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.

A short opinion about the Hughes Lawrence bribery charge

As a few others have said, I think the other 5 charges besides the bribe allegation against Hughes are extremely important and that they’re getting undercovered. I think the bribery charge will probably be dismissed by the Ethics Committee. Not because the huge amounts of out-of-state voucher funding pouring into our legislative and state school board races haven’t been slimy, but because the campaign funding laws are so lax.

As it now stands, every campaign donation, especially large ones, could be considered a bribe. If advocacy group x gives 20,000 dollars to a legislator to spend on whatever they want, it is a bribe and will be prosecuted. However, if advocacy group x gives 20,000 dollars to a legislator’s campaign fund, that’s perfectly legal. It is also perfectly legal for a legislator to pay taxes on that $20,000, and then spend it on whatever they want. Campaign accounts in Utah are 100% legal money laundering tools.

I’m heartened that even Lavarr Webb thinks ethics reform is coming:

By far, the vast majority of Utah political leaders are honest, ethical, upstanding individuals. That’s one reason some of them resent the continual media barrage on ethics reform. Precisely because they are honest, some view stricter ethics guidelines as unnecessary and bothersome. It grates on them that people would think they need strict regulations to keep them honest.

Despite that attitude, ethics reform is likely coming in the 2009 session. With current ethics complaints against legislators, and the media frenzy, the issue simply can no longer be ignored.

But I think the legislators are raging hypocrites on their self-righteous stance about impugning their honesty through ethics reform. Unnecessary and bothersome? I know that’s Webb talking, but that sums up their attitude perfectly. I bet even most legislators would admit that the vast majority of Utah teachers and even school district officials are honest, ethical, upstanding individuals. I know that to be true, but I would be suspicious if lobbyists were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on “gifts” and dinners for education employees each year and even more so if 80% or more of those didn’t have to be identified by name. Or if city lawyers, district judges, or Genola town clerks were accepting huge amounts of money from advocacy groups, and supposedly NOT for services rendered, just because they support the character of the individual...You’re telling me we should trust them. What a bunch of self-serving bologna…

To the legislature:
Ethics reform is not a media “barrage” or “frenzy.” You are not smarter than the 70%+ of your constituents that consistently poll in favor of ethics reform. You have “ignored” the issue for too long while hypocritically attacking presidential candidates and members of congress for similar indiscretions. I truly hope ethics reform becomes a huge issue at the ballot box.

Here’s a final article from the Tribune from April showing some retirement windfalls from both parties:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8835440

Campaign funds: Law lets leaders hold on to dough
Some are calling for more accountability on leftover balances in
lawmakers' coffers
By Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/07/2008 12:35:44 AM MDT


Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, hasn't given much thought to what he's
going to do with the $13,400 he has sitting in his campaign fund.
The retiring lawmaker likely will use some of it for travel
expenses for the rest of his term, which ends Dec. 31. But some may
end up tucked away in his pocket.
"I might support other candidates with it, but it would have to be
somebody I really liked," he said. "I'll probably just keep it and pay
taxes on it."
Under Utah statute, that's perfectly legal. Those running for or
serving in public office can use campaign funds any way they see fit.
It's a practice retiring Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake City, finds
"very unfortunate."
"I plan to plow mine back for the same kind of activity for which
people gave me money," she said, adding that the $7,600 she has left
will go toward other candidates' races.
Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy, is running for state treasurer, and he
will roll over the $18,800 he has left in his state House campaign
account into that race.
"I'm not going to get a boat this time," he joked.
Sandy Peck, executive director of the League of Women Voters, has
testified in support of legislation restricting such funds.
"We just thought that people would be really surprised that there
just were no limits on how that money could be spent," she said.
"When you give money to a candidate, it's for reasons to do with
their offices and services they are going to provide you as a
taxpayer," Peck said. "There should be some accountability and some
restriction on how it gets used."
State Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful, has the most leftover money
of any retiring lawmaker: $31,600. He plans to use most of it for
campaigns and charity.
"Maybe not 100 percent will go for those, but the majority will.
The rest, we'll just go ahead and see," he said. "But as I understand
it, there are no restrictions on how we can use that money."
Rep. Gordon Snow, R-Roosevelt, said he gave one-third of his
$3,000 to a candidate he supports but wouldn't name.
"I don't want to offend the other guys," he said. "Can't a guy
just walk away?"
Rep. LaWanna Shurtliff, D-Ogden, has the least amount left, with
about $1,700. She'll use it for postage and other expenses during the
remainder of her term.
"Many people keep some money in there in case they run again," she said.
That's proven beneficial for LaVar Christensen and Jay Seegmiller.
Christensen left the House in 2006 to run for Congress, but he still
has nearly $13,000 left in his legislative campaign fund, according to
his financial disclosure. Seegmiller has about $8,700 left. Both are
running again this year for legislative seats. Former House Majority
Leader Jeff Alexander has about $62,000 at his disposal, according to
his disclosure. Earlier, he said he does not plan to spend it but
rather save it for his next run at office.
But others who have been retired for several years still have
significant amounts left. Al Mansell, who chose not to run again for
his Senate seat in 2006, still has $45,600 in his account, according
to his disclosure. He could not be reached for comment.
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and his communications director,
Karen Hale, both ran bills when they served in the Legislature to
require candidates to put surplus funds into political campaigns,
nonprofit organizations or the state's general fund.
Hale said it was "unbelievable to see the reactions" of
legislators arguing against passing such a bill.
"They would say 'I really earned this money. I've given up
personal time and sacrificed for this office,' " Hale said. "But
public service is just that: service."
Becker's legislation, which he ran several years, never saw the
light of day in a Legislature hostile to most so-called ethics reform
efforts.
He said he can't speak to legislators' motivations, but did say
many "justified" using the money to take trips with their spouses or
benefit themselves in some way.
"It leaves open the potential for real abuse," he said. "When
people give money for political campaigns . . . those monies are not
intended to be for personal use."
smcfarland@sltrib.com


Leaving happy

Retiring lawmakers and their campaign fund balances
* Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful: $31,657.33
* Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi: $29,972.22
* Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy: $18,836.31
* Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price: $13,434.56
* Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George: $11,632.06
* Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake City: $7,615.73
* Rep. Gordon Snow, R-Roosevelt: $3,140.33
* *Former Rep. Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake City: $2,869.35
* Rep. LaWanna Shurtliff, D-Ogden: $1,686.21
*Current Salt Lake City mayor
Source: Candidate financial disclosures

All the Utah County Republican incumbent protection stuff…blah!

OK, I stayed out of political parties for a long time because I wanted to stay out of all of the inter-party silliness. I was more interested in statewide ethics reform such as prohibiting politicians from using campaign donations for personal use, a gift ban or at least full disclosure, and term limits. These issues are independent of political party and the majority of Utahns from all affiliations support them, with the possible exception of term limits. I recently became a Republican county delegate from my precinct and as such am now indirectly involved in some of the infighting. This will be my quick summary and opinion, with a lot of links to Kip Meacham’s Orem Precinct 27 blog that sums up a lot of the issues very well. I am not in that precinct, but I appreciate his efforts at informing his precinct and working towards fairness and transparency in the countywide elections.

The first problem was the “Fabulous Five” mailing on behalf of some incumbent Republicans. Party leaders say it was an “oversight” and just a late mailing. Bologna guys. You absolutely knew that the mailing at the very least appeared to endorse those candidates and what day it was being mailed. It just makes young party members angry when you break your own rules on not favoring one Republican candidate over another. Especially when the text reads in part:

This year, The Fabulous five will be at the forefront of a battle to retain their seats from others whose agendas call for more government intrusion, higher taxes, and restricted freedoms.

It doesn’t say protect the seat from Democrats or Libertarians, it lumps the Republican challengers, often more moderate than the party inner-circle, along with the evil liberal bogeymen.

The second sad political maneuver was the ridiculous new email policy (Which consists of collecting email addresses and...not allowing people to send emails.) to help the incumbents who already have mailing lists and lots of money saved up for expensive mailings. I first read about this in the Tribune’s Out of Context blog, but Kip Meacham explains everything in more detail and has links to various blogs that also wrote about the controversy. Meacham revealed the hypocrisy in the 11th hour attempt to freeze out challengers when he talked about the training he received in getting everyone’s email address. He continues the discussion here and here.

