On Saturday evening I attended a dinner and award ceremony where the Utah County Democratic Party presented their Distinguished Service Award to the former Governor of Utah Olene Walker.
It was mentioned several times during the evening that it was interesting that, in these times of harsh partisan politics, the Democratic Party would give this award to a Republican public servant. As Governor Walker spoke, however, it became clear why she is such a worthy recipient.
Her remarks centered on two messages. The first was the need for bipartisanship in legislation and in leadership. She described her experience both campaigning and serving in the legislature and later in the executive offices. She claimed that all people agree on 80% of the issues, but that 20% is driving people apart. She decried those who were more concerned about partisan victory than beneficial public policy. She challenged the candidates and elected officials to work together and to be statesmen, and stateswomen, in the best sense of the word.
Her second message was equally compelling--the need for adequate support for public education, both K-12 and higher education. She cited not only the statistics that show Utah funding education lower than any state in the country (in 51st place!) but the falling commitment from taxpayers, shown as the percentage of their income dedicated to the education of the next generation. She said it was her goal to live to see education funded in 49th place and warned that she didn't intend to live forever!
Her comments and the entertaining talk given by former legislator Scott Howell pointed out just how dedicated, courageous, open, honest, and absolutely charming Governor Walker is. I was inspired that evening. Olene Walker is a new hero of mine.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Straight Party Voters
Utah has an unusual, if not unique ballot, in that it asks the voter if they want to vote a "straight party" ballot. After the last election, one voter I spoke to thought the ballot asked him to identify his party affiliation. He said he clicked on Republican and bam! the whole ballot was finished. He returned home disappointed that his study of the candidates had been for nothing.
The State Conventions have now been held and the Democratic nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor are a bipartisan pair. Peter Corroon chose as his running mate Cheryl Allen, a Republican. If this has happened in Utah politics since the Governor and Lt Governor became tied together as candidates, I don't remember it. Representative Allen has made it clear that although she is running as the partner to the Democratic candidate, she still considers herself a Republican.
It has, however, got me wondering how the straight party ballot will handle the situation. You cannot vote for more than one person for a specific office but if you decide to vote straight Republican, wouldn't that give Cheryl Allen a vote too? And would a straight Democrat vote go to Peter Corroon, when it would end up giving a vote to a Republican as well?
I have, in the past, voted for candidates all from the same party, but I have never used the straight party option on the ballot. And after running a campaign, I never would. It is such a great sacrifice and service to run for office! I believe that every voter should give candidates the respect of, at the very least, looking at each name on the ballot as they choose their officials. It gives the appearance, if only to oneself, of voting thoughtfully.
I hope that the bipartisan ticket in the Governor's race results in the demise of the straight party option on the Utah election ballot. It is a practice that needs to go.
The State Conventions have now been held and the Democratic nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor are a bipartisan pair. Peter Corroon chose as his running mate Cheryl Allen, a Republican. If this has happened in Utah politics since the Governor and Lt Governor became tied together as candidates, I don't remember it. Representative Allen has made it clear that although she is running as the partner to the Democratic candidate, she still considers herself a Republican.
It has, however, got me wondering how the straight party ballot will handle the situation. You cannot vote for more than one person for a specific office but if you decide to vote straight Republican, wouldn't that give Cheryl Allen a vote too? And would a straight Democrat vote go to Peter Corroon, when it would end up giving a vote to a Republican as well?
I have, in the past, voted for candidates all from the same party, but I have never used the straight party option on the ballot. And after running a campaign, I never would. It is such a great sacrifice and service to run for office! I believe that every voter should give candidates the respect of, at the very least, looking at each name on the ballot as they choose their officials. It gives the appearance, if only to oneself, of voting thoughtfully.
I hope that the bipartisan ticket in the Governor's race results in the demise of the straight party option on the Utah election ballot. It is a practice that needs to go.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Heat in Arizona
The news from Arizona has spread like wildfire across the nation. Their response to the problems they face from illegal immigration has sparked fiery reactions within their state and throughout the country.
