Harassment of ethics petition gatherers in Utah County and an old story from Washington County about Dave Clark abusing authority

An elderly couple from Salt Lake County has been working hard to gather signatures for the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative petition since last year. They worked many hours personally and helped organize others in their Senate District, achieving the necessary number of signatures in that district some time ago. In all that time and after speaking to hundreds of people, they had some polite disagreements, but no bad experiences with anyone.

This afternoon, they volunteered to drive to Utah County to help in the last county where the initiative needs enough signatures to qualify. The couple knocked on doors in northern Utah County very successfully for a few hours. The wife was discussing the initiative in Pleasant Grove with a man on the sidewalk who had a pen in his hand to sign the petition. Another man pulled up in his car, rolled down his window, and began loudly yelling to not sign the petition. The woman gathering signatures didn't catch everything he said, but the man was apparently repeating the unique Utah County Republican Party lie that the initiative restricts local Mormon leaders such as bishops and Relief Society presidents from serving in the legislature. The woman had not ever heard this argument in Salt Lake County and tried to tell both men it wasn't true. The man about to sign quietly told the woman that he didn't want to anger his neighbor and walked away without signing. The woman started down the street to knock on more doors, but the man in the car followed her, continuing to yell arguments about the initiative, and calling her "evil." The woman rejoined her husband and they were both shaken by the man in the car continuing to harass them. He didn't stop until they finally got in their car and drove away.

I think the incident speaks for itself.

Another interesting incident happened in Washington County back on April 15th when Utahns for Ethical Government volunteers were turning in signatures in an attempt to qualify in time for this year's ballot. Remember, the legislature had also recently passed the openly biased SB 275, allowing them to track down signature signers for an extra month and pressure them to remove their names from the petition. Carmen Snow walked into the Washington County Clerk's office that afternoon with a stack of petition booklets. Speaker of the House, Dave Clark, was behind the counter at the County Clerk's office as the employees accepted the submission of the petition booklets, just waiting to get hold of those names and start tracking them down. As I recall, the temporary injunction barring the names of the signers from being released was issued that afternoon, but UEG still does not know if Dave Clark got copies of those names before word reached Washington County.

The legislators want to us to believe they never abuse their power, but why was this non-county employee in the work space at the county office? Does anyone believe that "ordinary" citizens are allowed behind the counter at government offices when it is convenient to them?

I heard both of these stories secondhand from others who had spoken directly with the people involved.

How blatantly will the State Board of Education Nominating Committee thumb its nose at the public? Or will Kim Burningham get his today?

I don't have time for much. Utah Mom's Care had an excellent post on this a few days ago. The results of Monday's meeting and vote will be announced this afternoon.

Basically, Republican leadership can't keep it's theories straight on their opinions of Utah voters. In the case of the state school board, they're too stupid to vote unless there is an R(epublican) or D(emocrat) next to the name of a candidate, so we have to appoint a committee literally half made up of lobbyists (all the industry "rep's" are lobbyists appointed by the governor--people like Stan Lockhart, Micron lobbyist and head of the state GOP when they passed vouchers) to remove "unworthy" candidates from the ballot. In the case of vouchers, the public rejected them almost 2-1 because they were misinformed by evil teachers.

But when the ethics reform initiative didn't get enough signatures, that was because Utah voters are so smart and approved of the legislature's already passed reform. I think as the Utah Mom's Care post said--voter apathy enables this ridiculous, easily abused system. And in the last days of the ethics petition drive, there were still more people than not that had not heard of the initiative.

Here's an opinion piece by two Republican activists spelling out how the public is too dumb to vote without party affiliation, and the Tribune Editorial rightly stating that this system actually takes advantage of voter apathy for political gain rather than doing anything to make the final election between the chosen candidates more informed.

Sara Brate at the Accountability blog covered this bad process two years ago. Most revealingly, she put the candidate vote totals in an excel sheet for all to see. Notice that industry voter block that pushed the agenda. There were two incumbents pushed out by the vote of 6 people and shenanigans in my state school board district.

So Kim Burningham effectively represented the overwhelming majority of both Utahns and his district in the anti-voucher battle, infuriating Republican leadership. He fought hard on the ethics initiative, once again battling for things large majorities of Utahns want, but legislative and political party leadership abhor. Will he be taken off the ballot by 6 lobbyists? If so, I predict a short period of outrage from observers, and then no consequences. If only 2 legislators got taken out after the voucher debacle, and the bill to change this process couldn't get traction the last 2 years, nothing will happen now.

Two reasons to sign the ethics initiative on the last day, April 15th

Two reasons:

1. In current Utah law and practice, lobbyists can be legislators.

This really shocks 90% of people I talk to along with the fact that a senator representing Utah Valley is currently both a lobbyist and a state senator. As they ask for more info, I tell them that Howard Stephenson is one of the most influential policy makers in our state, and his "taxpayers association" is really a 4-employee lobbying firm with a secret list of business clients. Stephenson's sole basis for employment is his effectiveness in achieving legislation favorable to his clients. If he votes the "wrong" way or does not push bills his clients favor, he will be fired. This is not the normal and inherent bias of a citizen legislature, but basically a man paid for his votes. Worse, since the Utah Taxpayers Association's clients are secret, you never know on a given bill whether Stephenson is being employed to vote a certain way. He cannot be objective or risk his livelihood. How can it be interpreted any differently? Recent reform bills did nothing about this practice.

2. The latest ethics reform bills passed by the legislature will not only fail to stop the vast majority of the lobbyist money coming in, but new loopholes would allow half of it to go unreported if spending spending patterns remain similar.

Bernick's analysis in the Deseret News of lobbyist gifts and meals this year reveals the distinct lack of reform.

"Despite Utah legislators' claim that they took large steps in lobbyist gift-giving reforms this year, a Deseret News analysis of new lobbyist disclosure reports finds that a new reform bill they passed would ban just $1,100 of the $71,700 spent on lawmakers so far this year...

However, the newspaper also found if the lobbyist gift-ban restrictions found in a citizen initiative petition were in effect, 99 percent of the gifts given to legislators in January, February and March of this year would not have been allowed."

The purposeful loopholes in the law just passed are even worse:

Meals costing more than $10 must come with the accepting lawmaker's name attached, unless large groups of legislators are invited. If the whole Legislature, the House or Senate, a legislative committee or a party caucus are all invited to the meal, then that expense is exempted, no matter how many actually attend. In fact, the all-invited expense will no longer even be reported by the giving lobbyist, as is the case under the old lobbyist law. Gone from the public record will be how much was spent by this or that special interest group hosting a meal for an identifiable number of legislators, no matter what that expense may be.

In the first three months of this year, $35,168 — nearly half of all gift-giving that was reported, the newspaper found — went for meals where all members or some caucuses were invited, an amount that won't be seen in future lobbyist reports.

In addition, in the 29-member Senate, the president can authorize lobbyist-paid-for trips and expenses for a senator of either political party, and that lobbyist expense won't be reported, either, under the new law. The speaker of the House also may give such a trip exemption for any representative, but by internal House rule (which was not adopted by the Senate), the speaker must disclose that expenditure and the representative who took it in a timely manner.

Bernick explains that gift giving is down 20% from last year's 1st quarter, but I have difficulty praising the legislature for accepting "only" $71,000 of gifts in a three month period rather than $89,000.

The legislators can take offense and (falsely) call the proposed restrictions and independent commission a "power grab" all they want, but that doesn't change these numbers. The state legislature wants us to believe that the vaunted free market they value so much is spending tens of thousands of dollars in just a 3 month period to accomplish nothing; these firms and special interests are so blind to their own interest that they just throw this money away without making a profit on the expenditure; and Howard Stephenson has been employed for the last few decades to not influence the incorruptible legislature. Think about that premise and either find a last minute petition to sign, or go online and sign electronically as that battle rev's up. Here are the links to the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative and also the Fair Boundaries initiative.

.

Revealing conversation while gathering initiative signatures

One afternoon, I was gathering signatures for both the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative and the Fair Boundaries initiative. I ran into two professionally dressed people wearing real estate nametags. I explained the Fair Boundaries petition to polite interest and nods, and then I started explaining the ethics petition.

"If this were to pass, next year state legislators could not take any gifts from lobbyists, period. Including meals."

One of their eyes lit up and the person said "I'll sign that" while grabbing a pen. I continued to explain that it would prevent a person from being a lobbyist while serving in the legislature and that one of our state senators representing Utah Valley is a lobbyist. They nodded and grinned. But as the person started to print their name, they paused.

"Wait. Maybe we shouldn't. Don't we do this?"

"Lobby? Yes. The realtors' associations are the biggest lobbyists in the state."

They discussed if anyone would be mad they signed the petition. I told them that they should be aware that Taylor Oldroyd is strongly opposed to the initiative and in fact had mixed his Republican Party interests with his County Realtor Association position and gotten signature gatherers kicked out from in front of the Home Expo. I also explained SB 275 and the GOP plan to call people after the fact and convince them they should remove their names from the petition because it is anti-Mormon.

