But do Utah voters actually care about education funding?

Or ethics reform? Why do we tolerate what we do? I just don’t get it.

I know the public in general cares about education funding. This comes from personal discussion and many, many polls like this one which show that the public, even Republicans by a 15% margin, prefers increased education funding even more than a tax cut. But does it affect how they vote?

Vouchers were soundly defeated in the general election, largely because of their damaging effects on public education funding. But that has not translated into victories for moderate Republican candidates who oppose vouchers (though I have some hope for Becky Edwards in Leg. District 20), and I am sincerely doubting it will lead to a huge influx of Democrats winning legislative races in November either. Even the Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who is running against Jean Hill, the lawyer who easily defeated him in the highly publicized legal showdown over the voucher referendum petition last summer, is completely destroying her in early polling. He’s even claiming to be a “defender” of education funding. Some rightwing posters have been crowing on message boards how this shows that the voucher debacle is forgiven and forgotten and the leftwing teachers trying to “infiltrate” the Republican party have been beaten.

And as for ethics reform, Pignanelli and Webb unfortunately appear to have it right:

“Pignanelli: Voters are practical and decide what is important to them. No candidate has won or lost because of legal lobbyist gifts, campaign contributions or internal party machinations….

Webb: …Despite all the hand-wringing over ethics, coziness with lobbyists, gifts, playing rough with opponents and so forth, Utah has a pretty clean political industry compared to a lot of states. Does anyone have clear evidence of down-and-dirty graft, corruption and vote-selling?”

Webb’s justification of Utah not being as bad as the other states brings me no comfort and seems to me a pretty weasely justification. A friend and I noted that we can only remember Ferrin (passing charter school laws and then building them himself for lots of money—though it somehow hasn’t stuck to his partner, Rep. Morley) and Tilton (nuclear plant speculation and blatantly lying about his involvement at first) getting defeated in convention or primaries semi-recently, and those cases involved very blatant conflicts of interest beyond the normal lobbyist schmoozing, rules fixing, and arm twisting by senior legislators.

So we don’t care unless the legislator is practically writing the check to his business through legislation? Or we support the incumbents for increasing education funding during the years of enormous surpluses as the legislative leadership contends? (see my 5-31 post) We support silly justifications of defeated legislation passed via omnibus bills holding hostage more popular legislation?

What about the voucher referendum inspired the public to come out so firmly against the legislature? And even though I believe less than half of eligible voters actually voted last November, will the passion over that issue ever be duplicated?

I really am looking for opinions here—is the continued support for incumbents support for their records, firm party loyalty (blind or otherwise), apathy, ignorance…? Does the average Utahn even know what the omnibus bill is? And that’s after the recent lawsuit and spurt of editorials…

The critics of the Utah County GOP incumbent protection policies were right, plus Houskeeper stirs the pot in District 60 caucus

Linda Houskeeper ran her campaign almost exclusively on changing the insider policies that keep power concentrated in the hands of a few individuals within the Utah County GOP. The automatic delegates were her main focus in cottage meetings and in her speech Saturday at the House District 60 Caucus. Houskeeper is a sincere, motivated person despite lacking some polish while speaking publically, and almost all of the delegates I spoke with shared at least some of her concerns. However, her focus didn’t always put her in the best of light. It made her seem like a one-issue candidate and came off as negative to a couple delegates I spoke with. Brad Daw is very articulate and down-to-earth and comes off as much more well-versed in the issues. Despite all of that, Brad Daw only garnered 60.4% of the delegate votes Saturday, meaning just one person voting differently would have dropped Daw below the 60% threshold, forcing a primary for the Republican nomination.

[Sidebar into automatic or ex officio delegate opinions. Very few delegates thought the practice was completely justified. Brad Daw said in reply to Houskeeper that he believed that all of the automatic delegates were elected at some time and their votes were justified. (Not an exact quote.) I don’t think most bought that. A very involved, conservative delegate explained that he was OK with the elected party officials of the county and state having automatic votes, but not with former party chairs having lifelong voting positions and the discretionary delegates appointed by the party chairman, currently Marian Monnahan, often in reward for things like organizing a fund-raising event. Others agree with Houskeeper that none of the automatic delegates should be allowed—that being elected in a vote of precinct chairs as party education chair or treasurer does not mean that you represent your precinct and should take a slot from someone else.