The borders around the United States have been porous over this country's history. The attitudes of Americans, especially in the west, have generally been formed by the wide open spaces. The cowboys sang "Don't fence me in" and the school children sang "This land was made for you and me!" Another characteristic of Americans is the expectation that, unlike many other countries, we do not have to justify our presence with identity cards.
Once our nation virtually filled the continent, the east and west borders had oceans for boundaries. By and large, our northern neighbors were satisfied with their lives as Canadians so that borderline was uncontentious. It is the southern border that has become a greater problem of late.
Reports of the lawless conditions in border towns, such as Ciudad Juárez, are frightening. Drug cartels are responsible for kidnappings, extortion, and brutal murders against Mexican law enforcement, competing gangs, and ordinary citizens, in order to keep them in submission. This violence is beginning to spill over the border and has residents on the US side anxious.
One result is a law that allows Arizona law enforcement to require people whom they suspect, to show proof of legal status. It defines presence without appropriate documentation as a crime, in fact, a misdemeanor not to carry the documentation.
The controversy this bill has sparked is interesting. Opposition voices predict that members of the Spanish-speaking community will be unwilling to call the police for help, to speak up as victims or witnesses to crime. There is also fear that this will result in racial profiling by police, since only race and language can give an appearance of a non-citizen. It is seen as a racist bill. The Governor who signed it into law says that we must trust law enforcement more than that.
I have been asked my position on this bill and it is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of the people of Arizona who created it. The fear of the lawlessness they are seeing spill over the border is provocative.
The question of the same sort of law in other states, including Utah, is a separate matter. I am unconvinced by those who justify the requirement we all carry identification documents by saying that we are burdened by the cost of social services to the undocumented. The undocumented all pay sales taxes and often Social Security and income taxes, but are unwilling to claim benefits or tax refunds for fear of being detected. We do have crime among the people in our state and some can be traced to undocumented immigrants but it is not at the level that the border states must deal with.
This Arizona bill has sparked nation-wide responses, both in favor and in opposition to the law. The best result may be that it motivates the Federal Government to craft immigration reform that addresses the fears of violent or property crime, the needs of labor for agriculture and business, and the values we place on freedom from governmental scrutiny of its law-abiding citizens. If this is what comes of the Arizona law, it will be worth the uproar it has caused.
When I mentioned to a neighbor that I felt the Arizona law was draconian, he asked me how I would answer to the immigrants who had made the decision to come to the United States through legal means. I don't know that I will ever be asked to answer to them. I am convinced, however, that there will come a time when I will be asked to answer for my attitudes toward my neighbors by one who has said, "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in."
The borders around the United States have been porous over this country's history. The attitudes of Americans, especially in the west, have generally been formed by the wide open spaces. The cowboys sang "Don't fence me in" and the school children sang "This land was made for you and me!" Another characteristic of Americans is the expectation that, unlike many other countries, we do not have to justify our presence with identity cards.
Once our nation virtually filled the continent, the east and west borders had oceans for boundaries. By and large, our northern neighbors were satisfied with their lives as Canadians so that borderline was uncontentious. It is the southern border that has become a greater problem of late.
Reports of the lawless conditions in border towns, such as Ciudad Juárez, are frightening. Drug cartels are responsible for kidnappings, extortion, and brutal murders against Mexican law enforcement, competing gangs, and ordinary citizens, in order to keep them in submission. This violence is beginning to spill over the border and has residents on the US side anxious.
One result is a law that allows Arizona law enforcement to require people whom they suspect, to show proof of legal status. It defines presence without appropriate documentation as a crime, in fact, a misdemeanor not to carry the documentation.
The controversy this bill has sparked is interesting. Opposition voices predict that members of the Spanish-speaking community will be unwilling to call the police for help, to speak up as victims or witnesses to crime. There is also fear that this will result in racial profiling by police, since only race and language can give an appearance of a non-citizen. It is seen as a racist bill. The Governor who signed it into law says that we must trust law enforcement more than that.
I have been asked my position on this bill and it is somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, I can understand the frustration of the people of Arizona who created it. The fear of the lawlessness they are seeing spill over the border is provocative.
