I am deeply concerned with the utter disdain Representative Kraig Powell (R-Heber City, District 54) is showing towards the citizens of Utah. I have already written about his desire to remove people from the voter file – and now I am sickened by his push to make policy making a closed door affair.

Yes, Powell’s HB 226, Closed Meeting Amendments, is a direct attack on the peoples right to participate in this representative democracy.  In one paragraph, Powell is single handedly taking our democracy back to the dark ages.

Dramatic? I don’t think so. To quote from the bill:

A closed meeting…(may take place if) discussion of legislative action by a public body, whether the legislative action is pending, proposed, potential, or previously-passed, if the public body believes that conducting the discussion in a closed meeting is preferable to conducting the discussion in an open meeting;

What does that mean? It means that if the members of a body (say legislative committee, commission, or city council, for example) want to close their doors to the public because they feel it is “preferable” to actually having to deal with the public to pass a law or statute, they would be able to close the meeting.

Now, up to this point, there have been very reasonable and very specific reasons why a body may close its meetings – most focusing around confidentiality of individuals or organizations. This bill would mean that we could close a meeting because the members of the body preferred not to deal with the public on an issue.

Of course policy makers want to be able to close the doors whenever they pleased! That messy general public that always seems to stick its nose into its own business – demanding that they understand what is going on in their government and other such nonsense.

Look, I sit on one of these boards that could potentially take advantage of this bill and shut the doors to the pubic. Yes, that board has shut the doors on occasion – but it wasn’t because we felt it was “preferable” to dealing with the public; rather we felt that the topics being discussed were of such a delicate nature that we had to strategize our approach before making a public statement.

The public being involved in the democratic process can be a messy one, but God damn it it is an important one. If committees are allowed to shut the doors whenever they pleased, they will be closing the doors on holding our elected officials responsible and opening the door for corruption and fraud.  It is imperative that the public be able to sit in on uncomfortable meetings where policy is being discussed because it is the public that will be affected by the decisions our representatives make.

This is a despicable bill whose mere existence is a mark of shame on this state.

To contact Rep. Powell, Click Here or call 435-657-0185

Impact: 5

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Post Script: Powell has claimed that he has proposed this bill to prove a point and that he has no intention to advance the legislation. If true, I have to ask why he is willing to waste taxpayer time and money on an admitted “message bill.” I, as a concerned citizen, bristle at the mere thought that this could receive a legitimate shot at becoming state law because, time and time again, our legislature has not hesitated to attempt to take away our right to know what is going on in our legislative process (read HB 477).

Powell’s body of legislation include bills that remove voters from voter files…and for opening caucus meetings.

So, this bill is either terrible policy, or a mean spirited joke. Powell either does not know or does not care about how raw of an issue this is for those of us to care deeply about open and honest government.

If there is one thing our Utah State Legislature is good at, it is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Take, for example, HB 87, Billboard Revisions, as proposed by Representative Melvin Brown (R-Coalville, District 53).

It seems that every year we hear the legislature complain about how there is too much government interference with the state, yet they (as the state) are all too eager to interfere with local governments when they do something that they don’t like.  The big example last year was Wayne Niederhauser’s bill that was a knee-jerk reaction to Salt Lake City attempting to stop McMansions in certain neighborhoods (more on that coming up in another post). This year, Brown is the one attacking Salt Lake City after Mayor Becker pushed to cap the number of electronic billboards in his city. Now the billboard companies didn’t like this much, but Mayor Becker stood firm.

Oooh, also, funny story: in his last election, Brown received $689 in campaign contributions from Reagan Signs – the sign company primarily affected by such a ban.

The decision to limit advertising in a municipality is the municipality’s decision – not the states. But Brown, apparently attempting to appease a donor, has thrown that idea out the window.  Utah legislators don’t want the Fed’s telling them what to do, but they are more than happy to dictate certain minutia to the cities.

This is a unnecessary and hypocritical law that was designed to please the interests of campaign donors and not the citizens of Utah.

To contact Rep. Brown, Click Here or call 435-647-6512

Impact: 2

Need: 0

Overall: -4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Senator Stewart Reid (R – Ogden, District 18) just doesn’t seem to get it as he continually chooses to stand by his yea vote on HB 477 and his nay vote on HB 1001 to repeal the draconian GRAMA (Government Records Access Management Act) law.

In yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, Reid said 477 should have stayed in place, asking the hypothetical question “What if my wife texts and asks me at 3 o’clock to rendezvous with her?” And went on to say “Some government official gets to read that text.”