I fall more to that final side. I think that higher elected officials should be elected again in their precinct if they want a caucus vote, just like the “little guys” who show up and participate. The grass roots nature of the precinct caucuses should be preserved and voice given to those for whom higher political office is not desirable or feasible. I am not worried about the County GOP Chair or the Lieutenant Governor lacking a voice; the current office holders already have influence and a place at the table. Why should they automatically get two?]

The play-by-play:

Brad Daw gave his speech about his accomplishments and was clear and believable as usual. Linda Houskeeper started her speech making points about her being a normal person and not an insider. She recounted her first cottage meeting when Daw was first running for the legislature and that he answered a question about an issue, “I don’t know. I’ll have to ask the party how they want me to vote on that.” Daw is a nice guy, but if true, that is exactly the kind of insider garbage that people are mad about. There was a lot of whispering among the delegates here as they discussed her charge.

She then proceeded to use some homemade paper cut-outs of runners starting at different places in a race to make her point about automatic delegates. It was a good metaphor, but using cut-outs came off kind of silly. She explained how it wasn’t fair that 10 of 95 delegates in District 60 weren’t elected in their precinct meetings (That’s 10.5% if everyone showed up. Only 86 voted, leaving open the possibility that 11.6% of those votes were from automatic delegates.), and then she really started the minor uproar. She turned to Daw right in the middle of her speech and asked him if he would agree to have the automatic delegates in the room disallowed from voting. Everyone was taken by surprise and some delegates audibly gasped. Daw looked shocked and asked the District Chair, Ivan Keller, if he was permitted to answer her. While he deliberated, a particularly outspoken delegate in the back, former Daw primary opponent Calvin Harper, made a motion that the rest of the delegates vote on whether to include the automatic delegates. (He made a few other comments during the meeting as well.) It was seconded, but Keller ruled that it was out-of-order because the rules had already been voted on in committee earlier in the morning. There were a few minutes of confusion, and Lt. Governor Gary Herbert spoke up telling Houskeeper that he was an automatic delegate and intended to vote. Daw eventually replied that he believed all of the delegates had been elected in some fashion and deserved to vote.

Houskeeper then turned to some of the automatic delegates on the front row and asked them if they would voluntarily recuse their vote. None of them agreed. She made a final point about the delegates and finished. The room buzzed with delegates discussing the happenings and there was some argument about the motion to have the delegates vote on the automatic delegates. (If any of this is slightly out of order, sorry. It was a lot to remember.)

We voted and the box was taken to the central counting area along with watchers from both sides. There was free discussion for 10-15 minutes as we waited for the results. Herbert and Houskeeper apparently know each other personally and Herbert tried to broach the issue with Houskeeper. She said, “We just disagree on this issue Gary,” and turned away. Daw was visibly upset and quietly complained about it being a “cheapshot.” I’m not sure if he was referring to the ask-the-party comment or the attempt to disallow the automatic delegates. An automatic lifetime delegate named Ashby (or something very close to that) repeated the point to Daw that everyone had been elected.

And here’s my point. This Ashby guy was the GOP County Chair sometime in the past. He now is an automatic county (and state? I don’t know. Fill me in anyone?) delegate for the rest of his life. One more former chair and lifetime delegate named Shallenberger also lives in our district. I am not sure if he was there. I already explained how I don’t think that Herbert needs an automatic vote and I am making the fairly confident assumption that all 3 voted for Daw. There were other auto-delegates, but I don’t know their names or positions. What if any of the three I’ve discussed had been replaced by a local person from a precinct? Houskeeper would have achieved a primary if only one person voted differently, or if two of those three weren’t allowed to vote. The same situation happened in Rep. Grover’s District 61 and Rep. Tilton’s District 65 where his challenger reached 60% by two votes. I don’t know what percentage of their districts’ delegates are automatic, and it probably wasn’t the factor in Tilton’s race since he was the incumbent, but who knows? The automatic delegates, instituted in 2000 I believe, obviously played a huge role in these precincts and probably changed the results in favor of the incumbents, Daw and Grover.

