O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-4099834857739634473";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-10-09T22:32:00.012-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-10-10T21:41:31.114-06:00";s:5:"title";s:59:"The citizens of Utah demand ethics reform. It's about time!";s:12:"atom_content";s:10392:"I have watched with excitement as a <a href="http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org/initial-supporters/">group of citizens</a> from a broad variety of political make-up and diverse career backgrounds launched a citizens initiative to take matters into their own hands and do something about ethics in the Utah Legislature. I have also delighted to see certain legislators <a href="http://redmeatradio.blogspot.com/2009/10/unethical-ethics.html">squirm</a> and <a href="http://underthedome.org/?p=897&amp;cpage=1">scream</a> as they envision the future of politics on the hill. It won't be as comfortable for them after the citizen's of Utah demand the change that they've been asking for from the Legislature for many, many years.<br /><br />I knew nothing significant would ever come from the self-governing lawmakers after the last legislative session that ended in March with celebration over very little ethics legislation. It was a session that promised big change and rightly so after the allegations of bribery brought against one representative in October, 2008. The ethics committee was split along party lines on any decision of conduct unbecoming a legislator, but all signed a letter of reprimand. They proved that they're unable to govern themselves.<br /><br />I appreciated <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/">UtahTeacher's</a> recent report (<a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-difference-day-and-one-county.html">a</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/09/part-2-of-utah-county-ethics-initiative.html">four</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/09/part-3-of-utah-county-ethics-initiative.html">part</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/part-4-of-utah-county-ethics-hearing-q.html">series</a>) on one of the <a href="http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org/faqs/locations/">eight required public hearings</a> that she attended. I wanted to attend the Provo hearing specifically because of the memo that was reportedly distributed among lawmakers which encouraged them to attend hearings and speak out against the initiative. I noticed that the hearings were video-taped and posted by the Lieutenant Governor's Office on YouTube a few days ago. It was hard for me to watch, however, because they are not labeled or posted in order, as far as I can tell. To this end, I've decided to make it easy on you and I've posted the hearings and the links to the video segments in order. You'll notice that there are citizens that speak in each of the hearings that are in favor of the initiative and others who aren't happy about it at all. I think it's important to hear both sides and decide where you stand on the issue. I agree with the initiative, if for nothing else, perhaps it will cause the legislators to actually make some change in 2010. Maybe something that will REALLY <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-pigs-really-flying-or-are.html">make pigs fly</a>!<br /><br /><strong></strong><br /><br /><strong>PUBLIC HEARING VIDEOS:</strong><br /><br /><br />Thursday, September 17, 2009—7-9 p.m.<br />Southeast Region (Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties)<br />Grand County Council Chambers<br />125 E. Center St. (w. entrance)<br />Moab, UT 84532<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/45/r3v3-7Tqn1U">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/44/RTOcr6e5dko">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/43/cDI0XGVJI_M">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/42/JwrP-Rhmr5o">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/40/ehx0dfWAA9I">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/41/vbbyTBY76SE">Part 6</a><br /><br />Monday, September 21, 2009—6-8 p.m.<br />Central Region (Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties)<br />Sevier Valley Center, Theatre<br />800 W. 200 South<br />Richfield, UT 84701<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/27/891xyZ2O1jU">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/26/CA3_ev3Hfts">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/25/QVeryN5plWM">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/24/Lx1o2eyRygc">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/23/HMH28qiaC5k">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/22/h4qpf8Yadc4">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/21/8CGK0ikYohU">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/28/zDKJXALltlc">Part 8</a><br /><br />Tuesday, September 22, 2009–7-9 p.m.<br />Wasatch Front Region (Davis, Morgan, Salt, Tooele, and Weber Counties)<br />SLC Main Library, 4th floor conference room<br />210 East 400 South<br />SLC, UT 84111<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/19/0vjoCaI1XPY">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/18/qDHfz9mL6C8">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/17/fEwvfrQdSlc">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/16/_XqjLKrZ9gU">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/15/BrLrVeXwxVI">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/14/ZqMz65ysbLw">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/13/c2hullJm8Lo">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/12/uDxCu80YOXk">Part 8</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/11/mnG23fDjASM">Part 9</a><br /><br />Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.<br />Bear River Region (Box Elder, Cache, and Rich Counties)<br />Cache County Office Building, Multipurpose Room<br />179 No. Main St.<br />Logan, UT 84321<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/39/q0k1-wRlypM">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/38/sF7rDoMs2Eo">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/37/RaViblJmKqc">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/36/xgXHBoUkuUo">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/35/MbY4IwcqrRA">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/34/X6jYUJosCys">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/33/39gfR588deg">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/32/XKjw-kb0Ndc">Part 8</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/31/-VmCMCe8CLs">Part 9</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/30/C8Jp_mXKTkY">Part 10</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/29/AgNTuJYT3S0">Part 11</a><br /><br />Wednesday, September 23, 2009—7-9 p.m.<br />Mountain Region (Summit, Utah, and Wasatch Counties)<br />Provo City Library, Brimhall Room<br />550 No. University Avenue<br />Provo, UT 84601<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/66/q_OnGgofQww">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/65/fD87o2iNYVw">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/64/TvIttL-xyzs">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/63/xdm_FQm27B4">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/62/LCzdHoq6Jjc">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/61/pYD9vFxjj7M">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/60/R15DKNhiBrg">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/59/6nCQDePZV6o">Part 8</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/58/Lxc6pqfYs0s">Part 9</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/57/nroQ8YMWwrg">Part 10</a><br /><br />Wednesday, September 23, 2009—6-8 p.m.<br />Southwest Region (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington Counties)<br />Washington County Library, St. George Branch, Conference Room B<br />88 W. 100 South<br />St. George, Utah 84770<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/56/anByYIujgbU">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/55/rgFtiFEZPvg">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/54/rgrB6o4s26M">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/53/8k7LzeQiZNg">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/52/v-5yVWETBT8">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/51/uHs12F8iuAY">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/50/97z1XGXb4A0">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/49/0TxWBG5zo1M">Part 8</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/48/cVpoDK547PY">Part 9</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/47/FMqAaE3VW88">Part 10</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/46/9iOk8P5hSCQ">Part 11</a><br /><br />Thursday, September 24, 2009–7-9 p.m. NEW!<br />Uintah Basin Region (Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties)<br />Uintah Basin Applied Technology Center, Multipurpose Room<br />450 No. 2000 West<br />Vernal, UT 84078<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/9/CAqk3M7tTbM">Part 1</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/8/1ryxskqKFNE">Part 2</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/7/2uBCboZwycE">Part 3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/6/ybXYtB4uNJc">Part 4</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/5/p48vWxCJP-k">Part 5</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/4/JiGXYvz_BJM">Part 6</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/3/2A7WqF_iH50">Part 7</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/2/tKPyzxCbs38">Part 8</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/1/hotMiAzzLyI">Part 9</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/0/OYVySNuaCcA">Part 10</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/LGofUtah#p/u/10/HHbCzF48gog">Part 11</a><br /><br />Thursday, September 24, 2009—7-9 p.m. NEW!<br />Southeast Region (Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan Counties)<br />Grand County Council Chambers<br />125 E. Center St. (w. entrance)<br />Moab, UT 84532<br /><br /><em>No Video Provided on Lieutenant Governor's YouTube Site</em><br /><br />Tuesday, September 29, 2009—7-9 p.m. (An optional 8th hearing)<br />Weber County<br />Mound Fort Middle School, Media Center<br />1400 Mound Fort Drive<br />Ogden, UT 84404<br /><br /><em>No Video Provided on Lieutenant Governor's YouTube Site</em>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/4099834857739634473/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=4099834857739634473";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4099834857739634473";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4099834857739634473";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/10/citizens-of-utah-demand-ethics-reform.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-678808922806533164";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-18T08:31:00.004-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-18T10:11:45.244-06:00";s:5:"title";s:43:"Board of Education making crucial decisions";s:12:"atom_content";s:6306:"I'm always interested in what is happening at the State Office of Education. It seems that they've been making headlines more frequently in the last month. From hiring a new Superintendent to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/education/ci_12331023" target="_blank">firing</a> <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705302478/State-education-board-fires-two-auditors.html" target="_blank">their two</a> <a href="http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&amp;sid=6434890" target="_blank">internal auditors</a> to changing Board Rule concerning their auditing process. A few questions have come to my mind as I watch the changes that the State Board members are making or considering.<br /><br /><strong>Crucial Decision #1 - Hiring a new Superintendent</strong><br /><br />With the announcement by Superintendent Patti Harrington that she would be retiring, a Selection Committee made up of board members was formed, chaired by board member Denis Morrill. There were a few details made public in a Deseret News Article mid-April. I emailed Denis Morril and board secretary Twila Affleck for some details on what the <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705297222/Superintendent-search-progresses.html" target="_blank">Deseret News article</a> called "committee interviews". I was hoping for some information about the committees but failed to receive a response. However, it was rumored that some high-profile people were seen at a downtown hotel, consistent with selection committees formed in other scenarios. Legislators such as Howard Stephenson, Deputy of Education Christine Kearl, Chief Justice Christine Durham and PTA Education Commissioner Holly Langton were among some of the people seen on Wednesday, May 13. Whether they were there for committee interviews is just a good guess, but most likely that's the case. Why the committee makeup is being kept from the public is a question for the Selection Committee. When it comes down to it, I'm just happy that the board is getting outside input and I think that's a good move, although they are more than likely just helping to whittle down the selection and not necessarily weighing in on the final decision. We should be hearing who they narrowed it down to as early as today. The final decision will be made by the Board Selection Committee on Friday, May 29. Hopefully we'll be hearing an announcement soon thereafter, but the paper reports that we'll know on June 5.