The question of the same sort of law in other states, including Utah, is a separate matter. I am unconvinced by those who justify the requirement we all carry identification documents by saying that we are burdened by the cost of social services to the undocumented. The undocumented all pay sales taxes and often Social Security and income taxes, but are unwilling to claim benefits or tax refunds for fear of being detected. We do have crime among the people in our state and some can be traced to undocumented immigrants but it is not at the level that the border states must deal with.
This Arizona bill has sparked nation-wide responses, both in favor and in opposition to the law. The best result may be that it motivates the Federal Government to craft immigration reform that addresses the fears of violent or property crime, the needs of labor for agriculture and business, and the values we place on freedom from governmental scrutiny of its law-abiding citizens. If this is what comes of the Arizona law, it will be worth the uproar it has caused.
When I mentioned to a neighbor that I felt the Arizona law was draconian, he asked me how I would answer to the immigrants who had made the decision to come to the United States through legal means. I don't know that I will ever be asked to answer to them. I am convinced, however, that there will come a time when I will be asked to answer for my attitudes toward my neighbors by one who has said, "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Preparing for Refugees
Now that the candidates have declared their willingness to run and the caucus meetings have been held, the respective parties are preparing for the process of culling the herd. For the most part, in Utah County the Democratic Party has one candidate for each of the offices in the 2010 election. The Republican Party has numerous intra-party contests.
It is interesting to me to watch the power struggle taking place in the Republican Party that has claimed "freedom", "choice", "liberty", "moral conscience", and "local control" as their watchwords in the legislature.
Republican candidates in Utah County are being asked to submit to a questionnaire and pledge. The pledge requires them to support only Republican party candidates. The questionnaire asks whether or not they oppose any part of the County Party Platform and whether or not they support or oppose the ethics initiative. This information will be made available to the delegates who meet at their County Convention next month.
I have had experience carrying the ethics initiative to my neighbors, many of whom are registered Republicans, and rarely do they oppose the initiative when it is explained to them. There is a lot of misinformation coming from members of the legislature and those who have heard that often resist the petition. If they voice their specific concerns, I can usually show the actual language of the initiative that answers their concerns and they sign the petition. The confusion caused by the misinformation sometimes causes the voters to back away from signing anything, worried that they are being fooled by one person or another. So the misinformation campaign does have an effect. But I don't think it is a big enough effect to carry support for the efforts of the Utah County to identify "ethics-niks" among their candidates for retribution.
The opposition of the Utah County Republican Party to a non-partisan citizens' initiative to promote ethical conduct by legislators and requirements of their candidates to follow lock-step the directions of a platform that is more defined and extreme than other Republican platforms in the state and nation may prove to be more restrictive than the voters want to allow their party -- even in Utah County.
The Democratic Party in Utah County may be seen as too conservative by the National Democratic leadership, and even the more progressives in our own capitol city, but the moderate platform and candidates will welcome the political moderates who are disowned by the radical republicans.
I encourage voters to study all candidates, and candidates to study all issues, and both to vote their conscience.
It is interesting to me to watch the power struggle taking place in the Republican Party that has claimed "freedom", "choice", "liberty", "moral conscience", and "local control" as their watchwords in the legislature.
Republican candidates in Utah County are being asked to submit to a questionnaire and pledge. The pledge requires them to support only Republican party candidates. The questionnaire asks whether or not they oppose any part of the County Party Platform and whether or not they support or oppose the ethics initiative. This information will be made available to the delegates who meet at their County Convention next month.
I have had experience carrying the ethics initiative to my neighbors, many of whom are registered Republicans, and rarely do they oppose the initiative when it is explained to them. There is a lot of misinformation coming from members of the legislature and those who have heard that often resist the petition. If they voice their specific concerns, I can usually show the actual language of the initiative that answers their concerns and they sign the petition. The confusion caused by the misinformation sometimes causes the voters to back away from signing anything, worried that they are being fooled by one person or another. So the misinformation campaign does have an effect. But I don't think it is a big enough effect to carry support for the efforts of the Utah County to identify "ethics-niks" among their candidates for retribution.
