Legislative Ethics: It's Time to Amend Our State Constitution

Utah deserves an independent ethics commission

Fine guest commentary in this morning's Deseret News, by Jeffrey L. Novak, Chairman of the Coalition for Ethics and Accountability in Government:

• Utah deserves independent ethics commission

Once again the same familiar pattern was repeated by the 2009 State Legislature. The Utah electorate was screaming for legislative ethics reform. Once again the 2009 session was kicked off by grand statements from the legislature that a serious effort would be made (this time) to enact robust ethics reform legislation. Once again the legislature dawdled, quarrelled, sat on its thumbs and finally delivered laughably paltry legislation which (even with the utmost generosity extended to the legislature) could only be described as "meager and weak."

Forty other states have already decided that it is necessary to divorce the oversight of ethical conduct from their legislative systems.

Time for Utah to adopt a system whereby somebody other than the foxes are delegated the responsibility of guarding the hen house, we believe.

If it takes a constitutional amendment to accomplish this, let's get to it, Utah Lumpencitizens.

And what say our gentle readers about all this?

2009 Legislative Ethics Reform: A Good Start?

Something akin to saying that hitting the snooze button is a good start on a Monday morning

Several interesting morning articles in the northern Utah news print media, on one of our favorite and constant topics, legislative ethics reform. The Standard-Examiner comes out with yet another strong editorial this morning, bemoaning the meager and weak ethics legislation which trickled out of the 2009 legislative session, and posing the simple query: "... we shake our heads and wonder, why can't you legislators keep ethics reform simple and to the point?"

The Salt Lake Tribune also gets into the act with this story, incorporating the recent remarks of Governor Huntsman, about the Utah legislature's lightweight 2009 ethics reform work product:

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Friday that the ethics measures passed by the Legislature are a good first step, but he hopes the process leads to campaign finance reform and a "serious cooling-off period" before lawmakers can become lobbyists.
"The good thing is the dialogue has started," Huntsman said. "Now we build upon the foundation of this Legislature's success, and I hope it goes to things like a serious cooling-off period. I hope it goes to serious campaign finance reform."

In classic journalistic he said/she said style, Tribune reporter Gehrke provides one House Republican's mealy-mouthed retort:

Rep. John Dougall, R-Highland, took issue with Huntsman characterizing the Legislature's actions as a beginning of ethics reform.
"I contend it's not a start, it's just a continuation of the ongoing process," said Dougall, who is chairman of the House Ethics Committee. "Do I think that process needs to continue? Absolutely."

A distinction without a difference? You bet. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. We think one lumpencitizen commentator under the Trib article sums it up quite elegantly however:

Huntsman's own Lt. Governor declares the law toothless and filled with loopholes, so Huntsman declares it a good start? That's like saying that hitting the snooze button is a good start on a Monday morning!

As an added bonus, we'll link to another ethics-topical story which popped up on the Std-Ex website this morning, reporting on Friday's kickoff ceremony for WSU's brand spankin' new Richard Richards Institute for Politics, Decency and Ethical Conduct. This event was also briefly mentioned in the Trib story too. We'll comment at this juncture that we're delighted to observe Utah academics rolling up their sleeves and delving into the study of such topics; and at risk of jinxing The Institute at its inception, we'll nevertheless label it a good first step.

So what about it, gentle readers? Did the laughably toothless ethics reform legislation which emerged from the legislature this year constitute "a good start?" Is it a continuation of an "ongoing process," as Rep. Dougall suggests? Is it reasonable to assume that our GOP controlled legislature will act in "good faith" and ultimately deliver the robust brand of legislative ethics reform that high double-digit percentages of the Utah lumpencitizens demand? If so, will this happen within our lifetimes? Would it make better sense for Utah voters to simply throw out the bums who merely threw us a few hollow ethics reform bones (chicken bones to be exact,) and select a more citizen-friendly batch of new legislators in 2010? Or will we just keep mindlessly re-electing the same bums again?

In closing, we'll snarkily invoke that well-worn Albert Einstein ax: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Don't let the cat get your tongues, O Gentle Ones.

Utah Voters - Snookered Again

Ex-legislators can still register as lobbyists, it seems, immediately after losing or vacating their seats

By Curmudgeon

Well, we [the voters] have been snookered yet again by Utah's Republican legislative majority. Remember the ethics reform package that passed this term? The one papers like the Standard-Examiner thought involved, at best, minimal reform but was at least a start in that direction? And remember one of the lynchpins of that so-called reform was that it banned former legislators from lobbying the legislature for at least a year after they left the house or senate? It closed "the revolving door" for at least a year?

Well, guess what? It didn't. The bill the boys in Salt Lake passed has a loophole which permits former legislators to register as lobbyists immediately after leaving the house or senate. No delay at all. The SL Trib has the story in one of its lead editorials this morning:

• Revolving door - Lobbyist law may have a loophole

Rep. Brad Dee [R-Washington Terrace], one of the bill's lead sponsors, insists the loophole was not intended. That it was inadvertent. A mis-understanding. He needs to talk to Sen. Bramble [Troglodyte, Provo]. If the boys are going to sell this scam to the public, they need to get their stories straight. Here's Bramble on the loophole:

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, tells The Tribune that he believes "most legislators were" aware of the loophole. "The bill was plain on its face."