"So yes. If this gets enough signatures to get on the ballot, you probably will get a call from Taylor Oldroyd."

"Listen. These are both good. But we're both new in the profession."

"Yea. We can't afford to get on the wrong side of Taylor right now."

I told them it was sad, but I understood that they didn't want to risk their livelihoods. I explained the rest of the leadership arguments about supposed loss of free speech, invasion of privacy, and their twisting to pull the anti-Mormon stuff out of the bill, and why I thought they were good provisions that improved the political process. They both said they agreed, but didn't want to antagonize Oldroyd. I thanked them and sent them home with information to give to others they knew.

I spoke with some other realtors I knew about the incident, and they laughed. They explained that Taylor is not even a realtor, but merely their hired gun to lobby and administrate.

(I hope some of you comment, but I may not respond for a couple days. It's not you; it's me. I'll respond when I can in a few days.)

Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries initiatives -- Utah County SOS

This post is short (for me). Please read my request for help at the end.

I support both the Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries initiatives. The deadline for signatures for both is April 15th. I also support the citizen initiative process. Local politicians talk the "We the people" talk when dealing with the federal government, but become downright defensive when confronted with that same reality on the state level--that their authority is derived completely from the people they represent.

Article I, Section 2 of the Utah State Constitution.

All political power is inherent in the people;

Article VI, Section 1 of the Utah State Constitution.

(1) The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in:
(a) a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).
(2) (a) (i) The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
(A) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute;

State legislators constantly use a false example to make their cause seem just. "California is bad! If we make laws by initiative, we will end up liberal and bankrupt like California! Honest!"

It is faulty, ego-driven logic to argue that passing any citizen initiative will turn Utah into California, yet I have seen this argument both in print and in person from legislators. It's silly, shallow electioneering just like sticking a picture of Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama in a commercial about a political opponent and shouting "Ooga booga!" The legislators should represent us to the best of their ability, not protect their power and act like their wisdom is irreplaceable.

The legislature has exercised their procedural authority to make getting the citizens' voice on the ballot via initiative almost impossible. The signatures of 10% of all Utah voters must be gathered, including 10% out of the individual State Senate Districts. Only widespread active advocacy can succeed.

So here's my point tonight. The head folks at both Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries are necessarily putting on a confident face. With only 2 weeks left until the April 15th deadline (which the legislature arbitrarily moved from June until April in retaliation after the citizens voted down the voucher bill...SB 54 sponsored by a Democratic senator and Republican Kevin Garn in the House), I think the threat of not gathering enough signatures is greater than the threat of initiative opponents knowing which districts to target--they'll know after April 15th anyway.

The difficulty does not lie in the message or the bill itself--it lies in apathy. Most voters have still not heard of either initiative. Not enough of those supportive of the concepts of the initiatives have signed them or volunteered to gather more signatures. I can speak from personal knowledge that the signature totals for both petitions in the Utah County Senate Districts are not going to pass unless more people volunteer to get one packet worth of 20 signatures immediately.

That's my plea. Get a signature packet from either or better yet, both of the initiative organizations, and get 20 signatures in the next week. There are contact people on both websites who can get you signature packets.

Here are the contact links for Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries.

We need fast, low-hanging fruit from every neighborhood in the Senate Districts of Senator Madsen, Stephenson, Valentine, Dayton, Bramble, and Hinkins. There are a lot of people supportive of putting ethics reform and fair political redistricting on the ballot that just need to be asked. If you are politically interested enough to be reading this blog, then you know 10-20 people among your family, friends, and neighbors that would sign the petitions. The active volunteers have already gotten the signatures of their neighbors and are doing the tough stuff door-to-door or standing outside public places. That is rewarding and effective (In my experience, 75-80% of those who will listen to explanations of the initiatives sign.), but slow. 50 people gathering 20 signatures each from their circle of friends is what is needed.

Utah County residents, please just make one phone call to the contact person for the initiatives. Spend a couple hours in the next two weeks and gather 20 signatures. Determine whether inspiration or guilt is more effective in your particular case, and consider me sending you whichever is required. I think both are merited for these causes to improve our state government.

.

The Utah County Republican Party made $22,000 of anti-healthcare money, but will use it to fight the ethics reform initiative

The Daily Herald reports that the Utah County GOP made more than $22,000 in donations Tuesday night at the local precinct caucuses. There were record numbers of attendees at most precincts (3-4 times the 2008 total in my precinct), and many were attending their first caucus to express their displeasure at the Washington establishment and the passing of the comprehensive Democrat healthcare bill. Utah County Republican Chair,Taylor Oldroyd, affirmed the same reasoning in the article above:

"It's frustration with what's going on in Washington," Oldroyd said. "The health care debate -- perfect timing for the Republican Party."

That passion was readily channeled into record donations. Unfortunately, if any of those new caucus goers pay attention to what their money will be used for, they will find that a large chunk of that money will not be used on anything remotely related to national healthcare, combatting the Democratic Party, or even Bob Bennett's Senate race. Instead, it will be used to promote and print distortions and untruths about the ethics initiative and those gathering signatures to place it on the ballot. The county and state parties have announced that they will expend resources both to persuade petition signers to remove their names (Ironically, their plan is to use fabricated and misinterpreted "secret" effects of the proposal in order to accuse the signature gathers of deceiving those who signed the petition.) and to campaign against the measure if it makes it onto the ballot in November.

So the party leadership and incumbent legislators will channel the enthusiasm and grassroots energy of these new political participants to protect the position of incumbents, to protect their uncapped source of "no strings attached," multi-thousand dollar donations from lobbyists and special interest groups, and to allow Howard Stephenson to continue to earn his living by advancing his clients' causes in the legislature. National politics makes everyone cynical because everyone hears about it. State and county politics make everyone cynical who is paying attention.

Please go read up on the Utahns for Ethical Government voter initiative. Then use the contact information on the site to sign a physical petition and make a difference.

Utah County GOP ethics purity pledge and false info about the LDS church distributed at caucus meetings

The Tribune reported on the plan of the Utah County Republican Party to require their candidates to sign a form stating whether they had signed the Utahns for Ethical Government voter initiative seeking to put an extensive ethics reform law on the ballot in November. I called it weird in my other headline, but I actually am coming to expect stuff like this from leadership and incumbents protecting their turf. The whole opposition campaign is being approached dishonestly. I hope some brave soul or two will be brave enough to fill out the form and proudly own at the county convention that they signed the ethics initiative as well as the Fair Boundaries initiative. In the article, I underlined the responses of the Republican Party Chairs from Davis and Weber Counties where they explain the initiative is not “against the Republican Party” or a litmus test in their conventions as signatures were even being gather at the caucus meetings.

The Utah County Republican Party anti-ethics offensive extended to distributing a misleading flyer to every single caucus attendee in the valley. It contained similar charges and the web address to this site full of misrepresentations and outright lies about the effects of the ethics initiative, but the caucus flyer was significantly toned down in terms of language. The first false charge, that local leaders of the LDS church will be prevented from running for political office, was couched in the caucus flyer in terms of “some even say it reaches so far as to limit LDS leaders from serving.” The website comes right out and claims the initiative will prevent LDS leaders from running for office. No local LDS leaders such as bishops, stake presidencies, Relief Society presidents, etc. have anything to do with controlling the supposed paid lobbyists employed by the LDS church. Various legislators were offended at times this session when others “misinterpreted” or twisted the words or provisions of their bills to mean things other than what was intended. The incumbent protection crew is now trying to twist the definitions of the initiative to claim horrible collateral damage to freedom and justice. (I will post more in a few days about other false claims made by the website.) It is ironic that they are using untruthful techniques to undermine a bill that they claim will lead to “Those who purposefully make fictitious or groundless complaints…”

The anti-Mormon claim is an intentional ramping up of the GOP’s strategy to persuade people to remove their names from the initiative. They hit the caucus attendees—many of whom were first time attendees this year who knew nothing about the current initiatives or history of ethics reform battles in the legislature—with an opening salvo. If the initiative gathers enough signatures by April 15th, the county and state GOP will be contacting those who signed, especially registered Republicans, and telling them they were tricked by those dishonest volunteer signature gatherers who didn’t tell them that this was an anti-Mormon attempt to allow liberals to take over the legislature. They will use the time granted by the unequal bill, SB 275, allowing them to run a signature removal campaign for one extra month after the required signatures are due to the county clerks.

The Utah legislative leadership and some Republican Party leadership are using dishonest arguments to derail a citizen initiative on ethics. In the last two years, they moved the signature gathering deadline from June 1st to April 15th claiming the clerks were overburdened, then showed that to be a false rationale by giving citizen initiative opponents (naturally the establishment since citizen initiatives are attempting to bypass the legislature) an extra month to try and convince initiative signers to have their signature removed. But, please… please… think of the poor clerks. Read the bills, read the legislature’s claims, read the websites of the initiatives themselves, and I think you will see the sad irony as the legislature proves its need for outside action through its own campaign to resist far-reaching ethics reform.