<br /><br /><strong>Crucial Decision #2 - Firing internal auditors</strong><br /><br />During the last board meeting on May 1 the board got into a lengthy discussion about the changes they were considering for the internal auditing process. <a href="http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r277/r277-116.htm" target="_blank">Current board rule</a> has the internal auditors reporting directly to the board. That's the way it should be, but we'll get to that in a moment. The board was reminded that this was just a discussion of possible changes. They scheduled more discussion for the June board meeting. That being said, it was a complete surprise that the board immediately thereafter (behind closed doors in an executive session) voted to fire the two internal auditors, Kent Mohlman and Tim Salazar. The now former internal auditors say they were equally surprised and have cited various reasons as to why they believe they were let go. Tim Salazar was the first to admit that he knew he worked at the pleasure of the board and could be let go at any time. But he also believes that it was a recent School Community Council audit that Superintendent Harrington disagreed with that led her to convince the board to let them go. Superintendent Harrington defended her actions, so at this point there is a bit of he-said-she-said going on. We can only speculate, but one thing is certain - the timing! What led them to take action so quickly before even solidifying the proposed changes to the internal auditing procedure? Which leads us to crucial decision #3.<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Crucial Decision #3 - Changing Internal Audit Board Rule (R277-116)</strong><br /><br />Since the board is debating changes to their internal auditing process, the question remains, what changes are they considering and are they good or bad? Let's break down the proposed changes found in a <a href="http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/agenda/r277-116.pdf" target="_blank">draft of board rule R277-116</a>. If they make the changes that have been proposed thus far, the following might be true:<br /><ul><li>There would no longer be a board-controlled review process that is independent. The auditors reported directly to the board, which allowed them to speak openly and not be afraid. This must continue to be the case if the auditing process is to work.</li><br /><li>The state board would be giving up authority. It would not be prudent for an elected body to give away their authority to independently review and monitor the people they hire to do the day to day work.</li><br /><li>A Tribune article said that the board was having a hard time overseeing the audit group, but auditor Tim Salazar reported that there weren't a lot of efforts made by the board to be aware of what the auditors were doing. Changing control to the Superintendent won't help the board know the auditors any better and would make honest reporting without fear of retribution even more difficult. </li><br /><li>The paper stated that the state board felt they were not capable of effectively managing the audit group. But if they, as a part time board, cannot manage the audit group, how can they effectively manage the Superintendent, who has enormous responsibilities in comparison to the auditors? Also, wouldn't the audit group, if used effectively, help the state board manage the superintendent?</li></ul>These are just a few concerns that should be considered as the State Board of Education moves forward with their discussion, and eventual decision, in the coming months. There are people that are concerned that the state board is being manipulated by the Superintendent, and that the Superintendent, or other staff, are taking responsibilities that should rest with the elected board. We'll be keeping an eye on things, but hopefully they'll come to the right decisions on their own.";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/678808922806533164/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=678808922806533164";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/678808922806533164";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/678808922806533164";s:4:"link";s:86:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/board-of-education-making-crucial.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-6332045969848439553";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-06T21:40:00.006-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-22T11:26:48.970-06:00";s:5:"title";s:80:"Secrecy in choosing vacant School Board replacement is bad.  Hypocrisy is worse.";s:12:"atom_content";s:4537:"I surprised myself last month. Upon <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705293338/New-education-board-member.html" target="_blank">hearing the news</a> that former Tooele District Superintendent Michael Johnsen was chosen as outgoing State School Board member Richard Moss' replacement, I was thrilled that the Governor actually made a good decision. Not just a good decision, a great decision! However, my elation blinded me to the fact that there was not a shred of transparency in the process. Had the person been someone that I felt was not good for public education you would have been reading this post a month ago when the selection was made! Shame on me for being a hypocrite. Unfortunately, I'm not the only hypocrite.<br /><br />There is already a problem with how the State School Board is elected in Utah. I've written at length about the process, but to quickly summarize, a committee is appointed from within the Governor's office. They interview candidates and narrow them down to three from within each district. They recommend three candidates to the Governor who likewise narrows the field down to two whose names are then placed on the ballot where the people decide who will be elected. This process needs to be changed and attempts were recently made in the last legislative session but were blocked in the Senate Education Committee.<br /><br />The current vacancy came when Board Member Richard Moss moved to Arizona in mid-March. A couple of weeks later, Governor Huntsman decided that Michael Johnsen would be the best man for the job. I agree! But the Governor didn't get advice from the Legislators as he should have. The Legislators will need to approve the newly appointed board member, which will likely happen later this month, but Richard Moss has called for them to block the Governor's pick on grounds that it wasn't a fair and open process. He makes an excellent point!<br /><blockquote style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"><p><a href="http://www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=id&amp;id=Utcoden%3Ar%3A4a61&amp;cid=Utcoden&amp;t=document-frame.htm&amp;2.0&amp;p="><b><span style="color:#800080;">20A-1-507</span></b></a><b>.</b> <b>Midterm vacancies in the State Board of Education.</b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">(1) If a vacancy occurs on the State Board of Education for any reason other than the expiration of a member's term, the governor, <strong>with the consent of the Senate</strong>, shall fill the vacancy by appointment of a qualified member to serve out the unexpired term.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">(2) The lieutenant governor shall issue a certificate of appointment to the appointed member and certify the appointment to the board.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"></p></span></blockquote>The biggest hypocrites in all of this is Senate leadership, specifically Senator Howard Stephenson. He was quoted by the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_12116308" target="_blank">Salt Lake Tribune</a> as saying, "We've heard a lot about transparency in government and the need to choose representatives of the people in an open process," he said, "and this didn't appear to be open." Stephenson said that the Governor should consider withdrawing Johnsen's selection.<br /><br />Senator Stephenson is the man who, as President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, bragged that they were able to "beat back a challenge to the committee which recruits and nominates candidates for the state school board". Since <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/senator-stephensons-blatant-conflict-of.html" target="_blank">I just wrote about his conflicts of interest</a>, I'll simply suggest that you read my recent post on the topic. It's really quite unbelievable that he, out of anyone, would have a valid opinion on the matter. Senator Waddoups chimed in, too, and we all know the problems he's been having; removing Senator Buttars from one committee position and <a href="http://kcpw.org/article/7807" target="_blank">assigning him to another</a>.<br /><br />I agree with the selection by Governor Huntsman. I hope that the Senate will confirm Michael Johnsen. If they don't give their consent and instead cry foul due to the lack of openness, then I expect them to do something about the flawed nomination process that doesn't allow the people to fairly elect those who represent them. I expect that anyway...I'm just sayin'.";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/6332045969848439553/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=6332045969848439553";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6332045969848439553";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6332045969848439553";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/05/secrecy-in-choosing-vacant-school-board.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-821737363951373743";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-04-29T08:37:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-04-29T08:41:12.346-06:00";s:5:"title";s:62:"School Choice:  Actual "Choice" or Emotionally-Laden Mindtrap?";s:12:"atom_content";s:5158:"As the traditional school year winds down, I've been thinking about the apparent complexitites of education and the chasms between the differing philosophies therein. This post errs a little on the philosophical side, so bear with me.<br /><br /><strong>"School Choice" and Other Euphemisms</strong><br /><br /><em>Euphemism: a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive.</em><br /><br />In my experience, and as the fruit of many conversations, I've come to believe that the term "school choice" is a euphemism for many things, and probably varies somewhat by person and group.<br /><br />Here's a partial list:<br /><br />1. Parents, not the government, should be responsible for educating their children.<br />2. Our public school system is failing miserably and is far too liberal.<br />3. Education should be privatized and compete on the free market.<br /><br />Personally, I don't think "school choice" has much to do with choice in education at all. I think it tends to be a euphemism for promoting whatever agenda it is disguising. In Utah, I think it serves as a smokescreen for the range of ideas I've just listed. I also think it's a term that hooks people emotionally and rallies them around a bandwagon that is not entirely transparent. For example, in the name of "school choice", groups of parents have started charter schools and/or supported vouchers for their children and communities...but have they unwittingly furthered an agenda to ultimately privatize education in Utah? I don't know, but I sure do wonder.<br /><br />Now, I can be fair. Do I think there are many school choice advocates who sincerely want to improve education? Of course. Are many school choice advocates open to ideas, dialogue, and collaboration? I believe so. To any of you who fall into this category, kudos and please read on. Utah needs you.<br /><br /><strong>Euphemisms and False Dichotomies</strong><br /><br />The problem I have with a euphemism like the term "school choice" is that it's an emotionally-charged way to set up a false dichotomy. It's a mindtrap that forces a complex issue into two false options. Even in casual conversation, let alone heated political debate, the very term divides people into proponents and opponents. However, the ideas around school choice are not mutually exclusive....we don't simply have choice or no choice. In my experience, it's a complicated mix of competing political, social, and economic ideologies.<br /><br />In a free, democratic (okay, representative republic) society like America, aren't we all theoretically supportive of "school choice"? I mean, honestly, who in their right mind doesn't want to have a choice in how, where, and in what form they and their children are educated? The reality, at least in Utah, is that we all have choice in education. The public school system allows open enrollment options and non-traditional options like charter schools. Home schooling is a legal option, and private schools are available. For some families, I realize that these options might be purely theoretical. Open enrollment is nice, but you have to drive your students to the school of your choice. Charter schools enroll by random lottery, and private schools require often exorbitant tuition. For some families, these are practical barriers to real choices. I see many of the problems, but there must be better solutions than hiding behind divisive euphemisms. We all want choice, we currently do have choices available, and yet we deal with some very real barriers and challenges. What we need are real solutions.