So, the great ethics reform bill [politely so called] was a sham. And Rep. Dee either didn't understand what was in his own bill, or [as Sen. Bramble, one of Dee's party's own legislative leaders, implies] he did know what the bill said and would do, and so is now not being honest when he claims he didn't.

Yes, ex-legislators can still register as lobbyists, it seems, immediately after losing or vacating their seats. What a surprise....

Std-Ex Editorial: The Senate Pauses on HB 201

Rep. Gage Froerer, and the Ogden Valley victims of HB466, should continue the fight to stop "Powder Mountain Town."

Another fine Standard-Examiner editorial this morning, on a topic that's been a passion of ours here at Weber County Forum of late:

• OUR VIEW: The Senate pauses on HB201

Bravo, Editorial Page Editor Doug Gibson and the Std-Ex editorial board.

Rep. Gage Froerer, and the Ogden Valley victims of HB466, should continue the fight to stop "Powder Mountain Town."

Rep. Froerer's HB 201: A Victim of Senate GOP Leadership's Parliamentary Dirty Tricks

Waddoups adjourns early, rather than risking a full Senate floor vote

The Standard-Examiner provides more detail this morning on House District 8 Gage Froerer's HB 201, which was unceremoniously killed by Senate GOP leaders during the last minutes of the 2009 legislative session. Reporter DeMoss adds a new wrinkle to the story, reporting that the bill was next in line for consideration by the full Senate, with an adequate number of Senate votes already lined up, when the Senate President Waddoups apparently brought down the gavel to adjourn the session. From this morning's story:

HB 201 passed the House on a vote of 52-to-17 on March 6. When the Senate ended its 2009 general session last Thursday, an hour before required, it was the next bill scheduled to be heard. [Emphasis added]

Eden resident and prospective "Powdervillian" Darla VanZeben was present in the Senate on Thursday night, (along with an entourage of concerned Ogden Valley residents.) She offers her own observations about the behavior of Senate GOP Leadership, and the last-minute parliamentary maneuvering;s which led to the killing of the bill. Without specifically naming names, Ms. VanZeben nevertheless lays the blame exactly where it belongs:

"We were terribly disappointed in some of the leadership of the Senate in particular," said Darla VanZeben, an Eden resident and outspoken opponent of Powder Mountain town. "There was a way to restore rights to the citizens, and they elected not to hear it."

Incorporating remarks from Representative Froerer, Mr. DeMoss's narrative alludes to "powerful lobbying interests" which, with the help of Senate GOP leadership, ultimately outmaneuvered HB 201 proponents on Thursday night:

Froerer said the same lobbying interests that brought the 2007 legislation "were heavily invested in me not being successful" with HB 201 this year.
"Some people worked very hard to ensure we had enough votes in the Senate," he said. "I felt comfortable we had the votes, but there were obviously some larger powers in play."

And exactly WHO were these "larger powers in play," whose main object amounted to leaving the folks of Powderville under the thumb of a prospective corporate dictatorship? Mr. Demoss provides the answer:

The Utah League of Cities and Towns, the only group to testify against the bill in a committee hearing this year, opposes removing the two-year waiting period.
"We've consistently supported the concept of a waiting period," said Roger Tew, a lobbyist for the group. "Before drastic changes are made to undo often contentious decisions, you need an opportunity to see the results of those decisions."

So there you have it folks. When well prepared advocates of American democracy were ready to square off on Thursday night against the lobby of the real estate development fatcats, Senate GOP leaders sided with the fatcats, closed off discussion of HB 201 and shut down the legislative session an hour early. Senate GOP leadership knows exactly which side of the bread gets the butter, after all.

And parenthetically, you just have to love the lower quote from GOP Senate Majority Whip Scott Jenkins. Jenkins is the single member of Senate GOP leadership elected from Weber County, and the one locally-elected member of the Senate who probably had the requisite political clout to move this matter to the forefront. Unfortunately Senator Jenkins instead chose to sit on his thumbs, rather than help restore the voting rights of a small group of Weber County citizens:

Senate Majority Whip Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, said it's easy to blame the Senate, but the House also delayed action on the bill until less than a week before the end of the session.

What the hell. The politically disenfranchized citizens of Ogden Valley aren't Jenkins's constituents anyway. Better to let Rep. Froerer and Sen. Allen Christensen take the political heat. Right?

Just for the record, we're informed by several Powderville citizens, by the way, that Rep. Froerer and Sen. Christensen had something like 18 or 19 Senate votes all lined up. That's why Waddoups pulled the plug and ended the session early.

The floor is open for our readers' reaction to these latest HB 201 revelations.