Tribune article on weird Utah County Republican plan to screen out candidates who support the ethics initiative

.
.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14752201

Utah County GOP wants candidates to declare stand on ethics initiative
Politics » Initiative official says, 'Ethics reform is a nonpartisan issue.'

By Cathy McKitrick

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 03/24/2010 08:17:44 PM MDT

Utah County Republican leaders will ask each of their party candidates next week to fill out a form disclosing whether they signed petitions for a pending ethics reform initiative in what some view as an odd type of pre-election screening.

The expansive initiative, sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government, served as the goad for lawmakers to pass several bills in the recent 45-day session, including legislation to form the state's first independent ethics commission.

But GOP legislators and the state Republican Party criticize the initiative as over-reaching and poorly drafted.

"We've already decided that as a party we oppose the [UEG] initiative," said Utah County GOP Chairman Taylor Oldroyd. "So we're asking candidates to declare one way or the other."

The candidate form also asks candidates to pledge to support only Republicans running for office and, if elected, to maintain the highest standards of honesty, morality and integrity.

After a question about which, if any, parts of the party platform the hopeful disagrees with, the form inquires whether the candidate is a supporter of the ethics initiative.

The information will be tabulated in time for the county's April 24 convention, where delegates will cast votes to thin races with multiple contenders.

"There's a few that have a different opinion and that's fine," Oldroyd said. "We just feel the voters and delegates need to know."

So what if a candidate skips the declaration?

"There is no punishment for not signing, but delegates and voters may not view this favorably," Oldroyd said in an e-mail to The Salt Lake Tribune .

Dixie Huefner, UEG's communication director, puzzled over Utah County GOP's new requirement.

"It seems to be inconsistent with Republican values of freedom, choice and liberty," Huefner said. "I don't understand the narrowness of their view since ethics reform is a nonpartisan issue."

In Davis County -- as heavily Republican as Utah County -- candidates will not have to divulge their support or opposition to the ethics initiative.

"We just require that they register as a Republican," said Davis County GOP Chairwoman Shirley Bouwhuis.

"The initiative hasn't even come up here," Bouwhuis added. "Unless it's something against the Republican Party, we believe in freedom of choice."

Weber County Republicans also make no such inquiry of candidates.

"Absolutely not," said Weber GOP Chairman Matt Bell, noting that someone was gathering initiative signatures at his crowded caucus meeting Tuesday night.

"That's Utah County," Bell said. "They can do whatever they want."

cmckitrick@sltrib.com

Ethics legislation versus initiative

The citizens' initiative would create an independent ethics commission that holds an open hearing on any non-frivolous complaint. The Legislature's new panel conducts the entire screening process behind closed doors.

The initiative allows any three individuals to file an ethics complaint against a lawmaker. The new law allows two residents to lodge a complaint, but at least one must have firsthand knowledge of the alleged violation.

The initiative contains campaign caps. Utah is now one of four states lacking such limits.

Utah County GOP pushing for new speaker?

If you haven't seen the debate raging about the ridiculous standing ovation for Kevin Garn orchestrated by Dave Clark, here are some refreshers:

Standard Examiner

Daily Herald

And Holly on the Hill, whom I usually feel just repeats the party line, really hit the nail on the head in some great posts about Dave Clark and the legislature as a whole.
Here, here, and here.

As always, politics quickly resume after crisis. Brad Dee has already made it know he wants to be majority leader, but that's not the biggest political prize up for grabs. Dave Clark really screwed up with the "We want you back" and floating the idea for a couple days of Garn continuing in office. I think his being forced out as Speaker of the House is a real possibility when the House caucus huddles tonight and assigns blame.


Revealing quotes from this last link:

“I’m talking to folks afterward. They didn’t know [that she was underage]. They didn’t know they were naked, that he was married,” Rep. John Dougall, R-Highland, said of information learned later about Garn’s history. “When the Speaker stands up, you know, you stand up. That’s habit. Then it’s ‘What are we doing?’ ”

He said allowing the admission with a room full of people was manipulative.

“I feel like we were used as a prop to lend credence to the admission,” Dougall said.

I agree they were used as a prop, but that culture of unswerving support and good ol' boy network is why we need ethics reform--not necessarily this one instance of Garn's misdeeds.

“People need to understand the culture. We clap a lot,” said Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, who is also unhappy about the confession on the floor but was among the first to stand and applaud.

“You’ve got two minutes to process the information,” he said. “It shouldn’t have been done on the floor. I think everyone is in agreement with that. We were put in an awkward situation. What were we supposed to do?”

How about show some of that same supposed spine you trumpeted in your "principled" crusade against the federal government Mr. Founding-Member-of-the-Patrick-Henry-Caucus? You'll attack nationally, but you will support a fellow state leader to the death, until your own conservative blogger, Holly Richardson, slaps you in the face and makes you realize this may affect your secure Republican position.

To quote the conclusion of my last post detailing the lack of principled governance about a specific bill:

I think this perspective helps better understand Dave Clark's comments about wanting Kevin Garn "back with us" and the standing ovation he received. Too many legislators instinctively and instantly rally to their own little club and defend it against all outsiders. Sign the voter initiatives for Fair Boundaries and ethics reform and take a larger step toward limiting conflicts of interest and money in our state legislature.

I sense in Holly's post and the Daily Herald editorial a push for some Utah County leadership and the Utah County legislators are being vocal about Clark embarrassing them and the legislature as a whole. Is the campaign on for a Utah County speaker?

Greg Hughes and Rebecca Lockhart were the most common Speaker Pro Tem's I saw during the session, but Hughes is more damaged than most by the Garn confession because he was one of the first teary huggers on the House floor. Brad Dee and Lockhart are the next two in line in House GOP leadership. Will Dee keep his claim staked on House Majority Leader, or eye the bigger prize? The Utah County contingent appear to be making a push for Lockhart or Dougall for speaker.

Think about that, and then go sign the ethics initiative petition.

Part 4 of Utah County ethics hearing: Q & A, contention, the discussions afterward, and some initial thoughts

Guy whose name I didn’t catch – Prefaces comment saying either Karl Snow or John Valentine can answer the question. We have current per diem for legislative work. When did lobbyist gifts enter the picture and become allowed? (Neither Snow nor Valentine really answered the question which is actually kind of interesting. Was there ever a rule against accepting gifts from special interests? Bribery has existed as long as the union—the position of paid lobbyist is fairly new…40-50 yrs maybe? Was permission ever expressly granted for legislators to accept gifts, or was it always assumed they could accept whatever they wanted for their “sacrifice” and restrictions are the new trend?) (Also, the crowd in back got restless here and there was a lot going on in the room, so I think I missed some of what Snow said.) Karl Snow - Lobbyists have a special interest interest. They are not just “being kind” when they throw around all that money. (Here the shrill lady mentioned in the last post bellows piercingly, ”Hold the mike closer!” when she should have yelled at her friends in the back to shut up.) They expect a return on that investment. I’d like to invite the legislators to reply as well. (Rumble, rumble from the talking crowd at the back. They got extra mad whenever gifts came up.)

Ned Hill asks Senator Valentine to come up, but it is not 100% clear what is going on for a moment because all the questions until now have been from the cards and regular crowd members and the legislative bunch in back are talking. As Valentine comes forward, John Talcott rudely shouts,”Who are you?” Ned Hill replies with Senator’s name and position. Talcott grumbles about special treatment. John Valentine – (Valentine’s whole little speech and tone were condescending and thus extremely unconvincing. The “pity the poor legislator” tact comes off hollow.) This is to punish legislators. Before we can regulate this, we have to determine what is a gift. This initiative says refreshments of negligible value are allowed (described earlier as carrot sticks by Janet Jensen), so then meals are OK. (What?! This kind of BS lawyer-speak logical leap is frustrating. Claiming to not know the difference between brownies at the back table of a conference and Reagan Signs specifically taking you and your wife out for $90+ meals makes us dislike and not trust you Senator. Can’t you see that?) If meals are not a gift, then I have never accepted a gift. (This statement was met with disbelief and I think someone in the crowd guffawed.) We're on trial. If these same laws were applied to school districts and cities, there would be a huge uproar. ( A burst of clapping came from the legislator buddies in back as Valentine finished his speech. And again, what is Valentine talking about? Seriously. He thinks the public would have an uproar if state school members and city council members were banned from accepting campaign donations from corporations and unions, banned from working as a registered lobbyist simultaneously while “serving” as an elected official, banned from using their campaign money for personal use, or required to state a reason for amending the campaign financial disclosures after the election is over? PLEASE pass that law as long as you apply it to state legislators as well. Please try and talk to someone who is not a political insider about what makes them trust or distrust their government. Talk about clueless from a man who has $187,000 in mostly special interest donations stockpiled for a run for governor.)