<br /><br />So, if we're not talking about choice, what are we talking about? I think its about a clash of idealogies, barriers to practical solutions, and often, ego. There, I said it.<br /><br /><strong>A Call for Real Dialogue, Not Idealogues</strong><br /><br /><em>Idealogue: an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.</em><br /><strong></strong><br />I tend to believe that if people can find enough common ground, solutions to previously perplexing problems often reveal themselves. I'm not completely delusional...I've seen it happen time and time again. However, it takes courage, honesty, humility, and genuine dialogue. Idealogues (and egomaniacs) need not apply. We need creative, collaborative, solution-oriented people who can move beyond tired euphemisms and over-zealous partisanship. I realize there are many idealogical chasms, but there must also be bridges.<br /><br />As an observer of the complexities of education, I notice that using a term like "school choice" immediately creates division between the very people who could potentially create solutions. It creates a spirit and practice of partisanship that prevents solution-oriented dialogue and cooperation. Language is persuasive. It frames and defines our experience....it liberates or confines, it allows or denies, it illuminates or confuses.<br /><br />Let's let go of the emotionally-laden mindtraps, open up some real dialogue, and figure out how to work together. Education is too critical a topic for euphemistic games.";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/821737363951373743/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=821737363951373743";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/821737363951373743";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/821737363951373743";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/school-choice-actual-choice-or.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-3223563457321549813";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-04-28T08:11:00.001-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-04-28T12:01:56.362-06:00";s:5:"title";s:49:"Senator Stephenson's Blatant Conflict of Interest";s:12:"atom_content";s:4495:"I'll lay out the plain and simple facts. You try to process the paradox.<br /><br />March 30, 2009: Governor Huntsman signs <a href="http://le.utah.gov/%7E2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0345.htm" target="_blank">H.B. 345</a> <span style="font-family:georgia,serif;">(Elected Officials - Restrictions on Lobbying sponsored by Rep. Dee</span>) and the bill becomes law. What does this bill do? It simply says that a former legislator is not allowed to register as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office. Why? <strong>Because a former legislator could exercise undue influence over their former colleagues.</strong> Of course, there are <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/304297/" target="_blank">loopholes in this law</a>, but we're talking about the intent of the bill for the purpose of this post.<br /><br />If there is a concern that a former legislator could possibly exercise undue influence, what does that say about a powerful, current legislator? What about a powerful, current legislator who is also a registered lobbyist? What about a powerful, current legislator who is also a registered lobbyist AND the president of the Association that he/she lobbies on behalf of?<br /><br />Here come the plain and simple facts!<br /><br /><ul><li>Senator Howard Stephenson is a powerful Senator serving on an influential committee, namely the Senate Education Committee.</li><br /><li>Senator Howard Stephenson is a <a href="https://secure.utah.gov/lobbyist/lobbysearch?page=lobbyist_search_list&amp;id=143" target="_blank">registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association</a>.</li><br /><li>Senator Howard Stephenson declares a <a href="http://www.utahsenate.org/docs/scft2009dist11.pdf" target="_blank">conflict of interest</a> with legislative subject areas involving the Utah Taxpayers Association.</li><br /><li>Senator Howard Stephenson is the President of the Utah Taxpayers Association.</li><br /><li>The latest issue of the <a href="http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=856" target="_blank">Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter</a> boasts the defeat of HB150 that would have made the State Board of Education seats a fair, open and non-partisan election. From the newsletter:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Reflecting the Association’s broad mandate, the Taxpayers Association’s <strong>key bills</strong> fell into four categories this year: Education Reform, Government Transparency, Taxes and Miscellaneous. In education reform, we continued to champion parental involvement in their children’s education by <strong>making sure</strong> HB 2 did not cap the number of Utah charter schools. In addition, <strong>we beat back</strong> a challenge to the committee which recruits and nominates candidates for the state school board. With a membership balanced between representatives from the education and business communities, this board has done a remarkable job of recruiting candidates with a broad array of backgrounds to run for the State School Board. Despite the board’s well-documented success, Rep. Carol Spackman Moss sponsored HB 150 to eliminate the committee. Although the House approved HB 150, <strong>the Senate Education Committee did not approve it</strong>." (emphasis added)</blockquote></li><li>Senator Howard Stephenson is a member of the Senate Education Committee and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/votes/comvotes.asp?sessionid=2009GS&amp;voteid=685&amp;sequence=16543" target="_blank">voted "nay" on the motion to recommend H.B. 150</a>!!</li></ul>Can you see how blatant and wrong this is? Senator Stephenson openly admits a conflict of interest and at the same time admits that the organization that he is the President of and registered lobbyist of is the one whose "key bill" they "beat back" and that the Senate Education Committee which he is a member of "did not approve it" and he boasts it openly and publicly. Wow!<br /><br />Perhaps this is something that can be discussed at the Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy.  Their next meeting is on May 21 (location to be determined) and <strong>the focus for the meeting is lobbying regulations</strong>.  <a href="http://www.strengthendemocracy.org/2009/03/what-lobbying-regulations-need-to-be-changed-and-how/#comments">They even want our opinion</a> so this is our opportunity.  We can continue to allow the people in charge to continue to abuse the system, or we can get involved and try to make a difference.  If we don't try then we only have ourselves to blame.";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/3223563457321549813/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=3223563457321549813";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/3223563457321549813";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/3223563457321549813";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/senator-stephensons-blatant-conflict-of.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-7183802430324344280";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-04-20T22:11:00.004-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-04-21T11:36:55.143-06:00";s:5:"title";s:58:"Redistricting Rumble: Governor Stands Down, Voters Step Up";s:12:"atom_content";s:1751:"Okay, just because Governor Huntsman acquiesced to House Speaker, Dave Clark, by "standing down" on ethics and redistricting, maybe all is not lost. Take a look at this <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_12185131">article in today's Salt Lake Tribune</a> covering the efforts of a new coalition formed to breathe life into an independent redistricting commission.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.fairboundaries.org/">Fair Boundaries Coalition</a> is calling for an independent redistricting commission, and wants it put to a public vote in 2010.<br /><br />The Utah Constitution does identify redistricting as a responsibiltiy of the Legislative branch, but there are broad concerns that lawmakers create districts to benefit themselves (and perhaps close-knit groups of lawmakers with similar agendas) rather than creating districts based on population centers and shared interests that benefit voters and that speaks to a more democratic process. Currently, redistricting is a strong and blatantly-wielded power tool that has already affected the political process.<br /><br />Because citizen initiatives cannot be used to ammend the Utah Constitution, the independent commission is proposed as an advisory role, leaving lawmakers with the final say in redistricting. While there may be some risk that the commission would end up offering only symbolic oversight, it might also serve as a strong first step toward balancing the redistricting scale.<br /><br />The Fair Boundaries Coalition brings together a diverse, non-partisan group of Democratic, Republican, Third-Party, and Independent members. They need at least 94,000 voter signatures by April 15th, 2010 to secure a place on the ballot. Democracy in action. Step up, voters!";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/7183802430324344280/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=7183802430324344280";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/7183802430324344280";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/7183802430324344280";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/redistricting-rumble-governor-stands.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-1250352937061389789";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-04-19T13:41:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-04-20T21:21:34.701-06:00";s:5:"title";s:53:"The Governor's Commission Backs Off Addressing Ethics";s:12:"atom_content";s:4792:"If you haven't already read Thurday's Deseret News <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705297906/Guv-wants-ethics-study-narrowed.html">article on Governor Huntsman's democracy commission</a>, please take time to digest its content and implications. In a nutshell, what has recently been informally referred to as the governor's "ethics commission" is now nothing of the sort. The governor originally wanted to study why the citizens of Utah were not participating in the political process and had identified several possible reasons, including discouragement over ethics problems.<br /><br />Originally, five areas were under scrutiny for both study and redress: campaign finance, lobbying, elections, as well as ethics and redistricting. However, House Speaker, Dave Clark (R) asked the governor to "stand down" on tackling ethics and redistricting as part of the commission's work, and Huntsman has agreed. Apparently the idea that ethics reform and redistricting fall solely under Legislative branch purview, and that Governor Huntsman was stepping on toes, has won the day.<br /><br /><strong>Can We Say "We Told You So", Yet?</strong><br /><br />In a recent blog <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-media-dupe-us-on-huntsmans-ethics.html">Did the media dupe us on Huntsman's "Ethics Commission"?</a>, my blogging partner, Sara, questioned the intent behind this commission. Kudos to Sara for seeing, and nailing, the writing on the wall! We have both blogged about various incarnations of ethics blunders and the "clear as the nose on your face" need for serious and real ethics reform in Utah. While some may feel that issues of ethics and redistricting should be issues handled by the Legislative branch, Governor Huntsman's decision simply begs the sad, yet critical, opportunity to say "we told you so". The term "ethics reform" has become a popular buzz word used for spin and hype, but has not come to represent, at least as yet, real change in Utah politics.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_12117949">I also wonder how serious the governor is about gift bans and holding the Executive branch to a higher standard</a>... Just curious. In any case, as it currently stands, the Legislative branch will continue policing itself...and perhaps the governor will continue wondering why Utahns are frustrated with Utah politics and "democracy".<br /><br />You can keep up on the governor's commission at <a href="http://strengthendemocracy.org/">StrengthenDemocracy.org</a>.<br /><br /><strong>Still One of Only Ten States Without an Ethics Commission</strong><br /><br />I feel like a broken record, but we have underscored on this site that <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/ethics_commissions.htm">Utah is still only one of ten states that does not have an independent Ethics Commission</a>. Come on, folks. What does it take to get some genuine, objective oversight in this state? In December, I wrote:<br /><br /><em>Utah is one of only ten states that does not have an independed Ethics Commission. In our case, we have Senate and House Ethics Committees, intended to be bi-partisan in nature with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. Utah also relies on the Attorney General's office to provide ethics oversight. However, given the recent ethics debacles and their subsequent investigations (or relative lack thereof), it doesn't take much to realize that legislators policing legislators is not an ideal model.