House Bill 201 Post Mortem

Senate GOP leadership lets Rep. Froerer's remedial "Powderville" legislation die on the vine

Mainly for archival consistency, we'll do a somewhat brief legislative session post-mortem on one of the "good" bills which failed to make it through the legislature this year, due to the running of the clock. We devoted substantial electronic ink to House District 8 Representative Gage Froerer's HB 201 during the 2009 legislative session, which would have re-enfranchised the hapless citizens of Ogden Valley's "Powderville," and given them their own vote on whether to be dragged unwillingly into Powder Mountain's incipient company town.

Although the bill picked up a good head of steam earlier this month, passing in the House on March 6 by a lopsided 52-17 vote, HB 210 was effectively killed in the Senate. For reasons unknown, Senate leadership inexplicably sat on the bill for almost a full week, and then sent it back to the House on March 12, the final day of the legislative session, with a meaningless and trivial "amendment."

During yesterday's blog discussion, several of our gentle readers were critical of Rep. Froerer, for his failure to ultimately deliver the goods. We believe this criticism is entirely unfair, and completely off the mark. We were in steady communication with Rep. Froerer throughout this session; and we're aware that our Legislative District 8 Representative worked feverishly on this legislation. The bill's quick and successful passage in the House is ample proof of that, we think.

So we'll attempt to set the record straight. Make no mistake. The responsibility for failure of this bill rests entirely upon the shoulders of Senate GOP leadership (so-called.) If GOP leadership had considered re-enfranchising the citizens of "Powderville" to have been a priority, believe us, the bill would have been (and ought to have been) quickly delivered to the Senate floor on a silver platter.

If you have lingering anger and angst over the failure of the legislature to correct it's own egregious mistake, please don't mis-direct it to second-term House Representative Froerer, who worked his tail off on this, but unfortunately has a lot more political juice in the House than in the Senate.

If you're looking for somebody to blame for this latest legislative miscarriage of justice, these are the culprits, O Gentle Ones, the ones with an (R) to the right of their names:

• Utah State Senate - "Leadership" 2009

If you decide to write to complain, the perpetrators are the ones with an "R" next to their names. We don't know why these people decided to let Froerer's bill die on the vine; but they did. Strangely, Utah citizens keep electing these same people again and again.

Consider this a weekend kickoff open topic thread.

The world blogosphere awaits your ever-savvy comments.

SL Trib: HB 122 Falters for Lack of Consensus

Chalk it up as a hard-fought citizen victory for open and transparent government in Utah

Good news for advocates of open and transparent government in Utah. The Salt Lake Tribune reports this morning that Rep. Aagard's HB 122, which had been the subject of severe criticism here at Weber County Forum, died in the House last night, upon expiration of the 2009 legislative session:

• Government records bill falters for lack of consensus

We'd like to believe that our own gentle readers had a hand in this. We've spoken recently with several members of the State House of Representatives, who've reported that citizen opposition emails have been substantial.

A Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat to all readers who responded to our repeated calls to action and contacted their legislators to express their opposition to this potentially GRAMA gutting Bill.

We'll chalk it up as a hard-fought citizen victory for open and transparent government in Utah.

Breaking: Senate Confirms DeCaria for Judgeship 24-3

Ogden homeboy Mark Decaria will be donning judge's robes and ruling from Ogden's 2nd District Court bench

Good news for Weber County local self-government advocates from this breaking Salt Lake Tribune story:

Weber County Attorney Mark DeCaria will soon be donning judge's robes and ruling from a 2nd District Court bench.
State senators confirmed the Democrat's appointment Thursday in a 24-3 vote.
"The man is one of the most prepared people I've seen this body ratify as a judge," said Sen. Jon Greiner, R-Ogden, describing DeCaria as "a great attorney, a stellar, stand-up kind of guy."

Despite the unanimous pro-Decaria recommendation from the Weber County Republican Party Executive Committee, Democrat DeCaria's appointment nevertheless caught flak from the Utah legislative GOP wingnut faction:

Republican senators Mark Madsen, Howard Stephenson and Steve Urquhart cast the dissenting votes.
"I just think there are a lot of qualified people in the state, I think we could have done better," Urquhart said, declining to comment further.

Decaria's approval by the overwhelmingly GOP state senate demonstrates the kind of bi-partisonship which we'd like to see on the Hill in the future.

As an Ogden home-boy who has demonstrated sound prosecutorial discretion and concern for our local citizenry during his tenure as Weber County Attorney, Decaria is an ideal choice for a seat on our Ogden-headquartered 2nd District Court bench, we believe.

If Senators Madsen, Stephenson and Urquhart had prevailed, Judge Baldwin's now vacated seat would no doubt be occupied by an out-of-area judicial carpetbagger, with no familiarity with the local neighborhood.

And what say our gentle readers about all this?

Wacky Utah liquor Law Update

Progress in Utah must always come in "baby steps."

There are blaring headlines all across the Utah print media this morning, with stories from the Standard-Examiner, Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, reporting that Utah's quirky private club system stands on the verge of abolition.

Key "stakeholders" have been working their fingers to the bone hammering out this new landmark legislation, and needless to say, everyone involved in working out this compromise legislation is feeling quite elated.