Additionally, only 2 of the 7 contested races featured someone reaching 70% (including Sumsion who got 96% with his opponent apparently dropping out), which was the more reasonable standard until the year 2001. Another delegate and my father told me the rule was changed because Senator Orrin Hatch had almost been forced into a primary the year before (He was booed at the state convention my father recalled with a chuckle.) and the party insiders wanted to prevent a repeat. The threshold was lowered to 60% EXPLICITLY to protect incumbents, and this is common knowledge among longtime party participants.

If automatic delegates and the lowered threshold for a primary had not been in place, 5 of the 7 races would be into a primary, allowing the party rank-and-file to decide the outcome. That includes Senator Bramble’s race, despite his assertion that "I think misrepresentations and negative campaigning were proven to once again be an unsuccessful strategy…"
Final note—Lt. Governor Herbert addressed our caucus for a few minutes just before the results came back. He talked a lot about making a difference, but his first point was that the county and state party bylaws should match and that he was going to try to remedy the discrepancies. I, for one, will be watching to see if he keeps that promise. He repeated the good news from Friday that Utah has been rated the best-managed state in the nation. He ended by alluding again to the recent intra-party disagreements. He claimed that he appreciated divergent views in the party, but that he wanted to build consensus.

My first political convention and a few first-person tidbits of interest

“Wow!” was the first thought I had as I approached Orem High on foot after parking a block away. I wish that I had brought my camera. There were hundreds of signs covering every available inch of lawn and fence space. David Leavitt made an extra special effort to completely cover the school’s lawn as well as the fence of the neighboring house (assumably with permission). I really hadn’t understood what a spectacle the convention would be. Very interesting. I grabbed a donut and milk from one of the 3rd district candidate tables out front, had the doors held open for me by young men wearing Leavitt stickers, politely refused a Bramble ID badge lanyard, and then got my ID and info packet from the sign-in table.

It was crowded and interesting. I ran into two old BYU friends. They were both first-time delegates also, but even greener than I was last Fall in terms of political awareness. One found out I was now a teacher as I expressed my disagreements with the Parents for Choice in Education booth nearby. She immediately said “Oh. Then I’m against you. I teach at a charter school.” This surprised and saddened me. I think there are funding issues with charter vs. public schools as well, but I’m not opposed to them and vouchers would rob both. I told her why I was surprised and that I thought the problem was more about elements of the legislature setting us against each other over funding. We both recounted stories of funding snafus when students switch back and forth between the two mid-year. We didn’t have time to get into a good discussion on voucher funding, but we parted each more informed I think. She was frustrated that her charter school in Lehi has trouble filling its spots despite the overcrowding in local schools right now as they wait for the new jr. high and high school to be finished in Saratoga Springs. She said many didn’t like the dress code and other rules. I was surprised that those would be such obstacles in northern Utah County and that any charter school there had open spots.

The Senate Caucus was relatively uneventful as Senator Dayton is not up for re-election. Senator Dayton and other elected officials about broke their arms patting each other on the back, except for Representative Fowlke who stood ignored with a strained look on her face as Rep’s Daw and Grover got to take the microphone and talk about their accomplishments. Lt. Governor Herbert openly joked about running for governor during his spiel.

