It's already the end of the end of the 2008 Utah legislation session, gentle readers, as Capitol Hill reporters Park and Demoss report in this morning's Standard-Examiner story. It seems like only yesterday that the legislature launched its annual 45-day session, which is even now drawing to its usual fevered close. Remember the old folke-ax... "Time flies when we're having fun." And as the final gavel falls at the end of this session a short three days hence, many bills will inevitably die undeliberated, (as is always the circumstance in our part-time legislature), without ever being brought before both legislative chambers for votes.
As per usual, there remain truckloads of legislation still pending in the legislature, including two bills which we've been watching very closely here on Weber County Forum -- both of which involve what we'll gently call "The Powderville Problem." Namely, there is the newly-amended SB-25 (which contains a retroactivity provision), and HB-164 (which does not.)
Alas, it was early last week when we lauded House Representative Froerer for successfully amending SB-25, to include the retroactivity provision. And what is the status of this -- and the other bill now? It's anybody's guess, we guess.
From the State Legislature's website:
HB-164 status
SB-25 status
Perhaps our gentle readers can soon decipher the meaning of the above gibberish provided by the Legislature's site. One thing is certain in the meantime however: neither of these bills has made its way to a vote in either the House or the Senate. And with three days remaining before the final gavel, let's just say we're growing a mite nervous.
Interesting comments from Senator Allen Christensen from today's Std-Ex article:
As for the last three days, Christensen said, the most important thing is to maintain focus and not rush things through. The hectic final hours of last year allowed legislation to get through that has resulted in the Powder Mountain Town incorporation battle, he said.Query: Will history repeat? Will this year's bumbling legislature manage to bring the 2008 session to a final close without ever correcting the problems of last year's HB-466?
“Nobody caught it. I did not realize the unintended consequences, and they were big. Hopefully, we don’t make mistakes like we did on a couple last year.
Just for fun, we've placed a new poll in our right sidebar. Perhaps our readers will let us know what they think about the prospects of the legislature's passage of proper remedial legislation.
Anybody want to comment about this?
9 comments:
I would question, in Mr. Christiansen's account, his claim that what resulted from the rushed passage last year of the Developers' Dream Act were "unintended consequences." I will accept Mr. Crhistiansen's claim that they were unintended for him, since I know of no evidence to the contrary. But they were not in any way unintended for the lobbyist who worked for the developers who slipped it through late in the session.
Well said, Curmudgeon. Certainly the Utah League of Cities and towns lobbyists(who are supposed to be representing current municipalities)knew of the planned consequences of HB 466.
After all, ULCT Lincoln Shurtz and Jodie Hoffman, are both double dipping by representing two seperate Wasatch county developers in their Incorporation petition.
http://ogden-valley.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-encouraging-news-out-of.html
We say vote the bums out! All of them.
It's time to realize people, that the folks who control the levers and dials of the "Utah League of Cities and towns" don't really have the lumpencizens' best interests "at heart." Not at all.
It's time to recognize that this unholy political organization, The Utah league of Cities and Towns, which is well-heeled enough to send paid lawyers to virtually EVERY legislative committee meeting, is a union of Big Government officials, who now force right wing socialism upon we citizens because of their united power (also because most Utah citizens are sheep).
The feds ought to look into the ULCT, with a mind to RICO.
Does anyone have the name of this "lobbyist", Curm?
If he's a lawyer, I'd love to be the first to turn him into the State Bar.
pissed:
I presume, but I do not know for sure, that it's one of the two named by Valley above. And representing multiple clients may not violate the lobbyists' code of ethical conduct... if any such there be.
I'm with Rudi on the rico charges, should clean out a good number of legislators. It would make good ink for the purely corrupt self rightous no alcapops eagle forum controlled legislative leadership.
Is there anyone that can go and request a grama on weather or not what the ruling was on Greiner. Just how could he being braking the federal law? Or did the city pay the fine?
October 23, 2006
Utah: Ogden police chief told to quit race for Senate or give up job
The Salt Lake Tribune reports: U.S. government investigators are telling Police Chief Jon Greiner to either quit his job or withdraw from the race for a Utah Senate seat - or risk penalties against him and Ogden city.
Greiner's attorney, Jim Bradshaw, confirmed Friday that the chief received a letter from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Thursday, advising him that investigators believe his campaign violates the Hatch Act.
For now, Greiner is neither quitting his job nor the race to represent Senate District 18 in Ogden and northern Davis County. He has two weeks to decide whether to challenge the special counsel's letter. The election is Nov. 7 - 2 1/2 weeks from today. ...
The Ogden Police Department is not budgeted to receive federal funds this year, but federal grant money was in the budget for the year that ended July 1, well after the chief began his campaign that unseated incumbent Sen. Dave Thomas in the primary. -- Salt Lake Tribune - Senate District 18: Feds impose dilemma for Ogden cop/candidate
Something to think about. If the Hammer comes down on Greiner, then they will have to go after all of the educators that are also legislators.
So, how do you go after one and not the others?
More details:
I don't think you are right about that. What has Greiner potentially in trouble is that he administers federal grant money as police chief. That's what, potentially, brings the Hatch Act into play. Absent the connection with Federal money, he would not be even potentially in violation of the Hatch Act. Or so I think.
Last I heard, the US Justice Department had the Greiner matter "under review." So far as I know, no opinion by the USDJ has yet been issued. If one has, and anyone has a link, please post.
Have to tell you, if Greiner is in violation, it seems like a pretty technical violation to me. But it's not my call, in the end, or Greiner's. It's the Justice Department's call, and, I think, so far they have chosen not to make it. If I were truly cynical, I would be tempted to think that they will not make the call so long as a Republican Attorney General is in office. Seems to me if it was a plain "no foul" call, the DJ would have made that call long ago. But we shall see.
Post a Comment