For a handy executive summary of the contents of this the bill that all these hard working folks have so very carefully crafted, check out this page from The Senate Site.

From our viewpoint, the provision for new restaurants, which would require a "structural barrier so that facilities for dispensing and storage are not readily visible or accessible by restaurant patrons and apart from dining area," is the most interesting of the new bill's provisions. In that connection we'll go out on a limb and predict that this language will be the first to be excised from this legislation during the 2010 legislative session, after restaurateurs like Chili's say "NO" to the opening of any new restaurants in the still-backward Beehive State.

As the Standard-Examiner sagely says, progress in Utah must always come in "baby steps."

Who will be the first to comment?

Utah Legislature to Utah Citizens: Butt Out of the Government's "Private" Business

The Utah legislature moves one step further along its inexorable path toward keeping the public's nose out of the government's "private" business

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the Utah legislature has moved one step further along its inexorable path toward keeping the public's nose out of the government's "private" business, with the passage in the Senate of Rep. Aagard's HB 122. Key legislative players are reportedly patting themselves on the back for rejecting Governor Huntsman's eleventh hour proposal to the remove the existing "tie-breaking" intent language of Utah Code Section 63G-2-102 (e), which favors public access when countervailing citizen disclosure and government "privacy" interests are of equal weight.

In our view, the last minute floating of this latter issue was probably tactical. By rejecting the Governor's proposal, the proponents of HB 122 will be able to mendaciously argue that the contraction of the public's right to obtain public records is lots better than it might have been.

Rep. Aagard's bill, which was amended in the Senate, is now headed back to the House for the final slam dunk. For the benefit of those readers who may feel inclined to make a last ditch effort to stop the progress of this bill, we once again provide the House of Representatives contact link:

• House contact information

Although we've complained incessantly about the potential perils of expanding government secrecy to documents purportedly prepared "in anticipation of litigation," nobody in the legislature seems to be listening. What the hell. There's no harm in giving it one last last shot, by again contacting your House Representatives to voice your disapproval of this bill, we say.

Incidentally, this morning's SL Trib story also reports on another GRAMA revision bill, (which unfortunately came in under our radar screen,) i.e., Rep. Greg Hughes's HB362, which passed the House on Monday 71-2. "The measure would require that individuals who make more than 12 government records request in a year's time must pay full costs for any additional requests," according to this morning's SL Trib story. Whether this bill would adversely effect the citizen watchdog efforts of local GRAMA experts like Dan S. or Bill C. we don't know. Perhaps the two of them will be able to chime in with their own comments about this.

Reader comments are invited, as always.

Duelling Editorials: 2009 Utah Ethics Reform Update

Three differing takes on ethics reform bills prospectively emerging from the 2009 Utah legislative session

There are two notable northern Utah print media editorials this morning, addressing the subject ethics reform legislation which may prospectively become ready for the Governor's signature, before the legislature winds up its 2009 session at the end of the week.

The Deseret News is optimistic, and views the legislature's efforts with a "glass is half full" approach:

Sometimes, the length of the stride isn't quite as important as the direction of the stride. There are ways in which every ethics bill the Utah Legislature has passed, or soon will pass, this year could be stronger, tougher and more airtight. But it sure is nice to see ethics bills of any sort make it to the governor's desk for his signature.

For the Salt Lake Tribune, "the glass is half empty," or worse:

When you study the stat sheet for ethics reform, it looks like another losing season for Utah lawmakers. If Jerry Sloan were in charge, legislative leaders would be riding the pine.

Late last month, one of Weber County Forum's long time regulars offered a prediction about the prospect for "meaningful" ethics legislation emerging from this 2009 legislative session:

There ainta gonna be any meaningful "ethics" legislation come out of this, or any other session of the Utah Legislature.
They are already an ethically "perfect" body and they don't need no fixin. If you don't believe me ask them.

So what about it WCF readers? Assuming that the bulk of remedial ethics reform bills mentioned in the above two articles become part of the body of Utah law, is there room for optimism, as the Deseret News suggests? Was the Salt Lake Tribune correct that this year's legislative work product is no cause to break out the bubbly at all? Was the ever-skeptical Ozboy on the money in his prognostication that whatever would emerge from this year's legislative session would be essentially meaningless?

The global blogosphere eagerly awaits our gentle readers' comments.

HB 122: GRAMA Gutting Legislation Update

Time still remains to drive a stake through this citizen-unfriendly bill's heart

There's disheartening news for advocates of transparent government this morning from this morning's Salt lake Tribune, wherein Cathy McKitrick reports that Governor Huntman's office has intruded itself at the eleventh hour into legislative negotiations regarding Rep. Doug Aaagard's HB 122. Aagard's bill is of course only the latest effort of secrecy-loving Big Government Republicans on the Hill to diminish the rights of members of the Utah lumpencitizenry to obtain important government documents -- documents that we pay for with our own hard-earned tax dollars, of course -- documents which we rely upon to find out what our equally secretive local elected officials are really up to. Huntsman has evidently decided to "pile on" and "up the ante" by suggesting the removal of this language from the current GRAMA Act: "63G-2-102. Legislative intent... (3) It is the intent of the Legislature to: ...(e) favor public access when, in the application of this act, countervailing interests are of equal weight..."