Karl Snow quickly took the microphone for a final rebuttal, which was quite elegant and I have butchered horribly in my summary – John, the legislature has allowed themselves to be put on trial…because of their actions. (Much of the seated crowd applauded that statement loudly for the first time in response to the legislative crony applause a moment before.)

Ned Hill - I'm on corporate boards. We must detail all conflicts and be very clear about them. We are asking them to live the standards of most boards of directors.

Brad Agle – (The Trib coverage of the hearing focused on his remarks) I moved here 2 months ago from Pennsylvania where I was a Professor of Ethics. Now I’ve joined the faculty at BYU. The legislature is on trial because they must be accountable. They must be accountable to the people. Pennsylvania needs ethics reform too. (This brought forced laughter from the initiative advocates seated in front. Once again, whatever situation in Pennsylvania Agle was referring to, the laughter is not persuasive of your point.) The initiative creating a code of conduct implies there is not one currently? Is there a code of conduct? Janet Jensen – There are some disclosure requirements, but the deadlines are often late and the reporting confusing. We are one of only 6 states with no code of conduct. One of the others is Illinois, like under Governor Blagojevitch.

Janet Jensen - I’ve had to fill out a 50 pg. disclosure for jobs listing work, credit card, property, debt, what your spouse owns, etc. This applies for congress members, stocks and bonds they own. Their staffs must do it too. This initiative is mild as ethics and disclosure go.

Ned Hill - Many politicians are doing a great job and this will not impact them. It draws bright lines and boundaries.

Jim Greer - Once the commission recommendation is made, is there any law that the legislature has to follow the recommendations? Janet Jensen – We hope this will go a long way by making the decision public. Public scrutiny and accountability will encourage the legislature to do something with the recommendations and not ignore them. There is no law requiring them to follow the recommendations.

Angryish lady – I read the initiative. She turns to the crowd and asks “How many in here have read it?” About half of those seated raised their hands. "Oh." (It was obvious that she was expecting the number to be low so she could rail on her point about the bad details that overreach that no one reads. Many opposing the initiative made that point and I’ve read it a couple times. They will be using that argument extensively apparently.) This initiative is not good. There are inconsistencies. It gives a small group of people power. Speaking of the qualifications—you can't have current elected office, be party people, be a candidate, etc. Some of people on the initiative panel are running for office. They don't meet their own qualifications. (There was shouting from the crowd here that no, there were no candidates on the initiative team. The lady responded there was one lady in Davis District. No again, from either the crowd or presenters. One of the legislators yelled out that Cheryl Petersen ran as a Democrat which seemed to be the truth of the matter. Lots of comments come from the crowd at this point, telling the legislative group to be quiet. People for and against the initiative yelled out comments. I wrote down “accusations,” but I can’t remember who accused who of what.)

I missed here if someone asked a question or if Jensen was responding to something said by the legislators in back. Janet Jensen- Nothing is made a crime. The commission just finds the facts. (From the back, a female snorted “A felony.” A recommendation for felony criminal charges is one of the possible outcomes of the commission hearings.) “I'll get to that,” Jensen replied. Due process in our US Constitution only applies to life interest or property. Courts have held that no person has property interest in elected office. (Unfortunately, that’s not exactly true when a legislator can accept unlimited campaign donations from parties with legislation before the body, and then cash out that campaign fund as income at his/her discretion.) Legislators can't sue over loss of office. So the same due process rules do not apply. Public office is just a privilege. Courts around the nation, including Utah, have ruled this. (This was another of Jensen’s vague pronouncements where citing some specific precedents would have been much more credible.) There is no right to due process for a violation of ethics rules. None. The initiative writers, however, bent over backwards to give due process twice. There is the commission hearing w/ a lawyer paid for by the state. The legislators cannot be represented by legislative staff lawyers because they are conflicted. Because the legislators are their boss and can hire or fire them. (Not fire them as a client, but fire them from their “firm,” in this case the state.) The accused legislator can get a lawyer, subpoena evidence and witnesses, provide witnesses, etc. The ethics commission then issues findings and refers them to the legislature. The legislature can do what it wants with the recommendations. This is another opportunity for due process. It's not a conviction of crime, so the burden of proof is much lower. We are so proud that the state is run like a business; this is like business. Once prima facie evidence is provided, the legislator must provide their own proof of their innocence. (I saw this comparison written somewhere else, but I cannot remember where. It said this investigative process is common in business because the rule-breaker often is the only one with access to the necessary evidence, thus making it virtually impossible to prove any indiscretions by normal means. I’d be interested in the knowledge of anyone with experience on corporate boards. Do investigations and charges of breaking company policies or ethics really work the way the initiative proponents assert?)

Karl Snow - Due process is to face your accuser, call witnesses, etc. All of that is provided. The five initiative signers as back-up are there to motivate the leaders to agree on names. The legislature will do it. The legislature can and will change this law once it passes. They will tweak it how they want. They will have to. For instance, we will die. (Correcting Jensen’s earlier mistake that the replacement of those 5 signers is in the bill.)

Man in the back on window ledge yells out - Do you have term limits or is your role indefinite? Karl Snow prevaricates a little – No. The legislature will change that.
Bramble shouts out—Don't you and 12 others have the lifetime right to intervene? (This is when Bramble was shouted down by Talcott and others about the process, saying that he had to follow the rules.) Ned Hill – You can fill out a card if you would like. Bramble – “I want an honest answer!” (More angry crowd resistance to Bramble quiets him.)

College student who was a legislative intern - Do you have cost concerns about commission establishing own rules? (I may not have written that down completely right…) Janet Jensen replied pompously - “Absolutely no concerns.” We are the legislative branch in this case, and we can establish a commission w/ power to make its own rules. Our legislative power is sacrosanct. The legislature can make its own rules too.

little old lady named Mary - How can I get signatures? Have any of these ideas been used by any of the other 40 states who have more ethics rules than Utah? Janet Jensen – It is very similar to many, many other states’ commissions. (I was really frustrated with this answer. If you’re presenting in favor of a large proposal you claim is the result of extensive study, come prepared knowing which specific parts are similar to which other states. Or if you’ve created something original because of the unique local concerns in Utah, then be honest about it. Don’t leave us in the dark making suppositions.)

Another older lady started out very nicely- I respectfully disagree w/ Janet. This bill is overkill. I'm nervous to talk up here. (This statement garnered sympathetic noises from the crowd, but was almost immediately drowned out by the loud lady in the back yelling for her to speak up.) She reads from pgs. 15 and 16 of the initiative text, explaining that the legislature cannot participate in the quiet investigative period. They have no right to intervene. It’s not fair. I exhort all here to read the bill like I did.

(Janet Jensen’s next comment came out oily again, but I think it was a fair thought—I think the legislative opposition is purposely confusing the quiet informal investigative period and the full commission hearings as well.) Janet Jensen - I think it's confusing. In mid-step as she walks down the aisle, the lady who asked the question yells with rage “I can read!” Jensen – Well, don't mess with the mom of a lawyer. (This got a few chuckles, went over my head, and did not assuage the lady at all.) The time when the legislator cannot formally participate is only during the quiet period. Then they have all rights. Complainants cannot participate in an ethics hearing at ALL currently. They can’t even be in the room or present documentation of their charge. The current hearings give the charge virtually no chance without the research and perspective of the complainants. After the full hearing of the commission, and then possibly a full hearing by the legislature, this is maybe more due process than anyone would want. Her concern is about one little part of the process. The lady was standing at the back of the room and her face contorted with cranky rage as she then shouted “No! It’s about the whole initiative!” (Ignoring the fact that her comment had been about one small part of the process. This whole exchange was weird and kind of comical. This very nice, grandmotherly looking lady started her comment out so sweetly and nervously, showed more emotion at the end as she railed on the initiative’s unfairness, and then seriously channeled a stereotypical cranky yard lady when she shouted out during Jensen’s reply. She was in the hallway afterward being interviewed by the BYU camera girl who filmed the debate. Who knows where that can be viewed?)

D. Lynn Sorenson – I didn't know that being the mom of an attorney carried weight. I am too. (She worded that better than I am conveying and garnered laughs after the last speaker.) I thank the committee for forming and working on this initiative. To Craig Dennis – What about other commissions? You seem to have experience on other political or corporate commissions. Please point to a state where the ethics commission is working well. For those that think this seems too new, ore seems scary or weird, please give us an example.

Craig Dennis – I am not prepared; I didn't do research. Janet, can you help? Janet - I can't think of any right off the top of my head. Ummmm…Colorado hs a good commission. Washington has one. [She sounded very unprepared here] If you want info, go look at NCSL website for research. There is a bundle of info if you want to get into this. (Lame non-answer. Just say you don’t know.)

Margaret Stolk – I have concerns. How much money be paid to lawyers for each complaint filed by any three people? Can the accuser be from New York? Can the charge be frivolous? What are the salaries of the 20 commissioners? (Crowd yells about there being only 5 commissioners. After a moment, she continues.) In my humble opinion, this will start an unaccountable 4th branch of government unaccountable to the Attorney General, courts, or anyone else.