The opposition of the Utah County Republican Party to a non-partisan citizens' initiative to promote ethical conduct by legislators and requirements of their candidates to follow lock-step the directions of a platform that is more defined and extreme than other Republican platforms in the state and nation may prove to be more restrictive than the voters want to allow their party -- even in Utah County.
The Democratic Party in Utah County may be seen as too conservative by the National Democratic leadership, and even the more progressives in our own capitol city, but the moderate platform and candidates will welcome the political moderates who are disowned by the radical republicans.
I encourage voters to study all candidates, and candidates to study all issues, and both to vote their conscience.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Caucus Race
The caucus race is demonstrated in chapter 3 of Alice in Wonderland. I have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity to see the new movie production of the Lewis Carrol classic so I cannot say whether "caucuses" will get much popular recognition by movie-goers.
I have been trying to decide if Mr. Carrol's portrayal of the caucus race had any relevance to the caucuses that will be held all over Utah later this month. I decided there was a loose connection. It is that everybody wins. And what they win probably comes out of their own pocket!
I think we all understand that we are doing our patriotic duty by electing wise leaders who will represent us well in government. However, if you think you are doing your patriotic duty simply by voting in November, you are only partly right. Your participation in the caucus meetings is where democracy begins and where you have the greatest influence on public policy.
I am not the only one who recognizes this. Rep. Chris Herrod, who has found his latest calling as Field Marshall in the battle for States' Rights, is quoted in the New York Times today (see the last couple of paragraphs). If he is successful at sending his supporters to the caucus meetings, we'll have a full agenda next year of States' Rights message bills!
Caucus meetings are held in March, this year on Tuesday the 23rd of March at 7PM, and at these meetings, delegates are chosen from those that attend. The delegates attend the County Convention and the State Convention and their votes determine which candidates will appear on the Primary election ballots or, if there is no primary election, whose name will appear on the ballot in November. In the past, approximately 2% of the registered voters have attended the caucus meetings. That is a lot of influence by just 2% of the voting population!
You don’t have to be a political expert or an activist to be involved in the caucus meetings or to serve as a delegate. You just need to be interested in good government.
The caucus meetings are organized by precincts. To find out which precinct they live in, Utahns can turn to the internet. It will bring up your precinct number and your party affiliation. If you wish to attend the Republican caucus meeting, you must be registered as a republican. The Democratic party, at least in Utah County, does not make that requirement.
Then find where your precinct’s caucus is meeting on March 23rd. Those who live in House District 61 in West Provo and West-by-Southwest Orem, will meet at Independence High School (elsewhere, contact your County Party for caucus locations).
The winners of the caucus race are those who attend. They exercise greater influence on public policy and ethical government than any 1000 voters can on election day. I hope to see you there!
I have been trying to decide if Mr. Carrol's portrayal of the caucus race had any relevance to the caucuses that will be held all over Utah later this month. I decided there was a loose connection. It is that everybody wins. And what they win probably comes out of their own pocket!
I think we all understand that we are doing our patriotic duty by electing wise leaders who will represent us well in government. However, if you think you are doing your patriotic duty simply by voting in November, you are only partly right. Your participation in the caucus meetings is where democracy begins and where you have the greatest influence on public policy.
I am not the only one who recognizes this. Rep. Chris Herrod, who has found his latest calling as Field Marshall in the battle for States' Rights, is quoted in the New York Times today (see the last couple of paragraphs). If he is successful at sending his supporters to the caucus meetings, we'll have a full agenda next year of States' Rights message bills!
Caucus meetings are held in March, this year on Tuesday the 23rd of March at 7PM, and at these meetings, delegates are chosen from those that attend. The delegates attend the County Convention and the State Convention and their votes determine which candidates will appear on the Primary election ballots or, if there is no primary election, whose name will appear on the ballot in November. In the past, approximately 2% of the registered voters have attended the caucus meetings. That is a lot of influence by just 2% of the voting population!
You don’t have to be a political expert or an activist to be involved in the caucus meetings or to serve as a delegate. You just need to be interested in good government.