</em><br /><br />Ethics reform was the hyped battlecry of this year's legislative session and hope was high for some of us that it would bear the fruit of an independent Ethics Commission.....especially since early talk about the governor's commission on democracy would take a serious look at ethics. What sounded like a genuine step toward a real Ethics Commission now just falls under the category of "business as usual".<br /><br /><strong>Two, Okay, Three, Fundamental Changes We Need</strong><br /><br />In a recent post, I mentioned:<br /><br /><em>On this site, we have called for at least two fundamental changes in ethics reform, and they bear repeating:<br /><br />1. Strong, clearly-written, and enforceable ethics legislation<br />2. An independent Ethics Commission</em><br /><br />In my humble opinion, Utah has wasted yet another year and legislative session on hype, feel-good spin, and less-than-real progress toward measureable, impactful ethics reform. The two fundamental changes I just identified are yet at least another legislative session away from being taken seriously. Upon further reflection, I want to add another fundamental change we need: some new, honest, ethical public servants...so that change can come from the inside out. Maybe I'll run for office.";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/1250352937061389789/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=1250352937061389789";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/1250352937061389789";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/1250352937061389789";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/04/governors-commission-backs-off.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-4300088936535088578";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-03-26T23:10:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-03-26T23:17:01.000-06:00";s:5:"title";s:33:"Should Senator Bramble apologize?";s:12:"atom_content";s:15364:"I recently got the full scoop on Senator Bramble's bill (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0199.htm" target="_blank">SB199</a>) that <a href="http://beehivebulletin.blogspot.com/2009/02/senator-brambles-pta-revenge-bill.html" target="_blank">originally</a> <a href="http://www.fromwhereisitblog.com/2009/02/sen-brambles-pta-hate-bill-sb-199.html" target="_blank">included language</a> that would <a href="http://www.localcommentary.com/davidblog/2009/20090225.htm" target="_blank">make it impossible</a> for school staff and administration to work in a cooperative manner with any PTA group ever again. It would have been the <a href="http://blogs.sltrib.com/politics/2009/02/utah-were-number-one.htm" target="_blank">first bill of its kind in the entire nation</a>, but the bill ultimately failed. However, before it bit the dust the bill's sponsors, Senator Bramble and Representative Lockhart, were afforded many opportunities to prove why the public have been screaming "ethics reform" at the top of their lungs.<br /><br /><strong>The premise of the bill was based on lies, falsehoods and a misrepresentation of the facts. It amounted to a smear campaign.</strong><br /><br /><ul><li>The title of the bill, "Equal Recognition of School Parent Groups", contradicted entirely the original language that "A school may not...work in conjunction with a parent group that requires the payment of dues as a condition for participation in its group, including participation in volunteer opportunities, leadership positions, or the ability to vote." This verbiage was artfully crafted to specifically target the PTA, although it would have some unintended consequences for a few other organizations, as well. The original bill would have restricted all access to the largest parent group in Utah, thus effectively taking the "equal recognition" right out of the title.<br /><br /></li><li>The citizen sponsor of the bill, Dawn Frandsen, testified in the Senate Education Committee that there were major problems in her school district with fairness by administrators to include Parent Teacher Organizations (PTO) along with Parent Teacher Associations (PTA). She testified that preferential treatment was given to the PTA groups. This testimony was finally refuted by the District Superintendent via an email to legislators. The email claims that Ms. Frandsen never tried to work out this issue of fairness on a district level. Senator Bramble worked off the same assumption and made it public when he uncircled the bill on the Senate floor to ask for a vote to pass it out to the House (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/av/smil?sess=2009GS&amp;ID=60994" target="_blank">5:00</a>). In my mind Senator Bramble owes Superintendent Merrill an apology.</li><br /><a title="View Email from Supt. Merrill to Sen. Bramble on Scribd" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 12px auto 6px; FONT: 14px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/13414173/Email-from-Supt-Merrill-to-Sen-Bramble" target="_blank">Email from Supt. Merrill to Sen. Bramble</a><object id="doc_666205393744391" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=" height="500" width="100%" align="middle" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" name="doc_666205393744391" rel="media:document" resource="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13414173&amp;access_key=key-ofhp9nryzgm5ciutzb2&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=" media="http://search.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/media/" dc="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><param name="_cx" value="16907"><param name="_cy" value="13229"><param name="FlashVars" value=""><param name="Movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13414173&amp;access_key=key-ofhp9nryzgm5ciutzb2&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode="><param name="Src" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13414173&amp;access_key=key-ofhp9nryzgm5ciutzb2&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode="><param name="WMode" value="Opaque"><param name="Play" value="-1"><param name="Loop" value="-1"><param name="Quality" value="High"><param name="SAlign" value="LT"><param name="Menu" value="-1"><param name="Base" value=""><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="Scale" value="NoScale"><param name="DeviceFont" value="0"><param name="EmbedMovie" value="0"><param name="BGColor" value="FFFFFF"><param name="SWRemote" value=""><param name="MovieData" value=""><param name="SeamlessTabbing" value="1"><param name="Profile" value="0"><param name="ProfileAddress" value=""><param name="ProfilePort" value="0"><param name="AllowNetworking" value="all"><param name="AllowFullScreen" value="true"><br />                                       <embed src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13414173&access_key=key-ofhp9nryzgm5ciutzb2&page=1&version=1&viewMode=" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_666205393744391_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"></embed>             <span rel="media:thumbnail" href="http://i.scribd.com/public/images/uploaded/12817552/xKLlUWkNK9RTHy_thumbnail.jpeg">       </span>       <span property="dc:type" content="Text">    </object><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 6px auto 3px; FONT: 12px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none"></div><br /><br /><li>Bramble introduced the bill by saying (<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.le.state.ut.us%2Fav%2Fsmil%3Fint%3D127363&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFrqEzc9rmsAMC0KUGJNB8TcnAkFE0dIjw" target="_blank">5:16</a>), "Dawn Frandsen is really the genesis and it was her experience that has brought this issue to the forefront. This was done at her request." Ms. Frandsen started her testimony by catching everyone up on the basis for the bill (read "upset with the PTA"). She said that when the PTA at her school tried to become a PTO the Utah PTA made it very difficult for her and other parents to become a PTO they were (<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.le.state.ut.us%2Fav%2Fsmil%3Fint%3D127363&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFrqEzc9rmsAMC0KUGJNB8TcnAkFE0dIjw" target="_blank">7:20</a>) "threatened and told that they would be excluded from district privileges". Keep in mind that these are alleged threats by the PTA folks, not the district. Since when does the PTA decide what level of involvement parents have with a school district? If Ms. Frandsen really believed the threats, why didn't she take it up with the district? She later explains in her testimony that in a September 2008 district school board meeting there were discussions that there might be budget cuts that need to be made. Some board members suggested that they get input from the PTA. Frandsen explains, "The woman sitting next to me leaned over to me and asked "why they don't ask the PTOs", and I said, "Oh, they won't. They never have." Frandsen said that a "high ranking cabinet member" happened to be walking by and standing next to us and the woman sitting next to her said to him, "Why don't you ask the PTOs" and his response to her was, "We do not work with the PTOs". (<a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.le.state.ut.us%2Fav%2Fsmil%3Fint%3D127363&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFrqEzc9rmsAMC0KUGJNB8TcnAkFE0dIjw" target="_blank">8:30</a>) I immediately began to question why she took one "high ranking cabinet member" at his word and didn't choose to pursue it further if she thought it was such a problem. Why didn't she talk to the Superintendent about the problem? If that's not enough, Frandsen goes on to talk about her problems with the PTA, not her problems with the districts not giving equal access to all parents. She elaborates on problems other parents in other districts (that she "personally talked to") had WITH THE PTA. The bill doesn't address equal access to the PTA. The bill doesn't address making it easier for a PTA to split off and become a PTO. But these are the types of examples that she included in her testimony, which clearly demonstrate that her beef is not with the districts at all, rather the PTA. This will go down in history as the biggest "I'll show you" move from a single parent. The fact that a lawmaker didn't see through this further demonstrates that they had some motive of their own to shut down the PTA.<br /><br /></li><li>Just as Senator Bramble didn't bother to check up on Frandsen's motive for bringing the bill forward, he also didn't bother to follow up on the validity of an email he received from a grandparent alleging that her granddaughter was not allowed to run for Student Body Office because her mother was not a member of the PTA and hadn't paid PTA dues. He cites the email as a basis for the law to pass out of the Senate when he uses it as yet another example of why a bill like this is needed (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/av/smil?sess=2009GS&amp;ID=60994" target="_blank">4:00</a>). The principal of the school wrote a letter to Senator Bramble explaining that the basis of the email was completely false. However, no attempt was made to set the record straight, no apology...instead, an <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11934261" target="_blank">angry phone call by the Senator</a> and a subsequent hang-up of the phone when the conversation didn't go his way. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=bramble+pizza+girl&amp;sourceid=navclient-ff&amp;rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS280US280&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Sounds all too familiar.</a> Before the angry phone call he had warmed up by ripping into a representative of the PTA outside the doors of the House of Representatives after he became frustrated with the PTA for exercising their right to <a href="http://www.desultorythoughts.com/blog/archives/2009/03/06/pta-stands-up-for-children-regardless-of-consequences/" target="_blank">do what's best for the children</a>. The Daily Herald called it an "<a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/302126/155/" target="_blank">animated conversation</a>" but they only saw the conversation. Had they actually heard it they would have used the words "butt-chewing". When Bramble and Lockhart were through with the butt-chewing Bramble must have realized that he did another stupid thing and said as much by huffing, "I'm sure I'll see this in Paul Rolly tomorrow, too!" I'm no Paul Rolly, but I'm sure plenty of people will read this. What he did was despicable. He threatened, he belittled, he tried to silence the PTA once and for all. He said that a PTA lobbyist would need a signed affidavit from the PTA Board when testifying before a committee or else they wouldn't be allowed to testify ever again. He tried to influence their decision by use of guilt, telling them that they could never be trusted again. Trust issues, indeed! But they lie with our legislators who continue to bully, but this time they don't even bother to keep it in house. Unethical behavior at it's best!