Reid and his ilk continue to labor under the false impression that GRAMA requests allow citizens and the media to have full and open access every single document transmitted over any means whatsoever.

The simple fact is that GRAMA requests need to be somewhat specific, otherwise those in government charged with fulfilling the request won’t have a place to even start. For a request to be effective, requests have to be given a frame.

And what of these so called “fishing” expeditions. The few pro-477 legislators point to one GRAMA request that took 290 hours and resulted in no newspaper article or citizen action. They claim that this is proof that people abuse the system, but they have failed to actually state what the request was for. Having poured over many documents from my own GRAMA requests, it is safe to say that sometimes you can’t find anything worth reporting – even if you really want to. It is quite possible that an individual, despite extreme tenacity, simply could not find enough evidence to make a case – that lawmakers actually did act in the best interest of the public (a novel concept, I will grant you, but possible none the less).

But let us suppose the request truly is an attempt to find embarrassing information – the so called “midnight text.” The answer to preventing people from finding these texts should come from the law-makers themselves, rather than clamping down on the citizens.

Anyone with any sense of the employee-employer relationship knows that you do not use company resources for personal matters; furthermore, you should know that if you do send an email over official channels, you have no right to expect privacy. Why do lawmakers – whom we employ, mind you – feel that they are somehow exempt from this basic rule? Personal matters should take place only through personal channels, and if you, either through ignorance or arrogance, choose to ignore this, don’t expect privacy.

But this isn’t enough, lawmakers should expect that if personal devises are used for the peoples business, those particular records should be made available as well. This does not mean that a GRAMA request can demand your entire hard drive, what it does mean is that if you respond to a constituent email from a home computer, you just did the peoples business, and we have a right to know your opinion on any particular matter. If the “personal” avenue is protected, lawmakers could simply tell special-interest leaders to email or text on a personal account or phone, pushing potential corruption to an even deeper level.

Lawmakers, naturally, are the most concerned about GRAMA laws and complain that their 4th Amendment right is at jeopardy; but, as Michael Williams, former Utah Supreme Court justice points out in the same Trib article, lawmakers give up some of their rights by choosing to be a public servant – it is simply part of the job. In essence, there ability to effect the public good outweighs their private right to some (but certainly not all) rights. Though it may be an extreme parallel, felons, due to  the decisions hey have made, give up some (but not all) of their rights as well.

Reid also wants to paint a picture that GRAMA requests will put a chilling effect on peoples desire to communicate with their legislators. This I find to be a very weak argument, if only because if a citizen is willing to write a legislator, it is probably because they are passionate about an issue and want to make sure their representative votes a certain way. Even if a person does not want their information published, a request to vote a certain way (and the reasons to do so) are far different from those that a GRAMA request would look for. I don’t care if Jon Q. Public thinks you should vote a certain way, I only care if Mr. Public says that you should vote a certain way and bribes or blackmails you to do so. There is a sort of de facto protection of the citizens right to contact lawmakers because a simple “I think you should vote this way” does not make for a very interesting story.

But lets suppose I am wrong. The evil main-stream media really is out to harass a law maker for no reason other than they just don’t like them. How do we address this legitimate concern?

Well, that is what the GRAMA work-group is hashing out right now. In my own opinion a few reasonable updates should be put into place:

1. Require that all electronic communications between legislators and registered lobbyists take place through a traceable and archived system, be it text, email, instant message, or other recordable digital communication (you will note that this would, most likely, still exclude phone calls and says nothing about face-to-face communication). These electronic communications should only be accessible to lawmakers and lobbyists,  unless a proper GRAMA request is made.
2. Create a formal Ombudsman for the citizens of Utah to act as an intermediary. A list of no less than five people should be generated and agreed upon by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate as well as the Minority Leader. One Ombudsman should then be elected into office with a term of no more than four years and given a term limit of two terms. This Ombudsman should be independent and charged with defining what is truly private communication requests. There should also be a process to overturn the Ombudsman’s decisions.
3. Make it clear to lawmakers that ownership of an electronic device is immaterial in regards to any public communication.
4. Lawmakers should make clear, upon first communication, that their conversation could be public in nature with added rights given to individuals who are initially, and legitimately, unaware of this possibility.

Reid ends the article with the rather aggressive statement that “(t)here is no interest on the media’s part to protect privacy of legislators and their constituents.” Reid is only half right, and proves that he has no respect for the additional check and balance the fourth estate provides. You see, if the media always respected the right to privacy at a level Reid and his cronies would like, the media would no longer be doing its job. The media must probe, and it should not always play nice. To do so would mean that it is no longer serving the interest of the public, it is only by way of the open exchange of ideas – no matter how embarrassing, misguided, or downright deceitful – that our democracy is able to function. One you are operating in the public realm, you have to accept the fact that the public is able to criticize and question it.