Chris Cannon sent out an email with in days that all of the county and state delegates received. The party and Cannon claim the emails came from old lists and other legitimate means, but I am proof this is false. I have never previously held any party office or been on any party mailing list and I got Cannon’s email. Admitting the mistake would make me feel a lot better than lying about it.

I was asked for my address and gave it because I wanted to be contacted by the candidates with information so I could fulfill my responsibilities as a delegate. Putting my email was optional; some caucus attendees chose not to put theirs down on the roll. I believe everyone who wrote down their email did so in the expectation that they would be contacted with relevant information. If some candidate chose to spam me, I would take that into account in my voting and could make an individual complaint to the party if I wanted.

I did not give my email address so the party could control access to it and monitor when and how many emails I opened. (Thank you Kip Meacham for researching this!! I haven’t actually seen this system or gotten the multi-candidate emails that Meacham has published in his blog. Is that because our precinct is small or only chairs get the emails?)

Republican County leadership, please step outside yourselves and try to see how this looks from those who aren’t as intimately involved with the inner-workings of the party. It reeks of gamesmanship and favoritism to avoid transparency and the will of the people. The excuses are not convincing except to those who already want to be convinced. I don’t think this is really a partisan issue either, as Democrats do the same in other states. Power corrupts and tends to cause myopic vision. So why not strive to be something different? A party that on a county or state level (I have no faith in either party ever being morally transparent—or maybe moral in general—on a national level…) strives for complete transparency and fairplay. If every candidate, delegate, and party member knew there was a level playing field, it would attract more of the huge number of Utah County residents disillusioned with party power politics. If you allowed access by those candidates who hold views that differ in some respects from the Brambles and the Lockhearts and still win, you have a more legitimate claim to the people’s approval. If more moderate candidates make some inroads (Keith Grover claims his voters fear this [See his answer to the second question]; I would say he fears it. Why not find out the truth?), doesn’t allowing the will of those voters to be heard show your faith in the Constitutional principles you fervently proclaim? Putting up barriers to those who disagree with you, regardless of the will of the people, is not good government.

Are vouchers the litmus test for “good” Republicans? Are teachers liberal? Is Craig Frank trying to eliminate teachers from precinct positions?

I didn’t get to pasting in the comments from a fellow teacher that I discussed in my last post. Here they are and it looks like I made a minor error in my previous summarization. Dan Early interrupted the delegate nominee who was responding to a question from the teacher, not the teacher herself.

Last night, at our Republican caucus meeting, when I asked for clarification about the platform, I had a disturbing experience. I was asking about this specific clause of the Utah Republican platform, " Parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children, and we support their right to choose public, private, or home education. We support incentives to promote competitive excellence."

I wanted to know if Parents' Choice = vouchers. I support the ideals of parents choosing the best educational experience for their children. I don't think vouchers would be as fiscally sound nor the best way to bring that about. I just don't agree with the means (vouchers) and wanted to be assured that our delegates would continuously be open to other ways to accomplish the end. There was a wonderful delegate that politely and considerately stated her stance and was very accepting of my questions.

However, in the middle of her explanation, another man, who had just walked into our meeting, raised his hand. He introduced himself as a Mr. Early and informed us that he had helped write the voucher bill. Then he proceeded to tell me that I was to agree with vouchers because they embody "Parents' Choice for Education," (the ideals of which I support, just not the voucher means). If I don't agree with vouchers, I should just support delegates that do, for the good of the party. If I won't, then I'm just as bad as a liberal Democrat and should register as one. This came from the mouth of an "observer" of our precinct caucus, not even a resident. He's not even supposed to say a word at our meeting.

When I attempted to speak up to clarify my thinking, he interrupted me (a true member of the precinct) and continued to rant about how the Republicans are the last hold out for vouchers. The ACLU and the teachers' unions are trying to destroy Parents' Choice. Unfortunately, the precinct chair saw it was getting heated and tried to move forward. I was cut off, interrupted, and told off by a person who wasn't even a precinct member! That is unacceptable!