<br /><br /><a title="View FW Student Officers at Spring Creek Middle School on Scribd" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 12px auto 6px; FONT: 14px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/13410661/FW-Student-Officers-at-Spring-Creek-Middle-School">FW Student Officers at Spring Creek Middle School<object id="doc_884612815812515" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=" height="500" width="100%" align="middle" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" name="doc_884612815812515" rel="media:document" resource="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13410661&amp;access_key=key-1im6vi1njkxb9k058ooh&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode=" media="http://search.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/media/" dc="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><param name="_cx" value="16907"><param name="_cy" value="13229"><param name="FlashVars" value=""><param name="Movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13410661&amp;access_key=key-1im6vi1njkxb9k058ooh&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode="><param name="Src" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13410661&amp;access_key=key-1im6vi1njkxb9k058ooh&amp;page=1&amp;version=1&amp;viewMode="><param name="WMode" value="Opaque"><param name="Play" value="-1"><param name="Loop" value="-1"><param name="Quality" value="High"><param name="SAlign" value="LT"><param name="Menu" value="-1"><param name="Base" value=""><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="Scale" value="NoScale"><param name="DeviceFont" value="0"><param name="EmbedMovie" value="0"><param name="BGColor" value="FFFFFF"><param name="SWRemote" value=""><param name="MovieData" value=""><param name="SeamlessTabbing" value="1"><param name="Profile" value="0"><param name="ProfileAddress" value=""><param name="ProfilePort" value="0"><param name="AllowNetworking" value="all"><param name="AllowFullScreen" value="true"><br />                                       <embed src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13410661&access_key=key-1im6vi1njkxb9k058ooh&page=1&version=1&viewMode=" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_884612815812515_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"></embed>             <span rel="media:thumbnail" href="http://i.scribd.com/public/images/uploaded/12787976/XeGcND2paQnzkHGRt_thumbnail.jpeg">              <span property="dc:type" content="Text">    </object></a><p style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 6px auto 3px; FONT: 12px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none"></p></li></ul><br /><br />Perhaps it's occurred to you as you've read about the disheartening actions of abusive legislators that there is an obvious connection between the PTA's involvement in the education coalition effort to squash vouchers and the actions of policymakers whose unethical behavior is standing in the way of progress for Utah's public schools. It couldn't really be a coincidence, could it? Bramble has <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705286433,00.html?pg=2" target="_blank">already refuted the connection</a>, but isn't it interesting that the same legislators and organizations that stood on opposite sides of the voucher issue also stood on opposite sides of the anti-PTA bill?<br /><br />I would encourage more people to get involved as it would seem that our politics are being taken over by overly zealous individuals on the far left and the far right. With that kind of framing of our laws and policies, it's really quite amazing that we're not worse off than we are. We need reasonable people out there making their voices heard and working to control the insanity, so I invite you to get involved!";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/4300088936535088578/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=4300088936535088578";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4300088936535088578";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4300088936535088578";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/should-senator-bramble-apologize.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-2153826861787982387";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-03-19T17:26:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-03-19T17:37:37.304-06:00";s:5:"title";s:54:"Are pigs really flying, or are legislators just lying?";s:12:"atom_content";s:13540:"I had high hopes coming into the 2009 Legislative Session. I had hoped that something would be done about ethics reform this year. Finally, not only was the public ready (this year more than ever), but it seemed legislators were ready, too. Several complaints were brought forward just months earlier. These ethics complaints clearly demonstrated that legislators were unable to govern themselves when it came to following through on any action that might be brought against one of their own. Most agreed that they needed to fix it and <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php" target="_blank">many vowed to do just that</a>.<br /><br />In January of 2007, a Deseret News writer suggested that <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,650220350,00.html" target="_blank">Utah would ban lobbyists' gifts "when pigs fly"</a>. When a few bills made it to the House Ethics Committee for consideration the committee members took the opportunity to blame the media for the public's "misperception" of ethics on the hill, claiming that they only know what the media tells them and often the media isn't giving them the entire picture. During discussion of HB 213 Ban on Gifts to Legislators they felt comfortable enough to joke that they had seen pigs flying above the capitol that morning and the Deseret News reporter was even in the room. At the end of the session, Speaker Clark was presented with a pig made out of wood - wings and all! The funny thing is, HB 213 was stalled in rules committee just <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/house-ethics-committee-newly-expanded.html" target="_blank">as we suspected</a> and it FAILED! How could they possibly have taken credit for flying pigs when there is no ban on gifts to Legislators?<br /><br />Of the 21 ethics reform bills that were filed, only 5 of them were sent to the Governor for his signature. The Utah State Legislature website <a href="http://le.utah.gov/session/2009/pdfdoc/2009EthicsChanges.pdf" target="_blank">breaks it all down for us</a>, but let me fill you in on some details.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>HB 346 Campaign and Financial Reporting Requirements Amendments</strong></span><br /><br />You might find it interesting to know that HB 346, Campaign and Financial Reporting Requirements Amendments, originally required contributions and public service assistance to be reported within 5 days of the day on which they were received. The main purpose of this bill was to increase the speed of reporting requirements, thus making it more difficult for legislators to report donations after they had already been elected. It passed out of the House Ethics Committee with a favorable recommendation and then out of the House with a unanimous vote with <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0346.htm" target="_blank">original language</a>. On the Senate floor the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0346s01.htm" target="_blank">bill was substituted</a>, meaning that changes were made to it, specifically that the 5 day reporting requirement was changed to 30 days. The bill was <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0346s03.htm" target="_blank">substituted yet again</a> (on the very same day, two days before the end of the session) and under suspension of the rules it was considered read for the second and third time and a vote was taken and passed out of the Senate.<br /><br />Senator Valentine made the first substitute that did the real damage. A second substitute was written up but not made public or voted on, and finally, Senator Bramble added definition language to the bill in the third and final substitute, essentially watering the bill down even more by adding more things that "Contribution" does NOT include.<br /><br />When a bill undergoes that many changes after it has already passed out of the House it is necessary for the House to either "concur" or agree to the Senate amendments or take another vote. It is common practice for the House to concur on Senate Amendments and for the Senate to likewise concur with House amendments to Senate bills, especially as the session winds down to a close. What is that good for? Laws that haven't been closely scrutinized. Laws that lose their original intent. Only <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0346s3.002h.txt" target="_blank">four representatives voted not to concur</a> to the Senate amendments.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>HJR 14 Joint Rules Resolution - Ethics Training Course Provisions</strong></span><br /><br />HJR 14 is the only piece of legislation that adds rules to ethics procedures and this is what concerned me the most. After all the problems the ethics committee complained about, not having the proper guidelines and guidance when it came to knowing if Greg Hughes was guilty of the complaints brought against him, I would have thought that they would try to fix their process and rules! The best they came up with is to have legislators undergo online training, but what happens the next time fellow legislators file another ethics complaint? Do the new rules requiring legislators to know what is ethical and what isn't ethical help the ethics committee with the problems they had last year?<br /><br />To add to the debacle, the Senate mucked with this bill just like they did with HB 346. With only one day left in the session they amended the bill to include lobbyists! I might have thought that a great thing if it weren't for the last line of the amended bill. It states:<br /><br /><blockquote style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">45a <b>S. <u><i>(6) A lobbyist who does not complete the training required by this rule is subject to an</i></u></b><br />45b <b><u><i>ethics complaint under Senate or House rule.</i></u> .S<br /></b><br /></blockquote><div dir="ltr">Notice that it doesn't say "A <strong>legislator</strong> or lobbyist". I find that somewhat curious. Are legislators not subject to an ethics complaint if they fail to complete the training? Legislators are off the hook according to this new law and apparently nobody noticed.</div><br /><div dir="ltr">Instead of rushing amendments through that result in sub-par law they should have been fixing their own ethics process and rules. If you've forgotten how bad it is <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705277913,00.html" target="_blank">read Bob Bernick's take</a> after he listened to the taped testimony of Rep. Greg Hughes during the last Ethics Committee investigation. They desperately needed to make themselves some new <a href="http://le.utah.gov/documents/legislativerules/legrules.htm#TOC1_289" target="_blank">rules</a> but they ignored that completely. They'll certainly keep ignoring the need for an independent Ethics Commission, too. But don't worry, pigs were flying this year, right? Congratulations to everyone! Congratulations to the rules committees who did their job with flying colors <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/call-to-action-for-house-rules.html">just as in previous years</a>. They held over 75% of the ethics bills that came before them. They seem to think that's their job. Take a look at some of the good bills that they failed to take action on:</div><ul dir="ltr"><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0213.htm" target="_blank">HB 213 Ban on Gifts to Legislators</a> (When Pigs Fly!)<br />This is the big "when pigs fly" bill that they were prematurely celebrating. Someone might want to tell them that they have to pass this bill out and enact it into law in order for the pigs to fly! This did not pass, it got stuck in the House Rules Committee like so many other ethics bills this year and in previous years. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/sbillsta/sr0004.htm" target="_blank">SR 4 Senate Rules Resolution - Ethics Revisions</a><br />Stuck in Senate Rules Committee. This bill would have fixed some of the same problems the House Ethics Committee ran into for the next time there was a complaint against a Senator. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/sbillsta/sjr019.htm" target="_blank">SJR 19 Joint Resolution Regarding Legislative Ethics</a><br />Stuck in Senate Rules Committee. Minor adjustment that allows for Senate Rule to be followed when considering the make-up of a Senate Ethics Committee. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/sbillsta/sb0101.htm" target="_blank">SB 101 State Ethics Commission<br /></a>This is what we needed! It was stuck in the Senate Rules Committee and would have created Utah's first and much needed independent State Ethics Commission. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hjr026.htm" target="_blank">HJR 26 Joint Rules Resolution on the Selection of Ethics Committee Members</a><br />Stuck in House Rules Committee. This bill would have fixed some of the problems that last year's House Ethics Committee ran into, beginning with the composition of the committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0312.htm" target="_blank">HB 312 Amended Campaign Finance Filings</a><br />This bill passed out of the House Government Operations Committee favorably and then passed out of the House but died in the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/votes/comvotes.asp?sessionid=2009GS&amp;voteid=773&amp;sequence=18135" target="_blank">Senate Education Committee</a>. The sponsor of this bill was Sheryl Allen and it failed most likely due to retribution/payback. She was <a href="http://media.bonnint.net/slc/714/71455/7145532.pdf" target="_blank">involved</a> in the Hughes ethics complaint. Senator Bramble, an influential member of the Senate Education Committee, <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-voters-turn-to-adjudge-whats.html" target="_blank">virtually admitted to conduct that is criminal</a> during his testimony while defending Hughes. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0282.htm" target="_blank">HB 282 Task Force on Legislative Reform</a><br />Another bill that might have actually had some real impact on ethics reform which the House Rules Committee held. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0268.htm" target="_blank">HB 268 Legislator Reporting of Gifts and Other Items</a><br />This bill overlapped what SB 156 was doing and was held in the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0159.htm" target="_blank">HB 159 Ethics Provisions</a><br />This bill addressed all the problems that were present during the Hughes investigation. It never made it past the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0139.htm" target="_blank">HB 139 Legislator Gift Reporting Act<br /></a>An overlap bill with SB 156 which was held in the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0109.htm" target="_blank">HB 109 Modifications to Campaign Finance</a><br />This bill would have put a limit of $15,000 on campaign contributions and removed inconsistent definitions of "political purposes". It died in the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0103.htm" target="_blank">HB 103 Revolving Door Limitation for Public Officials to Become Lobbyists<br /></a>This was an overlap with HB 345 and kept in the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0093.htm" target="_blank">HB 93 Establishment of State Ethics Commission</a><br />Another bill that would have established the State Ethics Commission. It's what the people want, but they didn't listen. It was left on the desk in, you guessed it, the House Rules Committee.<br /></li><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0084.htm" target="_blank">HB 84 Campaign Financing and Gift Regulation<br /></a>Another gift bill that was taken care of in SB 156. They had a few choices this year in regulating gifts and they kept this one in the House Rules Committee. </li></ul>And still more that didn't even get as far as the House or Senate Rules Committee:<br /><ul dir="ltr"><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/sbillsta/sjr015.htm" target="_blank">SJR 15 Joint Rules Resolution - Legislative Ethics</a><br />Empty Bill that Sen. Valentine thought about doing something with but never did for whatever reason. </li><br /><li><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/status/hbillsta/hb0348.htm" target="_blank">HB 348 Creation of the Office of Inspector General</a><br />This bill didn't have language and didn't deserve language. It would have favored having one person judge the ethics of legislators instead of forming a commission. One person is subject to being influenced and being biased. Not a good idea. </li></ul><a href="http://le.utah.gov/session/2009/pdfdoc/2009EthicsChanges.pdf" target="_blank">You can read more about the lucky five here.</a><br /><br />So there you have it. The newspapers have apparently succumbed to the pressure to quit "misrepresenting" ethics on the hill. I've only seen a couple of stories that question whether or not ethics reform happened this year. It's quite clear to me that it did not and my next post will illustrate how out-of-control things got up there this year, specifically concerning Bramble's SB 199 which I like to call the anti-PTA bill. Talk about ethics!";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/2153826861787982387/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=2153826861787982387";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2153826861787982387";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2153826861787982387";s:4:"link";s:82:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-pigs-really-flying-or-are.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-1076391117385089553";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-25T17:50:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-26T06:45:13.403-07:00";s:5:"title";s:55:"Bad Bill Alert!  Byrne's 65% "Solution" is Back (SB241)";s:12:"atom_content";s:3755:"You can read about what I've previously written about the 65% "Solution" <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/patrick-byrne-sightings-what-is-he-up.html" target="_blank">here</a> (Aug. 2008) and <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/florida-school-voucher-update-amendment.html" target="_blank">here</a> (Sep. 2008), but here are some items you should be aware of:<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>It's nothing new. It was a <a href="http://www.educationnews.org/Commentaries/THE_65_PERCENT_DELUSION.htm" target="_blank">bad idea</a> then, it's a <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/02/boxcar-filled-on-feb-23rd-senator-mark.html" target="_blank">bad idea</a> now.<br /><br /></li><li>This bad idea originated with Tim Mooney of Arizona. He used Patrick Byrne's (CEO of Overstock.com) money and they organized their efforts and formed an organization known as "First Class Education"<br /><br /></li><li>First Class Education have apparently abandoned their original efforts. Their website is an empty WordPress blog, but don't be fooled. Thanks to technology (WayBack Machine) you can still <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071110100518/http://www.firstclasseducation.org" target="_blank">view their old site</a>.<br /><br /></li><li>Did I mention that it's nothing new? Four years ago, they attempted to get legislation passed in every state. They ultimately failed (they wanted to have legislation in all 50 states by 2008) despite the nasty memo that they circulated among legislators outlining their <a href="http://www.firedupmissouri.com/system/files?file=fce_political_memo.pdf" target="_blank">POLITICAL MOTIVES</a>!<br /><br /></li><li>This is not a new bill. In 2006, Utah was included in their efforts when Greg Hughes sponsored HB143 titled "<a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/bills/hbillamd/hb0143.htm" target="_blank">Instructional Expenses Requirements</a>"<br /><br /></li><li>The 2006 bill made it out of the House Education Committee. It was amended before it <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/votes/comvotes.asp?sessionid=2006GS&amp;voteid=847&amp;sequence=16236" target="_blank">passed out favorably</a> with a vote of 7 "Yeas", 6 "Nays" and 2 "Absent".<br /><br /></li><li>The new bill is being sponsored by Senator Mark B. Madsen in the form of SB241 titled "<a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0241.htm" target="_blank">Instructional Expenses</a>". It is word for word <strong>exactly</strong> the same bill (unamended version) of HB143 in 2006.<br /><br /></li><li>Tim Mooney claims that the 65% Solution is currently on hold. When I asked him why it was on hold he told me it was due to timing. When I told him about SB241 in Utah he was surprised and told me that he wasn't aware of it. I asked him if he was still working with Patrick Byrne on this issue and he confirmed that he was.<br /><br /></li><li>Patrick Byrne is the newly appointed <a href="http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/about/ShowBoardMembers.do" target="_blank">Co-Chair of the Friedman Foundation</a>. Their agenda and goal is to have vouchers and legislation that supports vouchers in all 50 states. They already <a href="http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/about/whatwedo.jsp">claim Utah as a success story</a> for their involvement in the passage of the Carson Smith Scholarship program.<br /><br /></li><li>There is no basis or research for why they chose 65% that should be spent in the classroom. Why not 68% or 72%? Utah already spends at least 65% in the classroom. The purposes of this bill are <a href="http://www.firedupmissouri.com/system/files?file=fce_political_memo.pdf">outlined in their own memo</a> and their agenda hasn't changed. Don't be fooled!</li></ul>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/1076391117385089553/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=1076391117385089553";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/1076391117385089553";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/1076391117385089553";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/bad-bill-alert-byrnes-65-solution-is.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-6878405266569591868";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-21T14:49:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-21T14:54:58.178-07:00";s:5:"title";s:45:"Developers, Lobbyists, and Legislative Ethics";s:12:"atom_content";s:3214:"<div>Interesting stuff, ethics.  Sometimes it's hard to tell what's in a name, and it appears that "ethics" can mean different things to different people.  Sometimes the apparent lack of ethics in a given situation comes down to a differing world view.  Take Sen. Buttars and his view on same-sex couples and their civil liberties.  No matter where you fall on the topic, the side you view as "ethical" comes down to fundamental differences in what you define as right and wrong.  Buttar's embarrassing antics aside, and acknowledging heated debate and belief on both sides, I believe fundamentally differing world views will always cause each of us to question our definition of ethics and who is right or wrong in any given situation.</div><br /><div><span style="font-weight:bold">Defining Ethics</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div>HOWEVER, broader world view perspectives are not the focus of ethics reform at Capitol Hill.  The ethics reform we are all calling for can and should be clearly defined and measured.  But will it even come close?  A couple of GOP <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_11752000" style="outline-style:none;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;color:rgb(85, 26, 139)">ethics bills</a> have made their way into the Senate, and here are the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/committeebills.asp?com=HSTETH" style="outline-style:none;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;color:rgb(85, 26, 139)">ethics bills</a> currently being considered in the House Ethics Committee.  What exactly is the definition of "ethics" up on the hill?  For example, as a public servant, is it ethical to have to list all of the gifts you receive from lobbyists, or is it ethical to simply refuse gifts...as an honest attempt to remain unbeholden to anyone except your constituents?  I have my own opinion, and it has nothing to do with limiting or listing gifts.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-weight:bold">Developers and Lobbyists Need To Go</span></div><div><br /></div><div>I also wonder if its ethical for a legislature full of developers and former/future lobbyists to to police themselves.  The Governor's "ethics commission" does not look like it's shaping up to actually become an independent body providing oversight on ethics at all.  The developers and lobbyists will continue to run the state, remain loyal to their overall agendas, and get away with looking like they are truly interested in ethics by participating in this year's high-profile ethics reform.  In addition to truly effective ethics legislation and a bona fide independent Ethics Commission, the current gaggle of developers and lobbyists parading as public servants need to be ousted in the next round of elections.  They need to be replaced by individuals who are actually interested in, and capable of, actually serving the public in honest, ethical, and transparent ways.</div><div><br /></div><div>Do your research, my friends.  Understand not only the world view of your public servants, but also their definition of ethics and what loyalties they bring with them to the hill...</div><br /><br /><br /><div> </div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/6878405266569591868/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=6878405266569591868";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6878405266569591868";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6878405266569591868";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/developers-lobbyists-and-legislative.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-460085934813213424";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-11T23:13:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-11T23:24:21.723-07:00";s:5:"title";s:56:"Did the media dupe us on Huntsman's "Ethics Commission"?";s:12:"atom_content";s:5214:"On January 22, 2009, Governor Huntsman announced a newly-formed Commission. That evening and during the next 24 hours the headlines read "<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705279668,00.html" target="_blank">Huntsman appoints ethics reform panel</a>", "<a href="http://www.gop12.com/2009/01/huntsman-launches-commission-to-clean.html" target="_blank">Huntsman launches commission to clean up Utah politics</a>", and "<a href="http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&amp;sid=5393379&amp;pid=1" target="_blank">Governor organizes government ethics commission</a>". I remember the evening well. I was jogging on the treadmill and nearly fell off it when it was announced on the ten o'clock news. I was pleased, but skeptical.