Although I have never actually banged my head against a wall, but I imagine it is how Representative Rebecca Chavez – Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24) feels when she is trying to push HB 164 – Campaign Contributions Limits through the unimaginable 45 day hell that is the legislative session.

The bill most likely has the same chance as a snowball in that hell, but Houck’s intentions, if they were to pass, would be more symbolic than anything else.

And that is what is so troublesome about the fate of this bill. Houck is not looking to limit campaign contributions to levels that actually seem reasonable. Rather, I suspect that she has set limits artificially high because she feels that it is important to have a starting off point to talk about real campaign finance reform.

The bill would limit contributions from PAC’s, Corporations, Labor Organizations, and individuals to $10,000 for those running for statewide office, $5,000 for those running for a legislative seat, $40,000 to a political party,  $10,000 to a PAC, or $50,000 in aggregate to either a party , labor union, or PAC.

I, for one, think that these limits are fairly reasonable (if not artificially high). The point is that the current system can lead to people distrusting their democracy because they feel that elected officials can be bought and sold. We need to start somewhere, and Houck is trying to make a legitimate improvement to our current system.

Of course, those in power are unwilling to give up their obscenely large war chests and are equally unwilling to tie their hands to such unreasonable thoughts as “only receiving a $5,000 contribution.”

I wish this bill the best of luck, but our legislature needs to evolve more before this bill has a chance.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Chavez-Houck.

As unpopular as it may sound, campaign contributions are a sort of necessary evil in our political system – there is simply no realistic way to run a campaign with out some sort of budget, and if contributions were not allowed, only the richest of the rich would be able to simply drop the $5,000-$30,000 it can cost to run for a state house or senate seat.

Of course, in the same breath, we must be honest with ourselves and say that contributions can buy influence. To prevent some of the most obvious attempts to buy influence, the laws have been put into place that prevent people from contributing during a campaign while the legislature is in session. The same law also prevents contributions during a veto override session or a special session convened before July 1 of an election year.

Huh? Wait a minute, so if a special session takes place in an off election year (like the one we are about to see when districts are redrawn), or take place after July 1 of an election year (like the one that just happened last year) all bets are off? Apparently so. Donate away and hope you get what you want – it is not like they are passing anything special during these special sessions…

Thankfully Representative Patrice Arent (D – Salt Lake City, District 36) is attempting to close this loophole with HB 60 – Prohibiting Contributions During Special Session. In short the bill just crosses out all that gobbledygook about “being before July 1″ and just says no contributions during a special session, period.

It is a commonsense bill that should pass. During an election year, campaigns will just have to do without for the week or so the legislature is in session for a special session. Does it give an advantage to an opponent? Yes, but the advantages of incumbency far outweigh the costs of loosing those few days of fundraising.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Arent.

One of the reasons I write the “Bills to Watch” series is that I want to draw attention towards bills that have a lower profile during the session, but still would have a large impact on Utahns.

Well, HB 31: Restoration of the Right to Vote and Hold Elective Office is one of those bills. Representative Craig Frank (R – Cedar Hills, District 57) is doing some good with this one, but he is opening up a can of worms that I don’t think has fully been considered if the bill were to pass.

The bill does two things: clarifies how restore the right to vote to people who have been charged with misdemeanors and excludes people from running for office if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor for five years.

Now, I am sure Representative Frank is a fine upstanding citizen, and that the members on the hill don’t engage in illegal activity *cough, cough* but to exclude anyone convicted of a misdemeanor seems like a bit much. I remind Representative Frank that speeding is a misdemeanor, as are most traffic violations.

The potential for abuse here is outstanding. It is not unusual for police officers and law enforcement officials to run for office and become legislators. If they were truly concerned about a rival running for office, how hard would it be for them to tell one of their buddies to keep a lookout for their opponent while on patrol and wait for them to go one mile an hour over the limit. Did their opponent break the law? Yes, but is it really a reason to exclude them from serving the public?

This bill would also discourage lower income individuals and activists from running for office. Both tend to have higher rates of minor criminal activity, but if the community they come from still supports them after those minor acts, shouldn’t it be their right to do so?

In the end, this bill does more harm than good, and even though the negatives only affect a small section of the population, the potential for corruption is simply to high.

Click here to contact Representative Frank.

Correction:

Please note, it was brought to my attention that I missed the phrase “under this title” when discussing how a misdemeanor could remove you from being able to run for office.

