pays in bureaucracy, that increase will be minimal.

Another benefit to a state that relies on a sales tax rather than an income tax is that the state now has a greater incentive to promote strong economy and commerce. If the state relies on people spending money in order for the government to have money, they will be more willing to pass legislation that attracts businesses and workers. That is what will bring in more money to the state.

This legislative session ended with a deficit. In order to remedy that deficit, the legislature made it more difficult to do business in the state for some areas of commerce. Why would those businesses want to come here? If we make this change and begin working on better commerce legislation, they will want to come here.

Who Is Performing the Study

As I said earlier, there are two reasons I am interested in this study. The first was the study itself and what it means for us. The second is who is performing the study.

This study has been assigned to the House Appropriations and Budget Committee. What makes this important is that my opponent, Scott Martin, is Vice Chair of this committee. I will be following this study closely and will carefully review their conclusions.

Regardless of the outcome, if elected I will be pushing for this key change to our State economy. I feel that this will not only increase the income the government has to spend, but also improve the lives of the people that live here.

Category: Fair Taxation, On the Issues | No Comments »
Tags: Fair Taxation, Income Tax, Interim Studies, Sales Tax

Posted By Zachary Knight on June 16, 2010

I completely support the idea of a government that is completely open in all its proceedings. This is one of the key points of my campaign. It is a shame to learn that there are some people that want to keep government dealings hidden from the eyes and ears of the people they are supposed to be serving.

It comes to me as no surprise to learn recently that RJ Harris was banned from all Cleveland County GOP events because he dared to allow people to post videos of a recent Straw Poll event on his Facebook and Youtube accounts.(source)

Not only was he banned for supporting openness in events leading to the State Primary, the event itself was less than open. The people running the event decided to force people to answer the poll prior to hearing either candidate speak. There is a big problem with that. People had little information going into the event and were then forced to vote in the dark so to speak. Many attendees stated they would have voted differently had they been able to vote after the event.

Is this what we as citizens of Oklahoma want? Are the people that banned RJ Harris the type of people we want leading our country? If this party does not want openness in even the primary events, will they support openness in government proceedings?

There are some people in the Republican party that support openness and RJ Harris is one of them. But there are far more people that would rather not provide the people of this state the information they need to make informed decisions.

If I am elected to State Representative, I will push strongly for openness in all government proceedings. I will work to make sure all public meetings of our government are broadcast online as well as on public television. I will work to make our bill tracking software easier to use.

Even during my campaign I will be available to answer any question you may have about my positions. Visit my contact page to find my personal email, cell phone, Twitter account, Facebook account and mailing address. I will respond in a timely manner to all requests for information.

Support openness in our election and government proceedings. Don’t let anyone deny information vital to our public good.

Category: On the Issues, Open Government, Policy | No Comments »
Tags: open government, Republican Party, RJ Harris