We've ranted in our opposition to this citizen-unfriendly legislation during the past month or so, and so have the Standard-Examiner, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, among other news media stakeholders.

Nevertheless, this bone-headed legislation seems to be rolling on full steam ahead. Only governor Huntsman's proposal (which would actually further weaken GRAMA protections,) seems to exist as any obstacle to rendering this bill a legislative slam-dunk.

In this connection, we'll incorporate some text from Utah GOP Vice Chair Todd Weiler's excellent February 24, 2009 Davis County Clipper guest commentary, which squarely addresses the real problem with Rep. Aagard's ill-conceived bill:

... Rep. Doug Aagard’s bill will broaden the definition of records that are protected from disclosure to the public. In the current version of the law, only records prepared “solely” in anticipation of litigation are classified as protected. But by striking the word solely from the equation, government officials may be entitled to retroactively place government records out of the public’s reach by claiming that the preparation of the documents was at least partially motivated by a fear of potential litigation. Remember that these are records prepared at taxpayer expense.
I was immediately suspicious of the GRAMA legislation because the Legislature just underwent a substantive rewrite of the law in 2005. And all of the changes weigh against public access. The motivation for the latest changes appears to stem from three events: the police standoff in Farmington that resulted in the death of Brian Wood, the Utah Supreme Court’s December 2008 decision in favor of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), and the media’s request for the personnel files of Officer Hammond in Ogden.
While the bill’s proponents tout the fact that there were 12 requests for records the day after Mr. Wood’s death, they typically fail to mention that all of those requests were promptly denied under the existing law. And even if there are problems that exist under the existing law as it relates to police personnel records, then the fix ought to be specifically tailored to that narrow exception. Instead, the bill proposes sweeping changes that creates the potential for abuse.
The SUWA case shows that the existing law is working. The records request was denied, and was considered by the state records committee. The committee upheld the denial and the dispute went to the state court. The district court also upheld the denial but that decision was overturned in a very detailed ruling by the state supreme court. The top court concluded that requested records were created by a Legislative mandate that did not restrict access to them or otherwise designate them as non-public.
Having been involved in both sides of many GRAMA issues over the years, I tend to lean toward public access and disclosure. I fear that many lawmakers are supporting HB 122 this year merely because they don’t support SUWA. Unfortunately, the impact of this bill does nothing to overturn the SUWA decision, but will create new opportunities for the government to shield documents from its taxpayers. [Emphasis added.]

(In addition to being at least one of a seemingly vanishing breed of old fashioned Republicans in GOP leadership who still believe that "sunshine" is the best disinfectant for the infection of secretive Big Government, by the way, Todd is also one danged fine Utah lawyer too; so we listen very attentively when he offers free legal advice such as that offered above.)

During the course of the past few weeks Big Government GOP legislators have been working hard to curb the public's right to public information access. Last week, some of them indulged in diversionary tactics to distract the public's attention from the real issue here. In short, they reached a small compromise, throwing opponents of the bill a bone or two. We believe Governor Huntsman's proposed "amendment" is only the most recent of these diversionary sideshows. Keep your eyes on the ball gentle readers, and heed the words of Mr. Weiler: "...the impact of this bill... will create new opportunities for the government to shield documents from its taxpayers."

We've put off the posting of this latest WCF article until this evening, so it will appear somewhere near the top of the page when the Monday morning news rolls in. If you're a lumpencitizen who cares about transparency in government, now's the time to take action. Once again we provide appropriate legislative contact links:

• House contact information
• Senate contact information

Thankfully, the passage of HB 122 isn't quite a done deal yet. There's still time to drive a stake through its heart.

Rep. Gage Froerer's HB 201"Powderville Citizens' Freedom Bill" is Headed For a Quick Vote on The Senate Floor

Contact your State Senators NOW... and demand that they draw the line against "'Powderville' taxation without representation"

We got this email missive today from Legislative District 8 House Representative Gage Froerer, to our mind one of the most single-minded, astute, and constituent-serving legislators on the hill:

I was able to pass HB 201, Municipal Disincorporation ----out of the House today with a vote of 52-17 and it will now be transferred to the Senate for consideration. This bill modifies a provision relating to the disincorporation of a municipality. It would allow the residents of the impacted incorporation the ability to ask a judge for disincorporation without having to wait 2 years as currently is required by law. It would greatly benefit the residents of Powder Mountain by permitting them to ask the judge to hear a petition for disincorporation immediately following incorporation. This bill will have major impact for the citizens of Ogden Valley and the State that are impacted by the bill passed last year that allows town incorporations.
I ask for your support and assistance with this bill. It will be heard on the Senate floor next week. Please email or otherwise contact Senators urging them to vote in favor of HB 201. Thank you for your help and efforts with this bill. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
I want to Thank everyone in Weber County Legislative District 8 who have given me their full support on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Representative Gage Froerer
gfroerer@utah.gov
801-391-4233

Here is a link to Senate Roster containing Senate contact information:

• Senate roster contact links

Whether your're Republican, Democratic, Socialist, Libertarian, Full-Blown Commie or Anarchist, we assume everyone with any belief and/or respect for the concept of American liberty will support Froerer's bill, which would at least support the will of inhabitants of "Powderville, Utah," and allow them to decide for themselves whether they should be drawn into a bogus town... "drawn up" without their own vote, by a handful of their greedy and wealthy developer-landowner neighbors.