Janet Jensen – The commissioners don't make money. [I roll my eyes as she says this. The legislator crowd in back yells “They get per diem!”] They don’t get money. They get what legislators make per diem for meetings, etc. [The legislators yell “Then legislators make no money!”] I think the 472,000 dollars is a bargain compared to overall state expenditures. This commission is part of the legislative branch because of the state constitution. It’s part of the legislative branch recommending discipline or censure. Judges and judicial review do not apply to sanctions of the legislative branch to itself. Our first thought was that no one should get attorney fees. Last year, a legislator retained an expensive lawyer for a hearing under the current process, then lobbyists and special interests donated money to pay for his (Greg Hughes’) attorney fees. We don't want that. So we bend over backwards for good process and give them money for a lawyer. (There was something about Jensen claiming you can retain a good lawyer for $80-$90 an hour, but I didn’t get it down specifically enough.) The complainants do not get money to pay lawyers. (The “persuasive” legislative laughter burst from the back at this.) Tell your legislators to amend and change that if you want. (People in back yell out that attorney fees run $200 or more an hour. That this is not necessary. The lawyer fund is open and can run whatever a legislator decides to pay. It will bankrupt the government…This was a long, loud stretch.)
Karl Snow - Frivolous charges are deposed of in quiet period before lawyers get involved. (The loud lady in back yells “Speak closer to the mic!” again.)

Erika - When does the right to the paid attorney kick in? (I didn’t write down if this reply was Jensen or Snow) The executive director and staff vet the claim. There are no lawyer fees at this point. The legislator can participate informally, so can the complainants. If the executive director finds there is a basis in law or fact, he/she then refers the matter to the entire commission. At that point, the accused legislator can spend provided money on a lawyer. (Another older gentleman who had yelled out a lot, exited the room here.)

Adrielle Harrion - Any effort to push ethical standards high is good. (Again loud laughter from the back.] This initiative may push the legislators to better their ethical rules. (A loud incredulous gasp from behind me. Needless to say, the vaudevillian antics were wearing thin. Especially since this lady was not speaking in favor of the initiative.) I have read the bill and have many concerns however. Karl Snow said the selection of the 20 commissioner candidates will not fall to him and the other 4 signatories. I don't think that's true. Some of the legislative leadership may be aligned w/ signatories, and may hold out. This is a real problem with the provision that commissioner selection could fall to the 5 signatories. It could lead to unethical unwillingness to approve good people by some legislative leadership.

Ned Hill -They don't serve themselves, just appoint others to candidate pool.

Karl Snow - This is the hard part. The legislature can change this. We want to encourage agreement between the 4 legislative leaders. I don't think it is that difficult. (I didn’t note this well, but Snow repeated several times here that the legislature will have to tweak and change some of these procedures if the initiative passes. I appreciate his honesty, but it does make the supporters seem underprepared. At the same time, Snow explained that this was a difficult question of how to motivate compliance and agreement by the legislative leaders in selecting candidates for the commission. If the legislature could just not select anyone and hold up the process, what good would it do?) We are spending too much time on this rather than the main point of the bill.

Ned Hill – They don’t want the process to be stalled. They want to hurry to an agreement on names. They don't serve on the commission themselves.

Jane Lawson – I’d like to thank the commission. Maybe I'm naive, but who would file a complaint if they have to pay their own lawyer fees? Is this a loophole on who will be able to complain—only rich? Janet Jensen - In the first drafts, everyone got attorney fees (As well as a version where no one got attorney fees that she mentioned above. It makes me worry about which versions went out for review by scholars/lawyers), but we were worried about paying for lawyers for all those who might complain…for whackjobs. I hope that citizens care enough about corruption, bribery, aggrandizement, to complain. It is scary. The cost will disincentivize some from complaining. They will have to think long and hard. It’s good thing if people will think long and hard. We did the best we could to make this fair.

Michael - Thanks those who drafted this. Ethics is important. However, even though he is masters student still learning, reading the language reveals this challenges ability o citizens to have control. The language is derogatory and gives too much power to the commission. Snow said this wouldn't create power. Be careful, this is giving another group power. I still consider this a draft. It needs to be edited. Look at the power given. The intentions are good, but this is a malicious direction. Is there a way to address these issues without forming a separate commission? (The legislators clapped loudly at his speech).

Janet Jensen - Wow. We had a committee of the best and brightest lawyers who put in 100's of hours doing drafting and research; it has been vetted by scholars and deans of law schools. The initiative can be confusing because it is written in the language of law and that's confusing to non-lawyers. (That was a dumb comment. I think Jensen couldn’t take the criticism at this point and was just being stuck-up. Though I agreed with her next comment.) The legislature could have passed meaningful ethics laws for 100 years and they haven’t done anything. (Lorie Fowlke, who I usually consider fairly rational and well-spoken for a Utah County legislator yells out “That is not true!”) My notes are garbled here, but Jensen finishes with something to the effect of “Draft a better initiative if you want.” (The legislative crowd in back was grumbling and talking all through this last part.)

Ned Hill stood and said they would only take one more question. Legislative crowd yelled that the meeting went until nine. Hill said that library staff had informed them they had to be out of the room by nine. (This really isn’t enough time given the crowd and involvement. The last name is drawn from the pile and it is…Claralyn Hill. Ned’s wife, Democratic candidate for House last year, and center of the controversy where legislators demanded a private apology of Claralyn before Ned would be considered as president of UVU. Hmmmm… He seemed surprised, but who knows.)

Claralyn Hill – (Given the very recent history I just described, of the legislators taking her campaign stance in favor of ethics reform so personally that they demanded apologies months after the fact, she may not have been the best person to articulate her message.) Legislators, don't take this personally. This is not a personal dig. The legislators are taking this personally. It is the right thing to do. It is a trend in corporations. (The incredulous laughter from the back returns.) When you say legislators cannot be drafted into corporate boards, does that include non-profits? And how will you know if the reason they are selected is just because they are a member of the legislature?

Janet Jensen - Yes, this applies to non-profits as well. Holding the position cannot make money for self. It applies only to boards that pay, whether for profit or non-profit company. (My notes here were disjointed again. I need to reread that portion of the initiative).

The hearing ended and people exited or sat around in circles and talked.

The legislators that I saw during the hearing were Senators Curt Bramble and John Valentine, and House Representatives Lorie Fowlke, Craig Frank, Becky Lockhart, and Chris Herrod. I also saw Stan Lockhart, former head of the state Republican Party, and Taylor Oldroyd, new chairman of the Utah County Republican Party. I saw Brad Daw afterwards. Don Jarvis told some that every Utah County legislator was there…I just didn’t see/recognize them all myself.

I tried to walk around and listen a little to conversations. I talked to a couple people. Chris Herrod had a big smile on his face and was schmoozing the lady named Mary who had asked how she could help gather signatures and about other states’ commissions. He told her and her friend that he’d have to quit the legislature if this initiative passed and so would lots of others. It would set up 2 classes of legislators—the teachers and the other employees. (As far as I know, this was the first time I had heard teachers brought up all night.) The teachers run conflict of interest bills all the time. They just passed 2 or 3 extra days of special ed. teacher prep time in the summer. (I want to return to this in another post. The true feelings of the legislators in conversation. Just think of the corporate subsidy of your choice and then the bill he just mentioned.)

I got the feeling the legislative opposition is going to focus on the commission as evil, unconstitutional power grab. This has been borne out in commentary so far and by the pressure on Lt. Governor, Greg Bell, not to certify the petitions on constitutional grounds. The legislators were mad the meeting ended early and wanted more open forum and debate. I actually agree with that, although I’ll post later on the hypocrisy inherent in that.

I mentioned in a previous post the woman I overheard laughing about the rude lady who passed out the opposition flyers while pretending Don Jarvis gave her permission. This same woman told a couple other people that they needed a plan because “We lost vouchers the last time.” This really got me thinking. Why did she even bring that up? My increased political involvement goes back to vouchers. The ethics hearings last year were about charges of impropriety during the voucher campaign. The election cycles prior to the passing of the voucher bill were textbook illustrations of outside moneyed influence picking off anti-voucher Republicans with tacit agreement from legislative leaders who were also receiving this outside money funneled through Parents for Choice in Education. Rep. Herrod and Sen. Hillyard’s flyers specifically bring teachers into the debate as conflicted whiners trying to unfairly stain the name of just legislators. I think they really see teachers like they see Democrats, one-sided enemies. They have no understanding I think of the motivations of most teachers, the diverse viewpoints among Utah teachers, and how someone like me who holds a basically Republican macro-view of government, can now name specific anti-teacher statements, actions, and bills that make me distrust many of the leading Republican legislators in the state. Anyway, more of that in further posts.

As I walked out, a library security guard turned off many of the lights encouraging the groups to disperse. Curt Bramble and I think Becky Lockhart were with a group in the hall, and I heard someone lividly say something like “And they tell us not to take it personally?!”