I think that debate and dialogue are healthy and necessary to be an educated and informed citizen. Instead of questioning being perceived as an enemy tactic, it should be possible to disagree with aspects of the platform and still maintain good standing in the party.

Among all of the silly things that happened, the last statement is what I want to focus on. This goes along with the last paragraph of my previous post. Does disagreement with a plank of the party platform equate to treason, heresy, or being a “liberal Democrat?” The faction of the Republican party—and yes, it is a faction—that calls Governor Huntsman a liberal is the most active and dominates the leadership much more than their proportional demographics within the party. As I said, much of that is the reward for showing up and being willing to serve, like what happened in my precinct. Political participation is good and that disconnect is something that needs to be remedied by more of the silent, moderate majority stepping up. But it seems like this over-represented right wing of the party is trying to impose their views as the “doctrinal purity” of the party. Those who disagree, from Senator McCain to Governor Huntsman to delegates who dare speak against vouchers, are being labeled “liberals” or RINO’s (Republicans in name only) and told they shouldn’t be members of the party. Why does the Eagle Forum get to decide what a “true Republican” really is? The party is a willing association of individuals who broadly agree on some or many principles, not a clone factory or a church. And the committees that devised the official county platform are certainly not prophets. If a large percentage of people who self-identify with the Republican Party have more moderate views than you, than why would they or delegates who represent them be RINO’s? I believe that moderate voters who generally vote Republican outnumber the right wing.

Besides the comments to others at the caucus meetings, a commenter here yesterday automatically labeled my blog as “liberal.” Why? A discussion of education issues is a “liberal” thing if it doesn’t advocate vouchers? Support of public education DOES NOT equate to support of the “homosexual agenda,” anti-family values, the U.N., universal healthcare, or any other “liberal” cause. That assumption is offensive to a lot of good people beyond just teachers. Teachers are generally representative of the area they live in. In Salt Lake, you will have a higher percentage of teachers with more liberal views as reflected in the general population. In Alpine District, teachers voted for Romney in the same huge percentages as the rest of the valley and they will probably support McCain and Huntsman in November just like the majority of the people in the valley. About 30% probably vote Democratic, as most elections featuring a Republican and a Democrat in the valley end with a Republican victory 60 something % to 30 something %. The difference I see is that teachers are generally not a confrontational bunch. That’s saying nothing of individuals, but in direct contrast to the common portrayal of the evil UEA, most teachers in my experience don’t like to argue and feel a little uncomfortable in political squabbles. Another teacher I spoke with on Wednesday, from the opposite end of the valley in Nebo District, went home from her caucus nearly in tears after she was attacked and told to join the Democratic Party in response to her opinions on vouchers.

In Pleasant Grove, Rep. Craig Frank stopped by the various precincts to shake hands and leave campaign material for distribution. The materials consisted of a stapled packet with a little card about his record on education (basically voting for increased funding in years of surplus--no mention of vouchers), a copy of the Utah County Party Platform with two sentences highlighted, and a sheet of questions to ask candidates for precinct office. The two highlighted sections in the platform were: On the first page, "To promote excellence, consumer choice in education should be encouraged," and at the end of the second page, "All Republican elected officials, candidates and party officers are expected to endorse these principles and agree to be held accountable to the people and the party."

His questionnaire for candidates included a few basic questions such as asking your position on various issues and who you support for State Representative, Congressional Representative, and Governor. But the first few questions, in the context of being stapled to Rep. Frank’s "Record on Education" and a party platform with highlighted sections emphasizing loyalty to vouchers really bother me, especially coming after the refusal to deal with any ethics reform or conflicts of interest in the past legislative session.

Have you ever been affiliated with another Political Party? If yes, which one and how long ago did you become a Republican?

Do you support the Utah County Party Platform? When is the last time you read the Utah County Party Platform? Are there planks of the Platform you don’t support? Which planks?

What is your occupation? Do you believe your occupation is in any way a conflict of interest to your running for Precinct Leadership or as a County or State Delegate?

What or who do you think is on Rep. Frank’s mind? He claims on his blog that the questions are meant to eliminate "one-issue" candidates and ironically that "The caucus system is designed to “flush out” factionists." Hmmmm... Most would argue that the caucus system enables well-organized factions.