<br /><br />Imagine my surprise when I hear <a href="http://thedougwrightshow.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-arent-we-voting.html" target="_blank">Doug Wright (a member of the commission)</a> on the morning news clarifying that when the commission was formed Governor Huntsman had a lot more things in mind...ethics being only one item on the long list. Surprise turns to disappointment when I read the formal name of the commission, "Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy". That doesn't sound anything like an ethics commission!<br /><br />Based on news reports, almost all of them spinning the ethics reform angle, I was able to determine that Huntsman isn't really sure exactly what will come of the commission and that he won't tell the commission specifically what the recommendations should look like. Quotes like, "They will do their thing and we will do ours, and I suspect that over time, some of these things will be taken up" didn't inspire confidence for the direction of the commission. I was beginning to understand that <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/whats_the_difference.htm" target="_blank">my idea of an ethics commission</a> was a lot different than the media's spin on what Huntsman never meant to be an ethics commission in the first place!<br /><p>Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said the commission's purpose is to look "at reasons why Utahns aren't participating and don't have the necessary confidence in their government system. This group is not intended to look solely at ethics or even legislative ethics."</p><p>Disappointment turns to bananas (as in "mad as heck") when I realize that the local mainstream media fed us what we wanted to hear! A lot of people probably didn't catch on to what they were sold a couple of weeks ago. Happy to see that something was finally being done about last year's <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-treasurers-race-got-dirty-before.html" target="_blank">unethical</a> <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-voters-turn-to-adjudge-whats.html" target="_blank">behavior</a>, they went along with the daydream. I hate to be the one to wake you up, but wipe the drool off your face and snap out of it! Huntsman has something else going on, but it likely won't bring about the major ethics reform that we have been asking for. Who knows, maybe his commission will be able to have some influence or come up with some good ideas or recommendations. He's not even sure, so how can we be?</p>I'm sure I'll be looking more into the Governor's Commission on Strengthening Utah's Democracy, but for now there are <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SubResults.asp?Listbox4=02208" target="_blank">real bills</a>, a lot of them making their way to the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2009&amp;Com=HSTETH" target="_blank">House Ethics Committee</a> as recently as Monday. These bills would have the potential for real change to how business is done up on the hill. Keep an eye on them. They've already <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/call-to-action-for-house-rules.html" target="_blank">made it further than some ethics bills made it last year</a>. Congrats to the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2009&amp;Com=HSTRUL" target="_blank">2009 House Rules Commmittee</a>.<br /><br />Unfortunately, House Speaker Dave Clark has <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705283989,00.html" target="_blank">already given up</a>. He recently said, "It's not going to happen in this session. This is going to take, I think, through this next summer." I sincerely hope he was just trying to incite a riot. In any case, it's going to take continued public outcry if anything is to be done. Polls alone aren't enough. We had <a href="http://utahamicus.com/2008/02/12/ethics-reform-must-proceed-in-the-utah-legislature/" target="_blank">polls last year</a> and nothing was done. We need polls, scandals (plenty to choose from) <strong>and</strong> public outcry. The legislators themselves understand the need for public outcry and <a href="http://utahamicus.com/2008/02/12/ethics-reform-must-proceed-in-the-utah-legislature/" target="_blank">have stated</a> that it will take " a burst of public support" before they can proceed with any kind of ethics reform legislation, and they were saying that in January, 2008. They told us what it's going to take, you take it from here.";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/460085934813213424/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=460085934813213424";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/460085934813213424";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/460085934813213424";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-media-dupe-us-on-huntsmans-ethics.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-6069059326053247417";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-01-21T07:53:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-21T11:13:28.123-07:00";s:5:"title";s:49:"What is the status of the omnibus bill complaint?";s:12:"atom_content";s:4601:"We're less than a week away from the beginning of the 2009 Legislative Session here in Utah and there is quite a buzz surrounding this session. Budget cuts have a lot to do with that and there is also much talk about ethics reform. We've been pretty loud about ethics reform here at the Accountability blog. In fact, before we kick off the next session on January 26, 2009, and all that will come with it, we ought to revisit a few topics that are still ongoing and some that have, perhaps, even been forgotten.<br /><br />There is new information about the illegal "Omnibus Bill" officially known as SB 2 (second substitute). The plaintiffs have filed for a partial judgement concerning non-triable, unconstitutional issues of fact, specifically concerning counts three and four of the complaint on file. Count three and count four were not the main focus of the complaint last year, at least not for bloggers and news reporters. A lot of work has been done by the plaintiffs and their lawyers to show how unconstitutional the omnibus bill is, based on counts three and four. They are:<br /><ul><li>Count Three: Portions of SB 2 violate the non-delegation doctrine and Article X, Section 3, of the Utah Constitution. <em>(Specific to "Teacher Salary Supplement Program" SB 35 or lines 774 to 864 of SB2)</em><br /></li><li>Count Four: Portions of SB 2 violate the non-delegation doctrine and Article X, Section 3, of the Utah Constitution. <em>(Specific to Section 11 of SB 2 - Requiring an "independent party" to evaluate public school instructional materials )</em></li><br /></ul>I'm happy to see that this is being pursued and after reading through the "Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Article 10 Related Claims," that was served on January 5th. I was impressed with the amount of case law that was cited and how it applies in this situation. Last year I, and others, <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/omnibus-bill-bungled-and-illegaly.html" target="_blank">focused almost entirely on counts one and two</a>. They state that SB 2 consisted of 14 other bills that, according to the Utah Constitution, a bill is required to have 1) a single subject and 2) a clear title. These were the most obvious parts of <a href="http://alt-tag.com/blog/blogdata/SB2complaint-filed.pdf" target="_blank">the complaint</a>, but now that counts three and four have been elaborated on, they are equally valid and convincing, if not more so.<br /><br />You'll need to <a href="http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/sara-aoyxs/jVdHqvBY1wI04LIVcSUufT2Q6oNObLgQsH43G8untXEUZJa0sWUCn8TFTMvD/SB2.litigation.reformatted.art.pdf">read the document</a> in it's entirety to fully understand where the plaintiffs are coming from, but I'll pull out some main points (the section headers, to be exact) to illustrate the newly elaborated concerns so that you can see what I'm talking about.<br /><ul><li>SB 2 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES THE USBE'S POWERS AND DUTIES OF GENERAL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO THE UDHRM AND PRIVATE PARTIES</li><br /><ul><li>The Legislature May Not Transfer the Power Which Has Been Constitutionally Vested in a Constitutional Office to Other Agencies or to Private Parties.</li><br /><li>The USBE Is a Constitutional Office With Constitutionally-Vested Power to Control and Supervise Public Education in the State of Utah.</li><br /><li>The Teacher Salary Supplement Program and the Textbook Approval Program of SB 2 Are Impermissible Legislative Encroachments upon the Administrative Power of the USBE.<br /></li></ul><li>SB 2 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES GOVERNMENT POWER TO PRIVATE PARTIES</li><br /><li>CONCLUSION</li><ul><br /><li>Sections 19,20, and 11 of SB 2, the so-called Teacher Salary Supplement Program and Textbook Approval Program, should be declared unconstitutional. Both programs violate the non-delegation doctrine as that principle of constitutional law has been applied on numerous occasions by the Utah Supreme Court. They provide that another agency, the UDHRM, and private parties shall administer programs, the general control and supervision of which are constitutionally committed to the USBE under Article 10, Section 3. The Textbook Approval Program suffers from the additional constitutional defect of delegating government power to a private party.</li></ul></ul>Whatever happens with the complaint, I believe legislators in the upcoming session will avoid the mistakes they made last year. They will be much more careful about encroaching upon powers and logrolling. We're all watching!";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/6069059326053247417/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=6069059326053247417";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6069059326053247417";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6069059326053247417";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-status-of-omnibus-bill.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-5377593883669306068";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-01-14T10:15:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-14T10:24:36.332-07:00";s:5:"title";s:58:"New Ethics Bills Already Raising Questions....And Eyebrows";s:12:"atom_content";s:2263:"Over the past couple of days, the Salt Lake Tribune has followed up on the question of ethics in Utah's legislature.  An article in today's paper, for example, highlights the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_11446523">misuse of lobbyist gifts</a>, and provides some insight into the nearly $170,000 in lobbyist gifts legislators racked up last year.  <span style="font-style:italic">Insight,</span> becomes a contradiction in terms with regard to gifts, however, since the vast majority of them have been obscured from public view and almost entirely undisclosed.  That is all supposed to change and is something, among other ethics reforms, that many of us have been calling for.<div></div><br />On Monday, a hint of things to come (at least in terms of dialogue and the appearance of change) came in the form of an <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/Utah%20Politics/ci_11439160">ethics package consisting of four bills</a>.  I've said before, I want to be encouraged...no, blown away, by real change in the legislature.  I want these bills to be a real step towards transparency in government and a commitment to putting the public trust and service before monetary gain and political agendas.<div></div><br />Keep your eye on the process of finding consensus and, ultimately, acceptance of these bills, folks.  It's bound to reveal a lot about some of our "public servants" and their motives for serving.  I hope it raises a few questions for you like it does for me.  For example, is Senate President, Michael Waddoups, serious when he says, of banning lobbyist gifts, that "we're inclined to think that disclosure is a better thing than prohibition, because prohibition tends to turn well-meaning acts into criminal acts."  WHAT?  Is this the same guy who wants liquor to be "prohibited" from even being viewed in Utah restaurants?  Does anyone else see the incongruity, no, the borderline schizophrenia here?  In addition, a few legislators are squirming in the face of bill "four" in the package which prohibits legislators from becoming lobbyists for a year after they leave office....with no mention of what that means for current legislators who are already paid lobbyists for various industries.<br /><div></div><br />Let the shakedown begin.";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/5377593883669306068/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=5377593883669306068";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/5377593883669306068";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/5377593883669306068";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-ethics-bills-already-raising.