I think I truly saw some of the legislators’ perceptions tonight, and they’re living in a perceptual box. They surround themselves with rigid partisans and try to laugh off those who disagree with them as disaffected political losers or evil liberals. I really think most of them don’t get it. They’re convinced that everyone else is seeing things wrong and the problems are just a “perception problem” of the public caused by scheming Democrats aided by the liberal media. They don’t get that politically involved people in the state quickly discover unethical, power-hoarding incidents involving the legislature, and only the relentlessly partisan among those involved people think it’s OK. Independent leaning people on all sides are angry, and the legislators’ “poor me, stop picking on us” routine is not convincing. It comes off as hypocritical rather than righteously indignant, and rank and file Republicans strongly support the intent and purpose of the initiative. The voucher debate involved a lot of technical back and forth, but the reason they were overturned was a large public belief that they were hand-outs to the wealthy that damaged public schools. The technicalities and attempted liberal labeling (czars) will not convince people that the idea of reigning in ethical and financial corruption is bad if this initiative makes it on to the ballot.

I can understand that many of them feel personally accused of lack of integrity, but the argument that “The politicians everywhere else have problems, but not in Utah…just trust us,” is a thin and shabby excuse not to enact regulations to prevent payoffs and increase public transparency.

Part 3 of Utah County ethics initiative hearing: mostly commentary on shouters out and some questions and answers

I’ll start off giving a little bit more of Craig Dennis’ remarks. I was tired and probably didn’t do them justice. As usual, my inserted comments will be in parentheses.

Craig Dennis: Washington and California are even worse at incumbent protection. California has some legislative districts almost as big as congressional districts. (Really?) Our state has very low voter turn out (among lowest 5 state in the nation) and low public engagement. Addressing ethics will raise voter participation. Should the legislature accept gifts or use campaign funds after they leave office? That is inappropriate.

On a business board, we have training and address conflicts. The public demands ethics. Take part. Take this bold step after endless delays.

During Mr. Dennis’ remarks, a lady from the back yelled “Please speak louder!” This was a repeated occurrence for the rest of the night. Now, in one sense this is a perfectly reasonable request. There were 20-30 people standing at the back of the room, including most or all of the Utah County legislators, and the doors were open to the hallway. On the other hand, I could hear everything fine seated from my seat near the back of the room and we were in a conference room on the 3rd floor of the Provo Library with little or no foot traffic out in the hall. The microphone seemed to be working fine. I think the main reason that the crowd in back, and this semi-shrill woman standing near the door in particular, had to keep yelling for the speakers to be louder is because they were the main source of distracting noise in the room. The people standing in back were almost 100% friends and family of the legislators (As I mentioned, the majority of the legislators and those who came with them arrived after the meeting had already begun.), and they were buzzing back and forth arguing points under their breath and talking the entire night. The low roar got worse as Ms. Jensen finished up her presentation and into Mr. Dennis’ remarks, and they quit even trying to be polite during the Question and Answer session. That particular woman, and some others, yelled out for people to speak more loudly every few minutes all during the 2nd hour of the meeting, but would not shut up themselves. I think any person attending that is not part of that group would confirm my account of the noise and interruptions coming from the back.

And while I’m on the topic, the legislative friend group had one other extremely annoying “public meeting strategy." The first time I wrote down when it happened was during the second answer in the Q&A session, but I took specific note of it because it wasn’t the first time it had happened. When the presenters, usually Janet Jensen or Karl Snow, would make a point that the legislators disagreed with, the little group in the back would loudly guffaw, nudge each other, and look around at each other for confirmation of how ridiculous the argument was. You could hear Senator Bramble specifically more than once, but it was widespread in the back. They seemed to think that this was an excellent persuasive tool to convince those in the room that ethics reform was unnecessary. In reality, I think it demonstrated to any seated in the room the arrogance of many in the legislative coterie and their inability to see anything from another point of view.

The Question and Answer Session:

Ned Hill explained that those in the audience had to write their name, county of residence, title, and question on 3 by 5 cards that were passed out in order to speak. He said that gathering the names, county, and title of everyone was a requirement of the Lt. Governor’s office for the public meetings. We were supposed to hand the cards to Don Jarvis who was in the aisle, who then passed them to Ned Hill. Mr. Hill then shuffled the cards and would pick one randomly from the stack in his hands, giving that person 2 minutes to comment or question. At first, the questions were short; as the session went on, people started using more of their 2 minutes trying to convince the crowd of their view, asking a question at the end of their speech. I think Mr. Hill did a good job of randomly choosing—both sides were represented and there was a stretch where 4 or 5 opponents of the initiative in a row were called to speak. (Of course, his wife was called as the last question before the meeting adjourned. I 85% believe that was random.)

Here, I will also note that while Senator Bramble indeed yelled out questions more than once, he was singled out a bit unfairly in the Paul Rolly column last week. There had been one out-of-turn question from the audience during Ms. Jensen’s presentation while she was fiddling with the Powerpoint, and others yelled out questions besides Bramble. The incident Rolly recounts when Bramble was shouted down was the 2nd or 3rd question Bramble had yelled out, but immediately before, another guy seated in the window alcove a few feet from Bramble had yelled out a question and gotten a response. I do, however, think it is fair to ding Bramble for hypocrisy, having watched his debate with RaDene Hatfield last fall. There was one moment in their debate when Bramble made a statement about something the legislature had done well. I can’t remember what it was—something like they had budgeted well—but some true statement of accomplishment. RaDene Hatfield quietly burst out “That’s true,” and nodded. Maybe it wasn’t the perfect behavior while your opponent is speaking, but it was an innocuous statement and it was obvious Hatfield had no intention to expound further. Bramble, however, stopped mid-sentence, glared at Hatfield, and brusquely asked something like “Can I finish? Do you want my time?” He had an icy look and was obviously affronted. The comment was nothing and if Bramble had just continued speaking, no one would have recalled it 30 seconds later. So Bramble has a double-standard. It’s OK to purposely yell out if he disagrees with the content of a meeting, but an insignificant aside while he is speaking is a cause of great offense.

Back to Rolly, it was also obvious that he got his info from only one source. While unquestionably the majority of the interruptions came from the standing crowd in back, there was a fair amount of shouting out by both sides at the questions and answers. Many times, someone would stumble over a fact, both questioners and Janet Jensen while answering—stating the wrong number of people, mixing up the pool of commission candidates and the actual commissioners, leaving out facts about the pay, etc. The mistakes were mostly innocent I believe, but the opposing side in the room would shout out corrections as the person spoke. I was glad the clarifications were made on both sides—they were often things I was thinking too—but it was half rude, half just disorderly. It should be mentioned that the loudest loudmouth of those in favor of the initiative was semi-public figure, John Talcott. I had only ever seen his name online, where he is a very opinionated and brash and recently resorted to insulting the appearance of someone he disagreed with. (He was actually seated only one or two rows in front of that particular blogger, and I hoped they wouldn’t see each other. I didn’t notice any interaction.) He was wearing the nametag we were given and loudly yelled out several times. He would correct people, rudely shouted out when Senator Valentine approached the front of the room by invitation of Ned Hill, and was the loudest voice shouting at Bramble that he had to wait his turn like everybody else. He was not the only one, but he was the loudest, even though he frequently yelled out himself.

On to the questions. I caught many of the names of those who asked questions and will include them. I apologize in advance to anyone whose name I misspelled. I missed other names, and will probably leave off a few names of questioners whom I criticize. I want everyone to get a true picture of the tone of the meeting and questions, but I don’t think every individual signed up for the by-name criticism an elected official receives. (And the questions will necessarily be imperfectly summarized. As I know from experience, it is tough to ask a clear, coherent question in a large public setting, and many of the questioners stumbled, restated, etc. as they asked their questions. I tried to summarize it accurately and think I did a mostly good job.)

Jon Morris from Pleasant Grove – How do you think taking the campaign funds left over at the end of a campaign benefits candidates or increases the number of people wanting to run for office? If they lose the money, what incentive will they have to return and be involved and run again? Janet Jensen – They only forfeit that money after 5 yrs. They can run again anytime within the next 5 years and use the money. Who does the money go to if it’s taken? To the school fund or to the charity of the candidate’s choice.

Blair Bateman – The ethics commission is chosen from 20 names. Who chooses the 20 names and how are the 5 commissioners chosen from those 20? Janet Jensen – The 20 people must be legal citizens, live in utah, be at least 25 years old, demonstrate leadership and service, be capable of neutral decisions even if a member of a party, and cannot have been a lobbyist, politician, or party officer within the last 5 yrs. The 4 leaders of the legislature, the head Republican and Democrat of both the House and the Senate, must choose 20 names unanimously. (This is one of the spots where a speaker messed up and corrections were shouted out. Jensen had trouble naming who those 4 people were and was corrected by people in the crowd. It was disorderly, but helpful because she was being unclear. Many of these corrections didn’t have the rancorous tone some of the other shouted comments did.) The 5 names for the commission are drawn at random from the pool of 20 names agreed on by the legislative leaders. This is an incentive to get good people. Since the legislators can't insure their "toady" will be picked, they will choose honest, trustworthy people. If the legislative leadership cannot agree on candidates, the pool of 20 will be chosen by the 5 people helping organize this initiative called "czars" on that handout you received. (The legislative crowd in back laughed loudly at that.)