Please contact your Senate Representatives RIGHT NOW, and urge that they join in the passage of Rep. Froerer's HB 201.

Remember people... the political disenfranchisement that's happening right now in "Powderville," isn't something that's supposed to happen in America.

As we've said before, Froerer's bill would allow Utah legislators to clear their consciences somewhat, and to "make amends" for their gross and cowardly blunder last year, when the Utah legislature, in a most craven way, failed and refused to clean up the mess that they negligently created in the first place.

Write or otherwise contact your State Senators, people."Splain" to them that they have UNFINISHED BUSINESS, like restoring democratic representation to the currently disenfranchised people of "Powderville." Here's the Senate contact link again:

• Senate roster contact links

We've taken the trouble of linking it twice because this issue is so danged important.

Remember that old battle-cry of the U.S. founders about "taxation without representation?"

That's what this is really all about here, innit?

2009 Utah Legislative Ethics & Liquor Law Update

Progress is being made, however slight

As our Utah legislature moves within five days of the end of its 2009 General Legislative Session, we'll devote a little electronic ink to a couple of areas of legislation which have been favorite topics of discussion here at Weber County Forum. Contrary to the skeptical predictions of at least one of our gentle readers, the 2009 legislature has so far made at least made some slight progress in the area of legislative ethics reform. Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune story provides the gist:

House members approved two Senate ethics bills Wednesday, with some saying they fell short and others praising their passage as a landmark for Utah's Legislature. SB156, sponsored by Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, requires disclosure of gifts over $10 and meals of more than $25, with the exception of events in which an entire caucus, task force, committee or legislative body is invited to dine.
"This is a good disclosure bill," said Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City. "However, I don't think we're going far enough in terms of what the public wants" -- namely a gift ban. Litvack said he hoped for further progress in the future.

There's no doubt in our minds at all that Rep. Litvack has it right. Utahns don't like the idea of having their legislators mooching free meals and gifts from lobbyists. Most of the state legislature still obviously doesn't "get it." Mere disclosure is not enough. In our belief, the legislature should have enacted an across the board gift ban, such as has been regularly advocated here on Weber County Forum: "I will accept no gifts from any lobbyists for any reason. Not so much as a cup of coffee." Maybe Utah voters will have better luck in the 2010 session, we hope.

More from yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune story:

In addition, the House unanimously passed SB162, which defines how candidates can spend residual campaign funds when they leave office. SB162, sponsored by Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, prohibits personal use of the money. If state officeholders retire and intend to use those dollars to run for federal office, they first must declare the money as personal income, pay taxes on it and move it to the federal campaign account.

Whether either of these above bills constitute "meaningful" ethics reform is in the in the eye of the beholder, we guess. At the very least however, we believe it's fair to label these bills "baby steps".

And there also seems to be some genuine progress on the wacky Utah liquor law front. This morning's Salt Lake Tribune story reports that an informal blue ribbon panel composed of "stakeholders" (including lobbyists from the LDS "mother church,") is on the verge of reaching a compromise which would make private clubs and Zion's curtains quaint relics of Utah's "peculiar past":

Utah could see its most sweeping liquor reform in years, including doing away with private clubs and dismantling the so-called Zion Curtain under a deal that is on the verge of approval by negotiators.
"It's not my favorite solution at this point," said Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, among the most strident anti-alcohol senators. But it is one that he expects he will be able to live with.
Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who was one of the negotiators, said a deal is close.
"I'm hoping tomorrow we can have it nailed down," he said Wednesday evening.
Representatives of the House, the Senate, bar owners, restaurants, the governor's office and the LDS Church hammered out the framework during intense closed-door negotiations this week.

Like most compromise bills, the current liquor law makeover has reportedly involved plenty of horse trading. Our Utah legislative teetotallers naturally want some trade-offs:

"The thing I'm hearing most from my constituents is they don't want us to look quirky and they want harsh punishment for DUI," Waddoups said.

In this connection, we'll shamelessly insert a comment gleaned from this morning's SLTrib article comments section:

Dear Senator Waddoups. The best way to not appear quirky is to just stop being so god damned quirky!!!

With respect to the liquor issue, we're still wondering why this whole matter is being made to appear to be so danged complicated. Why not simply pass a law making it illegal for anyone under 21 to drink, and for anyone to drive whilst drunk, we ask? It goes far beyond the meager mind of the lumpen blogmeister, we suppose.