Reading bill after bill can be a complex and tiring thing, as I usually hunker down and spit these things out five or six at a time or rather late at night. Hand one to lawmakers who devote the time to such endeavors, but please know that I don’t have the advantage they do when they have questions regarding a bill – I can not stand up during debate or ask for clarification at a committee hearing.

My error was rightly pointed out to me. The phrase “under this title” means that if someone violates election law, they will be unable to run for office for five years.

This, I feel, is a very good thing. I urge you to please disregard the above post. This is actually quite a good bill.

Again, I apologize for this error – please know that I always place truth above partisan issues.

I was wrong and I am sorry.

You may recall that, earlier this year, the Salt Lake County Democratic Party was quite upset that the Salt Lake County Republican Party did not report their financial transactions to the state. Democrats claimed that funds should be reported in the name of transparency, Republicans countered by saying that the law was ambiguous and that it wasn’t clear that they needed to.  Interesting, considering the Republican mantra seems to be that simply reporting is enough to county concerns of influence…but I digress.

Demo’s threatened to take the fight to the State Supreme Court because they did not see any action from the Lieutenant Governor (who enforces election law) or the Attorney General. Eventually Republican Lieutenant Governor Bell would reverse a statement on their website stating that “All state and county political parties must file financial disclosure reports…regardless of whether money is received or spent” to say that the law was not clear and that county parties do not need to report.

Well that is where HB 32: Campaign and Financial Reporting Amendments Representative as proposed by Keith Grover (R – Provo, District 61) steps in.

The bill, if passed, would require a county political party officer to report to the state if and when they raise $750 or spends $50 in a year. The bill requires these reports four times a year and slaps county officers with a Class B misdemeanor if they fail to report in good faith. Of course, I doubt that anyone will actually get turned in, but it is nice to see that the bill would have some teeth if it were to pass.

Of course, there is quite a bit of wiggle room here that still concerns me. Note how I said it is only if a county political party officer raises $750 that the officer has to report – not the county party itself. In theory, you could have a thousand “party officers” all raise $749 and not have to report, despite having a archest of  three quarters of a million dollars. Hypothetical? Yes, but the law really should state that it is when the county party and not the political party officer has to report when it reaches a threshold.

I should also note that neither political party has its hands clean on this one.  According to The Salt Lake Tribune, 22 of 29 County Democratic Parties did not report and 19 out of 29 Republican County Parties neglected to tell the state how much they brought in and spent.

Overall, it is a step in the right direct as it further clarifies the law, but I do want the bill to be amended to hold the county parties themselves responsible for reporting if and when they reach that $750 mark.

Click Here to Contact Representative Grover

When I was a kid, one of the few toys I ever really wanted was a Super Soaker – a real Super Soaker with the backpack that held an obscene amount of water to truly drench anyone who dare challenge me to water fight.

Well, I never did get that Super Soaker, I got whatever my mom picked up at the local Osco. Although it worked for a while, it soon starting springing leaks and became rather ineffective. Meanwhile, of course, my friends were having a grand old time sending me home dripping wet. Needless to say, it took a long time before I got another squirt gun.

In a lot of ways Amendment D is like that Super Soaker knock-off. It does what it says it is designed to do, but there are far better options out there. And it is going to be a while before we get another chance at an improvement .

Right now, Utahs legislative ethics laws are about as impressive as a two year olds concept of right and wrong: only the most obvious and egregious examples are called, and only when it harms themselves is any action taken.

So, this past year, Utahns for Ethical Government attempted to gather enough signatures to place an honest ethics reform package on the ballot this November. In an attempt to squelch the petition drive, the legislature passed lip service legislation that would make voters think that real ethics reform took place. The bill that created Amendment D is a direct result of that smokescreen.

But Amendment D does create some semblance of ethics reform - just as that knock-off was a step up from simply getting wet… but this reform is far from ideal.

Currently legislators police themselves in regards to their own ethics violations – and the fox guards the hen house. Amendment D would set up an independent commission to act like a grand jury that would evaluate if alleged ethics violations should go before the House or Senate for further consideration.

So, in essence, Amendment D puts an extra set of eyes on the situation, but has no authority to do anything about it other than push it on to the very people being accused. The fox may be out of the hen house, but it still gets to choose who is in charge.

Another down side is that, by placing this into Utah’s Constitution, they are making it very difficult to change in the event that the commission is ineffective. This type of commission could have been set up through a regular law, but I suspect lawmakers purposefully chose this route because it makes it makes the commission difficult to change and, say, become more effective.