Bramble shouted out here “Who are the czars?” Janet Jensen stumbled over the names, but Karl Snow and others helped her out. They are Chase Peterson, Karl Snow, Cassia Dippo, Jordan Tanner, former Republican Utah House Representative, and Carol Petersen, former chief clerk of the Utah House. Some people in back said “They’re the ringleaders of this thing.”

Someone yelled out “What if they die?’ Janet Jensen answered that "Of course there is a replacement mechanism.” I had read the bill and wrote down that I thought that wasn’t true. It isn’t and Karl Snow corrected that statement later in the meeting.

OK, I’m sorry, but I’ve had less time then I thought I would. I will have to extend this once again to another post. The majority of the questions and answers are yet to come.

.

Part 2 of Utah County ethics initiative hearing: a little Karl Snow, a lot of Janet Jensen, and a dash of Craig Dennis

Back for more ethics reform rehash...

First, I want to add a note to my last post. I am glad the rude woman passed out literature opposing the initiative. I had already been contemplating whether to ask the lady in front of me who already had a copy if I could see hers. I think we all need the most information possible and I have constitutional concerns about the bill, though I am still processing much of what I heard last night and haven’t had time to do any research. I just strongly disagree with her interrupting a presentation blatantly and rudely. She could easily have passed out the information at the door after the meeting. Or if she felt it was important that those attending have those arguments during the meeting as the various points were discussed, she should have planned ahead and been there early enough to pass out the papers to the citizens as they arrived at the meeting. I stood at the check-in table for a few moments looking for all the information available and would have snatched up those bullet points. Disagreeing strongly with something and running late aren’t excuses to behave like a jerk.

Here’s the last bit of Karl Snow’s presentation, with some commentary in parentheses and links thrown in by me:

One man had $300,000+ of campaign money in a bank account. He donated liberally to other Republicans and became Speaker of the House for 2 terms. (This was Greg Curtis and Snow did not mention his name, or the fact that he was a brash, combative man, worked during and after holding office to use his influence to make sweetheart deals for his clients, and became a lucrative lobbyist for the tobacco industry among others as soon as he left office, causing even the entrenched GOP enough embarrassment to pass a 1-yr moratorium for departing legislators to work as lobbyists.)

There were over 30 ethics bills introduced, few made it out of committee, and those that passed had very little effect. (The only significant reform was unintentional.)

Is the current system working? The Standard Examiner, the Tribune, and the Deseret News have editorialized in favor of the initiative. That’s 3 major papers. He also mentioned KSL editorializing in favor of the initiative. (But failed to mention the editorial in favor with lukewarm caveats from the Daily Herald, which considering the rightwing tone of that editorial page ever since Obama's candidacy gathered steam last year, is the equivalent of a banner ad in favor of reform anywhere else.

We're widely acknowledged as one of the best managed states. Why should we not also be recognized as one of the most ethical?

Karl Snow then introduced the next presenter, and the person who answered most of the questions about the initiative text and legality as the meeting went on, Janet Jensen . She had a list of qualifications: law school, medical lawyer, some other stuff.

Janet Jensen’s remarks: She helped write the initiative. She said they sent the draft to constitutional law scholars at other universities and law schools to check if the law would pass constitutional muster. (She repeated this point several times during the meeting and included “deans of law schools” later, but never mentioned exactly which draft or which parts of this wide-ranging proposal the drafting group supposedly sent. She also never mentioned any of the actual people or schools they consulted. I’m left wondering if the entire proposal as it currently stands received wide approval.)

Democracy is hard work. The members of Utahns for Ethical Government all volunteer, no one has been paid a dime.

We support elected representatives doing their duty, but when unresponsive, the people act. We have seen that sadly the legislators respond more to people who give them money than ordinary citizens.

The legislature has raised the concern that the state will be overwhelmed by initiatives. (or “run by initiatives like California.” That is a quote from Senator Bramble at a citizen meeting a year ago speaking of just the voucher referendum and high bars for referendums and initiatives.) The concern is overblown.
Oregon has had 349 voter initiatives in its history.
Califonia 331
Utah has had only 20 voter initiatives in the history of the state.
(I’m assuming these numbers reference state-wide referendums, but I don’t know. County or municipal initiatives could be included in those numbers.)

Article 1, Section 1 of Utah State Constitution establishes 2 sources of legislative power—the legislature and with equal power, the people. ( I don’t know if I wrote that wrong or Jensen quoted it wrong--wouldn’t surprise me either way--, but I think she mixed up 2 separate relevant articles. Article 1, Section 2 of the Utah State Constitution refers to all political power being inherent in the people, and Article 6, Section 1 says what she explained, that legislative power is also specifically designated to the “people of the state of Utah” so that “the legal voters of the state of Utah” may “initiate any desired legislation” and pass it by a majority vote, as provided by statute—i.e. the signature requirements and deadlines imposed by the legislature.) This is fascinating to me. Initiatives and referendums are specifically designated in the state constitution.

You can read the whole initiative at www.utahethics.org
It has three basic parts:
Independent Ethics Commission
Legislative Code of Conduct, enforced by legislature
Outlines procedures to implement above

It is a non-partisan, neutral ethics commission. There will be 5 individuals in staggered terms on the commission. (Missed stuff here.) They are not paid. (I wrote in my notes here [per diem, not count?] I had read the bill and knew they receive the per diem. This came up later and showed some lack of preparation by Jensen and hypocrisy by legislators yelling from the back.)

(This is another part where I thought Jensen was fuzzy on specifics.) Jensen was addressing the concerns that any 3 people can bring charges to the ethics commission against a legislator.

What I heard was that under current statute--any one person may launch a criminal complaint against a legislator. Under the new process of complaint if the initiative were to pass, any 3 people could complain to the ethics commission, paying their own legal costs. (I didn’t get this. Currently, only 3 other members of the House or Senate can bring ethics charges to the current ethics committees. I suppose anyone can accuse a legislator of a crime, but that will be the same regardless of whether the initiative passes next year or not. I think she’s comparing apples to oranges. Right now only other legislators can bring ethics complaints to the committee; under the new law, any three people would be able to bring ethics charges to the commission. Anyone can file a criminal complaint against a legislator now; anyone will still be able to file a criminal complaint then. It seems this point is a very weak justification if any.)
The legislator complained of gets his/her legal fees paid. The commission merely makes a recommendation to the legislature. They can do what they want with the recommendation, even ignore it completely.

There will be mandatory ethics training. I am surprised at how many legislators don’t understand when they have a conflict of interest. (This is where Jensen inserted some snide jabs. This sarcastic side was often funny to me since I agreed with the jokes about campaign money, but it also came out in some rougher remarks during the back-and-forths in the Q&A session later. The angry remarks often made Jensen appear less sympathetic and sometimes condescending. My relative thought she just cracked a little under the hostile scrutiny and attention from the legislative buddies in the back as evidenced by her sarcasm increasing toward the end of the session after several opposing questions.) They don't understand ethics. They don’t always understand the law since they are not lawyers. They just don't understand. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.

There will be no more personal use of campaign money allowed. Legislators will not be able to contribute to other campaigns w/ their own campaign funds. They cannot be lobbyists while serving or for 2 years after serving in office. There will be a complete gift ban, except for neglible refreshments at public events.

A legislator can ask for a written opinion or interpretation from the commission on a certain issue. This is commonly done in congress and other federal areas—these “safe harbor” letters make the congressman immune from prosecution if pursuing a course permitted by the commission via this letter. .

Legislators cannot threaten courts—we had a very public case of this recently—or interfere with them or members of state government. The legislature cannot accept donations from corporate, union, or non-profit organizations. Corporations have never been able to donate to federal campaigns. If money remaining in a legislator’s campaign account is not spent in 5 yrs, the money will revert to the school fund or to a non-profit charity of the legislator’s choice. The legislators must disclose conflicts of interest in much more detail than currently allowed. The disclosures will be available to public. File contributions w/ Lt. governor’s office. Legislators cannot be on corporate boards where they were hired just because of their position. (Many of these last points were explained more fully, but this is the gist.)

She then clicked through her powerpoint, repeating most of these points since she had forgotten to click on the applicable slides while speaking.