Is he really worried about lawyers or municipal garbagemen or Intel employees becoming delegates? (Although the garbagemen may not appreciate his attempted HB 76…) What if someone supports the plank on the first page that says local governments are most aware of the needs of the people, and therefore opposes his push to privatize municipal garbage service and rec. centers approved by local government and voters? Are they “unclean” too? What jobs would represent a “conflict of interest” and which others would be acceptable to Rep. Frank? I think a realtor or property developer as a politician or delegate can do a lot more to directly benefit themselves than any educator trying to influence education policy. I submit that a teacher who has previously remained unaffiliated like myself, or even recently switched over from the “liberal Democrats,” and opposes vouchers is just as representative of the population as Craig Frank or any other Utah County politician.

What do you think? Do the actions of Rep. Frank look like good government and respect for the will of the people? Or do they more closely resemble cheap jury stacking tactics used by an unethical lawyer in order to avoid legitimate, but uncomfortable questions? Are teachers allowed in the Republican Party?

What do you think of registering as a Republican just for the caucus?

While waiting for an hour to vote in the primary, just about everyone around me was filling out the Republican registration form in order to vote for Mitt Romney. The people we talked to mostly intended to vote and then remove their name from Republican rolls in the following weeks. They joked about not wanting all of the fundraising junkmail. I hadn’t thought of before, being unaffiliated.

Then a comment on a post over at Green Jello got me thinking about a decision I’m struggling with—whether to register as a Republican in order to participate in what would be my first neighborhood caucus. Cameron asked what good you can do outside of the two main parties…and he has a point. Is avoiding both parties because of their warts a beneficial, effective decision?

I haven’t struggled with my political identity—I’m independent. I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in my first election at age 18, and wrote my dad’s name in for a position where I disliked all of the candidates. I am not a member of either party and get frustrated with party politics. Locally, I am especially frustrated with state Republican leadership over a variety of issues and county leadership over the float scandal last year. So in one way, I would feel a little dishonest registering as a member of an organization I largely disagree with.

But…local participation is the shot in the arm that politics, and especially the local Republican party needs right now. Both parties have huge disagreements within their ranks and people who vote differently. There are a few Republican representatives that actually care about public education, and my representative is at least more engaged and willing to negotiate than some of the hacks out there. Maybe my opinions could honestly be a part of the party.

And even if I’m too far from whatever a good Republican is, does the principle of public participation trump Republican clannishness when the Republican caucuses often serve as de facto elections? Many believe the whole reason Republicans close their caucuses and primaries is to assure that the smaller right wing faction of the party dominates the more moderate Republican voters who aren’t officially registered with the party (possibly unregistered to avoid constant fundraising requests like those voters I spoke with at the primary…I don’t know how bad it is, never having been registered with a party. My father gets a lot of stuff, but he’s a caucus-going party loyalist).

I know that I could attend the Democratic caucuses, but I don’t really identify with that party either. I’m fairly sure I would support the Democratic candidate in any race in Utah Valley, but I’m unaware of any Democratic races featuring more than one candidate. They did a good job to get so many excellent candidates (But can’t anyone, please, unseat Senator Valentine?!), and I already know they’re 300% better on education than Utah Valley Republicans…so I’m not sure exactly what they’re going to do in their local caucus meeting. Do a cheer, confirm their choice of the only Democrat running for each office, and ask for money?

I would be giddily joyful if a bunch of Democrats won in Utah County in November…but realistically, I’ll be ecstatic if one or two win. Maybe Sandstrom is the most vulnerable after lying through his teeth about education to get elected and sponsoring a few pointless bills? It seems like representing a moderate voice at the Republican caucus could present a greater opportunity to make a difference. (Though Bob beat me to blogging about Green Jello’s post and argues that “One blade of grass is much more significant in a field of five than a field of 50.”) And Stan Lockheart says I am irresponsible if I don't attend a caucus meeting.

So…what do you think? If you’re registered with a party, are you planning to attend a caucus? Any planning on registering Republican just to attend? Any thoughts on whether that is an ethical choice?