The one advantage to this (and the main reason I support this) is that it does add political pressure on violators and their cohorts in the event that it does make it past a very difficult complaint process. Some light can be shed on situations that may otherwise stay in the back rooms.

But anything is better than what we have now, and I don’t see another attempt at reforming our ethics laws in the foreseeable future from our legislature. This is a step in the right direction, but it is not even a baby step – more like an impressive crawl.

Herbert’s Crony Contracts scandal is about to break…

It was revealed today that Utah Department of Transportation changed the rules to conveniently allow the firm which contributed the most to Governor Herbert’s election campaign to win the lucrative $1.1 billion I-15 Core project in Utah County. To quote the Tribune: ”(T)he Selection Recommendation Committee, made up of UDOT managers and budget officials, found enough variances to ultimately swing the contract against Flatiron/Skanska/Zachry (FSZ) and in favor of Provo River Constructors by a single point. In each case, the several variances the selection committee identified broke in favor of Provo River Constructors…”

Funny how Wadsworth wins only after campaign contributions come in, and only by a single point. Also interesting how they donate to Herbert’s campaign after being awarded a contract in this way…

*crack*

Lets not forget about how upset Fred Lampropoulos, CEO of Merit Medical, was when questioned about the $4.36 million tax credit tax break is company received after contributing $25,000 and an endorsement to Herbert. Is he upset because he feels hounded, or because he knows the hammer is coming down?

*crack*

And I suspect, as you read this, reporters are looking into the $10,000 contribution from Alton Coal Development on the same day Alton was awarded a first-in-the-state permit to strip mine.

*crack*

Only one thing remains between pinning Governor Herbert to cronyism, just one little thing: An email, a note, a wistlie blower, something Herbert or his staff never thought anyone would see, some half thought note absentmindedly written down and placed into the archives will cause everything to tumble down.

After three “coincidences” it is hard to believe that each of these incidents happened in a vacuum. A pattern is forming, and Herbert’s eagerness to deflect this towards others in his administration shows a lack of accountability and leadership.

I am of the opinion that Herbert has grown complacent, confused, and corrupt, and it is time that he stop squandering our tax dollars so that his buddies get further ahead.

Just remember, it only takes one little thing…

As the campaign contribution controversy for Governor Herbert continues into its third day, more and more interesting contradictions seem to be popping up.

Mark Twain said it best: “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” Well, it seems the Herbert administration and campaign staff are having a bit of a lapse in memory.

Take, for example, UDOT Director John Njord’s statement regarding the $13 million payout to unsuccessful bidders on the I-15 Core project team Flatiron/Skanska/Zachry. As the Salt Lake Tribune reported Njord said protests on contract bids are not unusual, but the state paid the $13 million to reimburse Flatiron for the time and expense of submitting a bid. He likened it to a football game, where there is a winner and a loser. “One of those teams was very close and thought they should have got the bid,” he said. “We kind of predict that this might occur.” Fair enough, but why would Njord authorise the payout to occur if, as the Deseret News reported it was a clean process and that it is “rare that we have to pay out” on any contract?

What made this process different? Was it because of the donations to the Governor? If the bid legitimately failed, there should be no reason to try to cover up a complaint with tax payer dollars. Even if a case were taken to court, it should be easy to prove why Flatiron/Skanska/Zachry did not get the bid – after all, if there is one thing I know from being the son of an engineer, it is that they measure and analyse everything before making a decision and make very logical (some would say Vulcan-like) decisions based on such information. 

Also, Angie Welling, the governor’s spokeswoman, stated that  it is not uncommon for those companies such as Merrit Medical to seek incentives from Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) and to want to meet with the governor, even though  the decision to award the incentives are made by the GOED board without input from the governor. Again, fair enough, but why would business leaders seek out the ear of the governor regarding GOED if the governor has no say?

Merrit, as you may recall, received a $4.36 million tax credit to expand in Utah from the GOED after Fred Lampropoulos, CEO of Merit Medical, endorsed Herbert and donated $25,000 to his campaign. I understand that the governor meets with many leaders about the business community, but it is interesting to see that such a large tax credit go to one company after a sizable donation such as this.

So who will take the blame? Well, sadly, I don’t think Herbert will fess up to either being fast and loose with tax dollars or being a buffoon whose right hand does not know what his left hand is doing. I suspect that Njord will take the brunt of the scandal and become the scapegoat for the Core scandal and a low level administrator for GOED – all in an attempt to diffuse attention.

I hope the media keeps the pressure on and demand answers from Herbert. After all, if it smells funny, it probably is.

*Post publication update…It begins!