A guy sitting down asked a question while she fiddled with the powerpoint and she answered. This was before the formal, structured Q&A later. The man asked for clarification of when any ethics charges become public. The Executive Director of the commission vets initial complaints along with staff. This is not public. They don’t do discovery, research, subpoena, anything like that. It is informal inquiry to those involved and the accused is an informal participant. If the Executive Director finds that the charge has any basis, the charge goes before the full commission and is made public. The commission can subpoena documents and witnesses. The legislator is a full participant and can defend his/herself with lawyer of their choice. Cross examination and facing the accusers are part of this process. The hearing(s) of the commission where all this takes place is public. The deliberations of the 5 commissioners to make a decision are not public. However, when they decide, they must release written findings and recommendations which are public. They send these findings and recommendations to the legislature. The legislature can choose to hold their own hearings, debate, to investigate, reject, adopt, modify, etc. They can do whatever they want with the recommendation—it does not legally bind the legislature to a course of action. All these deliberations would be public too. (Though I don’t think that last assertion is correct. I believe the legislature could continue to hold closed hearings like the ethics hearings last year if they chose. The initiative would not bind them to open meetings like the commission would be.)

Craig Dennis, former publisher of Daily Herald, served on numerous editorial boards, member of Provo Rotary Club, on Board of Directors of United Way of Utah County, registered Republican, upstanding, forthright individual, etc. blah blah, then briefly endorsed the initiative. I think he was mainly there for name recognition and endorsement purposes.

Craig Dennis' remarks severely summarized: “Do the right thing and sign the petition.”

That’s all for tonight. I'm tired. I blame any typos on the legislature. I’ll get to the Q&A session which got contentious in a post this weekend.

.

What a difference a day and one county further south make...Part One of a summary of the Utah County ethics initiative hearing

Wow. As I expected, the Utah Valley hearing of the Utahns for Ethical Government Initiative was not the calm affair described in Salt Lake County.

I was surprised as I approached the room at the Provo Library and grabbed a name tag from the table. The room was obviously too small and I think the organizers could and should have planned better to allow more people to attend comfortably.

The room filled by the beginning of the organizer’s presentations and a standing crowd eventually formed at the back. I only saw Craig Frank and Curtis Bramble in the room when the meeting started, but most or all of the Utah County legislators arrived by the end of the meeting. I will complement the Utah County legislators in that they stood and allowed others to take their seats. I’ll criticize their obnoxious behavior, along with some others I perceived as mostly associates of the legislators gathered around them, snorting and yelling out in the back.

I’m going to give a blow-by-blow account of the hearing as well as I can. If it bores you, skim I guess. I think many will be interested in the tense atmosphere that developed and the strange offhand comments that I managed to record. I think a meeting like this is where a blog can really fill a need, not having the space limitations of the newspaper. I think I did a pretty good job of getting a lot down, but I know some of the facts, figures, and quotes will be a little fudged since I was trying to listen and summarize at the same time. I’ll indicate when I am extra unsure of what I heard. I also apologize in advance to anyone whose name I mess up. There were many participants whose name we only heard announced once, but could not see written, and I’m sure I did not get them all.


The meeting opened with Ned Hill welcoming the attendees and introducing Karl Snow, former BYU professor and Republican President of the Utah Senate. Hill emphasized Snow’s service as a Republican every this and that for 30+ years as well as his serving as a Mormon ambassador to the United Nations last decade.

Karl Snow, speaking along with a powerpoint presentation: We've waited 20 years for ethics reform. Why? 40 states have independent ethics commissions of some sort. He mentioned the 4-4 votes on multiple charges in the Hughes bribery hearing last year, all split along party lines. (Actually they just said the votes happened during the hearing of “a legislator.” The presenters did not use the names of any legislators or companies when making their case, but I’ll add those names that were obvious to me.)

The Legislature is controlled by special interest money. 81% of campaign donations come from the contributions of special interests. There are no limits on contributions of any type in Utah—1 of only 6 states w/o campaign contribution limits. Corporations are not allowed to contribute to federal races, but 2.45 million in corporate donations were received in Utah within the last…I missed this because of typing and maybe the lady I will mention just ahead. Since 2008 maybe?

Since 2006, one corporation spent $500,000 contributing to Utah politicians of both parties. This corporation contributed to 80% of sitting legislators and frequently has business before the entire legislature. He didn’t say, but I’m pretty sure he had to be referencing Energy Solutions. In Utah, a politician can become a lobbyist one year after leaving office. (He did not mention that this restriction only became law this summer after dozens and dozens of prominent legislators have gone on to lucrative jobs as lobbyists immediately after service over decades, including Greg Curtis, Mike Dmitrich, and Mark Walker this past session.) A legislator can be a registered lobbyist at the same time as serving in the legislature. (Howard Stephenson would be the most prominent here, although there was at least one other, a Democrat woman in the legislature during the 2008 session.) Snow thinks all of this should change.

[ A lady went down the aisle during these last comments, passing out two documents listing arguments against the initiative with the word “DRAFT” in big red letters on the top, blithely ignoring Karl Snow as she interrupted him and obstructed the view of many as she whispered to each row saying something to the effect of, “These were outside and weren’t passed out.” At least one of the documents was authored by Lyle Hillyard, possibly both. I’ll detail the arguments in a different post, but it pulled one current GOP buzzword out to rally opposition that came up later in the meeting. There were 2 numbered points calling the members of the commission “czars” and the sponsors of the initiative “super czars.” Funny. Don’t link them to Ted Kennedy, instead link it to Van Jones and the national healthcare reform debate. As the woman reached the front, right in front of Snow, blocking everyone’s view, and then turned back down the aisle passing out the papers to the other side, Ned Hill stood and said “I wish you would have asked before passing this out. The woman said something vague about Don Jarvis (who was helping with sign-ups and ushering in the back) telling her that her paper “should probably be in here.” Hill told her that opponents could hold their own meeting and pass out things. Much of the crowd cheered that remark.

The kicker is that I overheard a well-dressed woman who was against the initiative discussing the flyer after the meeting, as discussions broke out in little groups all over the room. She referenced the woman passing out the flyers by name, said she went in without permission, recounted what Ned Hill had said about holding your own meeting, and quoted the flyer-passer-outer as saying “I didn’t know” with an exaggerated shrug, all of this while laughing, strongly implying that the woman had been dishonest while intentionally interrupting. (I can’t remember either name, the woman speaking afterward possibly had the last name of Sherrill.) I’ll have more on this woman’s comments in a different post as well.]

I will have to finish this in a different post or maybe even two. Sorry I didn’t even get to the real presentation or the public questions. I have a crick in my neck from where I fell asleep while sitting at the computer.

Attend a public hearing on the proposed ethics initiative tonight or tomorrow

Below is the schedule of public hearings as cut and paste from the Utahns for Ethical Government website.

Salt Lake County had a hearing last night and I was surprised to see that only one person spoke against the initiative and only 3 House members showed up, all Democrats. The Utah House leadership has encouraged the legislators to attend the hearings and argue that the initiative is flawed and unconstitutional.

Now don't get me wrong--I absolutely think the legislators should participate in these hearings. The discussion would not be as valuable without opposing viewpoints. The lawmakers are the ones directly affected by this proposal, though I believe their actions and public perception of that behavior affects us all. I've learned from attending meetings the last couple of years that the legislators are also usually more polished, practiced, and direct speakers than the average citizen. It can be intimidating to disagree with them in a public setting.

I think the Utah County delegation will show up to the meeting tonight in full force. Read the Executive Summary and the whole initiative, noting that the lion's share of space is given to the many, many rules concerning the independent ethics commission while the excellent campaign money restrictions, lobbyist restrictions, interference with other officials restrictions, etc. are on pgs. 11-14. Then show up at the meeting, ask questions, make your opinion heard, and participate in the hearing closest to you!

(Also note the typo on the Uintah Basin Region meeting which is scheduled for the non-existent date of Wednesday Sep. 24. Find out if the meeting is really tonight, Wednesday Sep. 23, or tomorrow, Thursday, Sep. 24. Tell your friends. We don't want anyone driving from a different county on the wrong day.)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009–7-9 p.m.
Wasatch Front Region (Davis, Morgan, Salt, Tooele, and Weber Counties)
SLC Main Library, 4th floor conference room
210 East 400 South
SLC, UT 84111

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.
Bear River Region (Box Elder, Cache, and Rich Counties)
Cache County Office Building, Multipurpose Room
179 No. Main St.
Logan, UT 84321

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.
Mountain Region (Summit, Utah, and Wasatch Counties)
Provo City Library, Brimhall Room
550 No. University Avenue
Provo, UT 84601

Wednesday, September 23, 2009—6-8 p.m.
Southwest Region (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties)
Washington County Library, St. George Branch, Conference Room B
88 W. 100 South
St. George, Utah 84770

Wednesday, September 24, 2009–7-9 p.m. NEW!
Uintah Basin Region (Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties)
Uintah Basin Applied Technology Center, Multipurpose Room
450 No. 2000 West
Vernal, UT 84078

Thursday, September 24, 2009—7-9 p.m. NEW!
Southeast Region (Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties)
Grand County Council Chambers
125 E. Center St. (w. entrance)
Moab, UT 84532

Tuesday, September 29, 2009—7-9 p.m. (An optional 8th hearing)
Weber County
Mound Fort Middle School, Media Center
1400 Mound Fort Drive
Ogden, UT 84404