The caucus meetings are organized by precincts. To find out which precinct they live in, Utahns can turn to the internet. It will bring up your precinct number and your party affiliation. If you wish to attend the Republican caucus meeting, you must be registered as a republican. The Democratic party, at least in Utah County, does not make that requirement.
Then find where your precinct’s caucus is meeting on March 23rd. Those who live in House District 61 in West Provo and West-by-Southwest Orem, will meet at Independence High School (elsewhere, contact your County Party for caucus locations).
The winners of the caucus race are those who attend. They exercise greater influence on public policy and ethical government than any 1000 voters can on election day. I hope to see you there!
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Debate on the Ethics Initiative
On Tuesday, 16 March, at 11:30 a.m, Utah Valley University will host a panel discussion on ethics reform featuring proponents and opponents of the initiative sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government.
Claralyn Hill and initiative co-author David Irvine will speak for the initiative, while Representative Lori Fowlke and Senator Curt Bramble will oppose it.
I look forward to hearing the discussion and also to seeing the venue. I haven't taken the opportunity to visit the the new UVU Library. The panel discussion will be held in room 120, in the basement of the new library building.
Come join me there!
Claralyn Hill and initiative co-author David Irvine will speak for the initiative, while Representative Lori Fowlke and Senator Curt Bramble will oppose it.
I look forward to hearing the discussion and also to seeing the venue. I haven't taken the opportunity to visit the the new UVU Library. The panel discussion will be held in room 120, in the basement of the new library building.
Come join me there!
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Foolish Farmer
At a recent legislative report, our local representative and senator laid out to their constituents the various budget cuts to state institutions and the ways they may be handled. Mr. Grover seemed to make light of the impact of these cuts, saying, "It kind of makes you wonder why we've been funding them at the higher level all this time in the past!"
This statement makes clear that he has spent too much time in the "echo chambers" of closed-door legislative caucus rooms.
It reminded me of a story that my father used to tell. It seems a farmer was concerned about the cost of oats to feed his plow horse. He decided that he could save a lot of money if he could just train the horse to work without feed. He decided to ween the horse gradually. A few months later his neighbor asked him how the experiment was going. "I almost had the horse completely weened," replied the farmer, "but he up and died on me!"
Mr. Grover sounds a lot like this foolish farmer.
He surely hasn't spoken to voters in his district who work at the State Hospital or for the Department of Corrections. A retired corrections official told me that trying to keep personnel cuts to a minimum has resulted in letting the most experienced workers go, so the increased workload is being carried by the least experienced. Will we have problems at the prisons?
Mental health agencies are being asked to do more with less. Will we have to give up hope for their patients? Will we be seeing more of them on the streets?
Another voter in the district told me that she lost her job when the state office that gave oversight to foster care was completely abolished due to budget cuts. Will we have problems with foster care families?
I do not pretend that budget problems can be handled painlessly. Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices. But we had better decide which of the state plow horses will be starving.
This statement makes clear that he has spent too much time in the "echo chambers" of closed-door legislative caucus rooms.
It reminded me of a story that my father used to tell. It seems a farmer was concerned about the cost of oats to feed his plow horse. He decided that he could save a lot of money if he could just train the horse to work without feed. He decided to ween the horse gradually. A few months later his neighbor asked him how the experiment was going. "I almost had the horse completely weened," replied the farmer, "but he up and died on me!"
Mr. Grover sounds a lot like this foolish farmer.
He surely hasn't spoken to voters in his district who work at the State Hospital or for the Department of Corrections. A retired corrections official told me that trying to keep personnel cuts to a minimum has resulted in letting the most experienced workers go, so the increased workload is being carried by the least experienced. Will we have problems at the prisons?
Mental health agencies are being asked to do more with less. Will we have to give up hope for their patients? Will we be seeing more of them on the streets?
Another voter in the district told me that she lost her job when the state office that gave oversight to foster care was completely abolished due to budget cuts. Will we have problems with foster care families?
I do not pretend that budget problems can be handled painlessly. Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices. But we had better decide which of the state plow horses will be starving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