The floor is yours, O Gentle Ones. The blogosphere awaits your own ever-quirky comments, as per usual.

Std-Ex Editorial: Keep Legal Notices Circulating

For the publication of legal notices, newspapers remain the best way to go

We'd like to make brief note of another excellent editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner, wherein the Std-Ex editorial board take strong exception to a bill now pending in legislature (SB 208), which would take paid legal notices out of newspapers of general circulation, and require their publication on a centralized Utah Government website:

• Our View: Keep legal notices circulating

The Std-Ex presents several well reasoned arguments for keeping the current requirement that paid legal notices be published in newspapers; and we'll throw in a couple more of our own:

1) If you want a job done competently and efficiently, government seldom compares favorably with the private sector. If you want a project completely screwed up, enlist the help of government. The foregoing falls into the category that we'd label "common knowldge." Steve Urquhart is a Utah Republican; and we believe he should already understand these bedrock principles. Yet here we have a member of the party that's supposed to champion private solutions; and in this instance he pushes for big government intervention in a traditionally private matter, in a circumstance where the private sector is already doing a pretty danged good job. Sorry, but we're experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Sadly, we experience that a lot in our frequent dealings with elected Utah Republicans. Lately, central government databases seem to have become a big hit with state legislators of the Utah GOP persuasion.

2) Many legal notices are spotted by readers randomly as they peruse newspapers. Ask yourself how many times you have stumbled upon your name, or the name of someone you know while browsing a legal notice in your newspaper? Then ask yourself these questions: When was the last time this happened as you randomly browsed a government website? When was the last time you randomly browsed (or even visited) a government website?

Uh-huh. See what we mean? Rejection of this knuckle-headed bill is ought to be a "no-brainer," as the Standard-Examiner cogently suggests. Assuming that the purpose of laws requiring publication of legal notices is to provide actual notice of pending actions which would affect lumpencitizens' legal interests (rather than to serve as a mere perfunctory legal charade,) newspapers remain the best way to go.

For the convenience of those readers who'd like to register their opinions to their own legislators, we once again provide these handy Utah legislative contact Links:

• House contact information
• Senate contact information

Have at it, O gentle Ones.

Std-Ex Guest Commentary: Independence Needed for Real Ethics Reform

If the Legislature is really going to tackle ethics, it needs to form an independent committee

The Standard-Examiner editorial page carries a thoughtful and informative guest commentary this morning, by LaWanna Shurtliff, our recently-retired Legislative District 10 House Representative, on the subject of Utah legislative ethics reform. Speaking from the perspective of a Utah legislator who co-chaired the House Ethics Committee for the previous six legislative sessions, she unreels a series of anecdotes revealing why the current ethics discipline system is a failure.

According to Ms. Shurtliff, the current system, whereby ethics complaints are heard by an ethics committee composed of legislative peers, a labyrinth of social, psychological and political factors prevents ethics complaints from even being filed in the first place, let alone to be fairly heard and determined.

Toward the bottom of the article Ms. Shurtliff issues a strong call for a change in the way ethics issues are decided on the hill:

If the Legislature is really going to tackle ethics, it needs to form an independent committee.
This committee should be given the charge to restructure the rules so they are more definitive.
They should have investigative powers along with independent legal counsel. Until this happens, legislators will be protected.

Unfortunately, Ms. Shurtliff's commentary tails off there. It would have been helpful, we think, if Ms. Shurtliff had given us a heads up on any pending legislation which would address this issue. We believe Ms. Shurtliff is right; but it would be a heck of a lot easier to get aboard Ms. Shurtliff's Independent Ethics Committee Bandwagon, if she had provided a pointer to those pending ethics reform bills (if any) which we could support.

Of course in Ms. Shurtliff's defense, there are "as many as 29" ethics reform bills pending on the hill, so we believe she can be forgiven for being unable to readily zero in on particular bills with remedial independent ethics committee provisions. We spent about a half hour earlier this morning searching through the morass of pending Utah legislation ourselves, by the way; and we couldn't find anything addressing that topic either.

So for purposes of discussing this morning's LaWanna Shurtliff guest editorial, we'll propose a two-tiered approach:

1) Don't fail to chime in on Ms. Shurtliff's general proposition, i.e., her proposal to replace the current "peer-based" ethics committee with one composed of "independent" members and support staff. We think it's a danged good idea. How about you?

2) And If anyone can provide us a pointer to any currently pending bill which approaches this issue, we'd like to be the first to know. We're aware of several legislators who regularly read this blog. Hopefully one of them will be willing to lend a helping hand with this.

Take it away, O Gentle Ones.

Std-Ex Guest Commentary: Loophole For Late Tax Payments Should Be Restricted

A short essay on the inequities of the current Utah property tax collection system

On the heels of a series of web articles addressing the problem of delinquent Utah property taxes, Ogden Valley Forum blogmaster Larry Zini strikes public pay dirt this morning with an excellent Standard-Examiner guest commentary, which lays out the inequities of the current property tax collection system as it is presently practiced in Utah:

• Loophole for late tax payments should be restricted

Larry has expended considerable effort during the past few months educating the public and various government officials about the fundamental injustice of the "loophole" which permits various land owners and developers to defer property tax payments for up to five years, while the rest of the lumpencitizens make their tax payments in a timely manner.