Lt. Gov. Herbert took one question and Sen. Dayton took a few. The first was a request to explain the I.B. program issues from the session. Sen. Dayton segued into her opposition to NCLB for awhile, but eventually came back to the same bologna she believes from her Eagle Forum sources. She acknowledged some of the positives of the courses which she cannot avoid now, but claimed that the classes are accountable to the U.N rather than local and state school board “if you look at the flowchart.” Here’s the interesting bit: she is preparing a bill for the ’09 session that will require parents to sign an “opt-in” release form for International Baccalaureate saying something to the effect that you are giving up your right to be governed by the school board. C’mon. I really have trouble understanding how intelligent adults believe all this stuff. The IB Board certifies if the IB classes meet the standard to receive their “credits” or stamp of approval. This is independent of the local school boards, but doesn’t take away their “sovereignty.” If the Iowa company decided that a batch of 11th grade Iowa tests from Utah were inappropriately proctored or something, they could rightly refuse to accept those tests as valid for their national data comparisons. This would certainly influence how the state viewed it, but the state would be perfectly able to count the test for their own purposes if they saw fit. These evil U.N. classes from International Baccalaureate are 100% under the jurisdiction of the school boards Senator. They have 100% freedom at the local level to choose curriculum, management, or anything they want. If they don’t follow certain standards of rigor and content required for I.B. certification, then they lose the right to receive a certificate and put a fancy name on their resume. That’s it. Utah would still be free to count those classes for credit, count the students, test the students, discipline them, etc. No one has to fly to Geneva or submit to the North American Union. An “opt-in” bill over a program that has parents clamoring to get in will just look even sillier than Senators Dayton, Stephenson, and Peterson already have.

The House Caucus was very interesting as things got a bit chippy, motions were ruled out-of-order, and Brad Daw avoided a primary by a single vote. This was a major surprise as I think almost no one gave Linda Houskeeper a chance here. I want to write about this separately, so I’ll come back to it.

The convention itself was interesting and fairly fast moving. I was very thankful for the strict time procedures on all of the candidate speeches. The “Reagan Award” was given to Utah County Clerk Bryan Thompson. I mentioned to my friend that I was very surprised by this, but I don’t think I was any more surprised than he was. Thompson didn’t expect the award, mentioned how surprised he was to receive it after the long lines at the Western States Primary Election, and thanked everyone for their forgiveness. It was kind of sweet and kind of weird.

The state office holders spoke. Chris Cannon got a little animated and inadvertently occasioned a funny moment. He said he supported Mitt Romney as the vice presidential pick and told the crowd that he wanted to hear from them if they agreed. In response, he got a quick, but hearty cheer. He then rhetorically asked if any one was opposed and received another fairly loud cheer. Hesitation, nonplussed look, and reply, “Ooooh, I guess there’s some of you.”

The candidate speeches were more varied, had more personality, and were more interesting. First, the Second Congressional District candidates spoke. My first ever attempt at a political joke for a National Junior Honors Society speech in middle school was about Merrill Cook (It was something about his being like the energizer Bunny—going and going—and my best friend and I thought it was hilarious. My mother vetoed the idea upon perusal of the final draft and instead supplied a Dan Quayle joke that was very successful), so I was happy to see him in person for I think the first time in my life. Kenneth Gray explained that we have three centuries worth of oil at $15 dollars a barrel in the shale of Eastern Utah. (Cannon claimed a comparatively pricy $20-$30 a barrel for shale oil.) And I am curious if the gregarious Don Ferguson running for the Second Congressional District is related to Joe N.P.C. Ferguson running for the Third Congressional District.

The Third Congressional District candidates were generally much more issues oriented and bashed the incumbent Republican congressmen more as opposed to the Second District guys who bashed Matheson and the Democratic majority. Joe Ferguson had an informative poster for his N.A.U. warning. I was sitting with another teacher whom I frequently agree with, but he is much more worried about the possibility of the N.A.U. than I am. He bought one of Ferguson’s DVD’s for 5 bucks to see what he has to say. I want to borrow it if I get the time.

Chuck Smith, running for the Republican nomination for governor against Jon Huntsman, started out pretty typically by explaining that “more efficient” government was an oxymoron. He then proceeded to tell us that he had spent the last 8 years devising a plan for less government to “take education out of tax funds altogether” or something like that, which I assume means privatization. We can check his website or literature for full details.

The State Treasurer candidates argued over who could survive longer in the desert with only a protractor and an abacus, and then results were announced. There will be no Republican primaries this year, which I assume is exactly what the party leadership wanted, minus the part about Rep. Tilton’s opponent winning 60% of the vote and securing the nomination. Rep’s Daw and Grover had 60.4% and 60.6% percent of their delegates’ votes respectively. Only 2 of 7 winners in contested legislative races garnered more than 68% of the vote. More on this tomorrow…