As a result of these efforts, Legislative District 8 House Representative Froerer has sponsored House Bill 418, which would increase penalties for property taxes which are paid in an untimely manner. This bill is making progress in the House of Representatives, having passed out of committee on Monday with a favorable 9-4 recommendation. The bill will probably be presented to the full House within the next day or so.

In this connection, we once again provide the Utah House of Representatives contact link, for those readers who'd like to take action and express their opinions to their own house representatives on this important proposed amendment.

As Larry carefully notes in his final two paragraphs by the way, this bill will not penalize property owners who are experiencing genuine financial hardship. This legislation is merely intended to provide additional incentives for wise guy property owners and developers who've up until now taken a nearly free ride on the backs of Utah property owners who pay their own taxes on time.

Two Feet Forward and Two Miles Backwards

Senator seeks 10-foot-high wall, also broader definition of term ‘legally intoxicated’

O wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as ithers see us!

Robert Burns
Scottish Poet
1759 – 1796

By Ray

The stalemate's over and Senate business as usual is back.

According to the Standard-Examiner this morning, former State Senate president Valentine has taken up current President Waddoups vendetta against alcohol. He has introduced a bill to put 10 foot walls around persons mixing alcohol and make it illegal for persons to show any sign of being drunk.

WOW-2 feet forwards and 2 miles backwards. Just when we had a chance of coming into the real world. Gotta love it. Only in Utah!!

Stranger Than Sci-fi: The Day the Utah Legislature Stood Still

A "significant wrench thrown into the middle of an otherwise very productive session"

We learn this morning from the Standard-Examiner and the Salt Lake Tribune about more blowback resulting from state Senator Bigmouth's most recent bad behavior. GOP legislators shut down all legislative business for "over two hours" yesterday, to conduct a behind-closed-doors Chris Buttars bitch session. From this morning's SLTrib story:

The fallout from the anti-gay comments of Sen. Chris Buttars continues as Senate Republicans met behind closed doors for more than two hours Monday to air their concerns and views about the remarks.
"Just about everyone in the caucus expressed his or her feelings relating to the issue and I think it was a venting process," said Sen. Peter Knudson.
Buttars has been under fire for a week, after he told a documentary filmmaker that gays pose the greatest internal threat to the country, lack morals, are demanding special rights and engage in disgusting sexual practices.
Senate leaders had hoped to put the issue behind them last week, after Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, stripped Buttars of his chairmanship and membership on two committees -- the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Confirmation Committee.
"We all very much consider this a significant wrench thrown into the middle of an otherwise very productive session," said Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse. [Emphasis added].

Senator Buttars, a "gift" from the morons of West Jordan to the people of Utah... the gift that keeps on giving.

Big Mouth Buttars Redux

More media blowback against another Utah politician whose word turns out to be worthless

By Curmudgeon

Picking up where we left off yesterday on the Buttars matter, there is a sound editorial in the Standard-Examiner this morning. The editorial argues that while Buttars should be relegated to the back benches in the Senate and lose his leadership posts, it's up to the voters to remove him and no one else. [Of course, if Buttars had any sense of decency, he'd resign. But awaiting decency from Utah Republican legislators is often a long and wearying business.]

There is also a very interesting story in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning , reporting that Buttars lost his committee chairmanship not for what he said, but because he broke his promise to the Senate Republican leadership not to be a leading spokesman in the Senate on gay rights issues. From the story:

Senate leaders disciplined Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, not for anti-gay comments he made in a recent interview, but because he violated a deal with leadership that he not talk about gay issues, a senator said Saturday.
"Most of what Senator Buttars said, I agree with," Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said in a weekly Red Meat Radio program he hosts on K-TALK. "We as a Senate caucus had an agreement that because Sen. Buttars had become such a lightning rod on this issue, he would not be the spokesman on this issue, and basically he violated that agreement...." [I]t was the breach of that directive that led to the reprimand, according to Stephenson.
"It happened, not because he said a lot of things wrong, but because he decided to be the spokesman again," Stephenson said.

In short, Buttars was removed because his word, given to his senate colleagues, turned out to be no good. In politics, once it becomes known that your word is no good, your effectiveness all but collapses, since those you have to work with know you cannot be trusted. [Same thing Mayor Godfrey is running into since he broke his agreement with the Council regarding projects the city lobbyist would work on being jointly approved by both. When Godfrey assigned the lobbyist to work on a bill, since passed, installing him as the un-removable head of Ogden's RDA, it became clear to all on the Council, or it should have, that the Mayor's word was no good, that agreements with him, unless reduced to ordinances, were worthless. His increasing difficulties with the Council since then spring in no small part, I think, from Council members finally coming to understand that the Mayor's word is not good, that a handshake agreement with him is worthless.]

Interesting story in the Trib. Worth a look.