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-6651339448513242708";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-12-30T09:51:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-02T19:48:51.585-07:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"Ethics Reform Revisited";s:12:"atom_content";s:4418:"I hope everyone had a little time off to spend with family and friends and that your holidays were well spent. With the New Year right around the corner and, perhaps more importantly, the 2009 Legislative session only 3 weeks away, it's just about time to wipe the sleep out of our eyes and pay attention to what lawmakers have in store for us next year. The presents and candy-induced comas will have their turn again sooner than we realize.<br /><br />In preparation for the upcoming legislative session, I'd like to revisit a few points concerning ethics reform. In October <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/pledge-for-ethics-reform.html" target="_blank">I wrote about the efforts of Utahns for Public Schools</a> to bring about positive change in regards to campaign finance. They published a <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/ethicspledge.pdf" target="_blank">Pledge for Legislative Ethics Reform</a> and invited candidates and legislators to sign it as a vow of their active support and work for the passage of legislation that would allow for a more open, honest, ethical and transparent government. As of today, <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php" target="_blank">24 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Independent have signed the pledge</a>. However, now that the election results have been tallied and the winners declared, there are only 31 out of 72 who are in a position to make good on their promise. They are:<br /><br />Sheryl Allen, House District 19 (R)<br />Trisha Beck (NEW), House District 48 (D)<br />Laura Black (NEW), House District 45 (D)<br />Rebecca Chavez-Houck, House District 24 (D)<br />Tim Cosgrove, House District 44 (D)<br />Jim Dunnigan, House District 39 (R)<br />Becky Edwards (NEW), House District 20 (R)<br />Richard K. Ellis, (NEW), State Treasurer (R)<br />Julie Fisher, House District 17 (R)<br />Gage Froerer, House District 8 (R)<br />Kevin S. Garn, House District 16 (R)<br />Francis D. Gibson (NEW), House District 65 (R)<br />Richard Greenwood, House District 12 (R)<br />Greg Hughes, House District 51 (R)<br />Christine Johnson, House District 25 (D)<br />Pat Jones, Senate District 4 (D)*<br />Dan Liljenquist (NEW), Senate District 23 (R)<br />David Litvak, House District 26 (D)<br />Steve Mascaro, House District 47 (R)<br />Scott McCoy, Senate District 2 (D)<br />Ronda Rudd Menlove, House District 1 (R)<br />Karen Morgan (NEW), Senate District 8 (D)**<br />Marie H. Poulson (NEW), House District 46 (D)<br />Kraig Powell (NEW), House District 54 (R)<br />Luz Robles, (NEW), Senate District 1 (D)<br />Paul Ray, House District 13 (R)<br />Phil Riesen, House District 36 (D)<br />Jay Seegmiller (NEW), House District 49 (D)<br />Jennifer Seelig, House District 23 (D)<br />Carol Spackman Moss, House District 37 (D)<br />Christine F. Watkins (NEW), House District 69 (D)<br /><br />Hopefully there are more legislators who support the pledge but for one reason or another have not signed it. I find it interesting that of all the signers only one current legislator (Pat Jones) who wasn't running for re-election bothered to sign the pledge. I don't believe Utahns for Public Schools meant for this to be a campaign tool, although that's what it ended up being. I would challenge any legislator not listed above to get a signed copy of the pledge in the mail ASAP. There was a time when your word was as good as gold, and perhaps it is for some of you, but how are we to know you care? I suppose we could email or call and ask each one of you individually, but why not let us all know by signing the pledge? If you're not in favor of ethics reform or if you disagree with certain points of the pledge, feel free to post a comment here and let us know what you would do differently. The people, your constituents, are interested in a change. The only people who can make that happen is you, the lawmakers. Now, more then ever, you can see that a change is needed. I personally hope that ethics reform goes beyond the points listed in the Utahns for Public Schools pledge (such as the formation of an independent ethics commission), but let's start somewhere! Please let us know that you hear us!<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">*Incumbent that did not run for re-election in 2008</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">**Retired seat in House (District 46), new to Senate</span>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/6651339448513242708/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=6651339448513242708";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6651339448513242708";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6651339448513242708";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/ethics-reform-revisited.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-433276694500336070";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-12-10T22:07:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-12-12T01:08:30.614-07:00";s:5:"title";s:65:"House Ethics Committee: Newly-expanded role, but any real change?";s:12:"atom_content";s:3684:"Last week,  incoming House Speaker <a href="http://le.utah.gov/house/members2005/bios2005.asp?id=74">David Clark R-Santa Clara</a> reported on a <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20Home%20Page/ci_11138722">newly-expanded role for the House Ethics Committee</a>.  Good news, right?  I would hope so, but I also have a nose for lip service, band-aids, and all things superficial.  Maybe it's a good step towards more accountability and ethics reform, but it sounds more like an emphasis on training legislators on what is and is not ethically appropriate so that, in Representative Clark's words, "it reduces the [disciplinary] meetings we have to hold."   To be fair, it sounds like legislators have also tasked staff attorneys with drafting 17 new ethics bills, along with a few bills addressing campaign finance and lobbyist regulation.  This piques my interest because there is at least some change and attention addressing the essential topic of ethics.  <em>However</em>,  I still believe the real issues and the most direct and effective solutions are being side-stepped. <br /><br />On this site, Sara and I have called for at least two fundamental changes in ethics reform, and they bear repeating:<br /><br />1.  Strong, clearly-written, and <em>enforceable</em> ethics legislation<br />2.  An <em>independent</em> Ethics Commission<br /><br /><strong>Ethics Legislation</strong><br />As you may remember, Representative Greg Hughes was recently reviewed for ethics violations.  While the bi-partisan House Ethics Committee cleared Hughes, all eight members signed a letter faulting his <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10753979">conduct as "unbecoming a member of the Utah House.</a>"  "We request that Representative Hughes take steps to change his behavior," the panel wrote, "and to make appropriate apologies to those who may have been affected."<br /><br />Part of the reason Hughes was cleared came down to dubiously less-than-clear legislation....language so vague as to blur culpability for any number of otherwise obvious misdeeds.<br /><br /><strong>Independent Ethics Commission</strong><br /><div>Back in August, Sara wrote an <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/legislative-ethics-process-time-to.html">excellent post on the topic of legislative ethics</a>, outlining the process for filing and reviewing an ethics complaint and underscoring some of the current problems with the process....along with the obvious need for an independent state ethics commission.  <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/ethics_commissions.htm">Utah is one of ten states who have not formed an independent Ethics Commission</a>.  In our case, we have Senate and House Ethics Committees, intended to be bi-partisan in nature with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.  Utah also relies on the Attorney General's office to provide ethics oversight.</div><div> </div><div>However, given the recent ethics debacles and their subsequent investigations (or relative lack thereof), it doesn't take much to realize that legislators policing legislators is not an ideal model.</div><div> </div><div><strong>Impress Us, Please!</strong></div><div>Believe me, I want to be impressed.  No, I want to be blown away by how seriously our legislators take ethics, but let's not be fooled by feel-good reports of changes to the House Ethics Committee if they don't translate into real change.  Keep an eye on this committee, the bills being drafted....and whether or not the bills even make it out of the <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/call-to-action-for-house-rules.html">House Rules Committee</a>.</div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/433276694500336070/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=433276694500336070";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/433276694500336070";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/433276694500336070";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/house-ethics-committee-newly-expanded.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-578898278419473357";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-12-08T07:00:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-12-08T08:03:11.444-07:00";s:5:"title";s:56:"Is Utah Senator Howard Stephenson looking for a new job?";s:12:"atom_content";s:6655:"A week ago the Salt Lake Tribune wrote an article entitled "<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_11102649" target="">Did Utah senator's advocacy go too far</a>?" and quoted from <a href="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/1129/20081129_100752_harringtonletter.pdf" target="_blank">emails that he had written</a> to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE). The tone of the emails spoke for themselves; Senator Stephenson was obviously upset. "I've had it" and "This is past a joke" were only two of many phrases that ripped into Superintendent Harrington and employees of USOE. The article was likely prompted by the Utah State Board of Education's recent <a href="http://www.schools.utah.gov/LAW/Administrative%20Rules%20Files/R277-117.pdf" target="_blank">change in Board Rule</a> that now prohibits unauthorized personnel (including legislators) to view Requests for Proposal (RFP). The new rule was adopted in response to Stephenson's continued pressure and "help" that he was offering USOE. Superintendent Patti Harrington felt the need to protect her staff from political pressure and the Board agreed.<br /><br />The article, and two subsequent follow-up articles, didn't make Howard Stephenson very happy. He decided to use his weekly Red Meat Radio program to let people know that he feels justified in his actions. He has "worked behind the scenes to try to get improvement there" and he wanted to "expose the underbelly of the most dysfunctional office in the state." He obviously has some very strong feelings. Despite the cooperation of Superintendent Harrington as she has worked so hard to be as cooperative as she could (read the emails, they speak for themselves) and they've worked things out before with success. Instead of acting like a statesman, an elected official, a man becoming a legislator, he <a href="http://senatesite.com/blog/2008/12/red-meat-radio.html" target="_blank">makes a coherent, planned, thought-out decision</a> to do USOE further harm and inflict further pressure. Is this how business is done on the Hill? Didn't somebody just get <a href="http://le.utah.gov/interim/2008/pdf/00001712.PDF" target="_blank">reprimanded for this kind of behavior</a>?<br /><br />Howard Stephenson is a senior member of the Senate, as he pointed out on his radio program, and Chair of the Public Education Joint Appropriations Committee. He has a lot of ideas about technology and education. His opinions are so strong and he believes he is so powerful that he has no problem getting involved. But is his involvement going too far? Is he trying to do a job that isn't his to do?<br /><br />Everyone knows an <a href="http://www.bluesuitmom.com/career/management/knowitall.html" target="_blank">"expert" who thinks they know everything</a>, shouting the answers across the room to questions that weren't asked of them. They overheard the question and they know the answer! Sometimes there isn't even a question being asked, but they're still there, more than willing to let you know their opinion. Bosses out there may relate even better to someone in their office who is always trying to take over, who speak on your behalf when it hasn't been authorized for them to do so. Learning to deal with eager-beavers is a part of life and eventually most of them learn how to control their outbursts. We tend to have little patience for their actions and our annoyance is usually read as a sign that their behavior is unwelcome and inappropriate. Sometimes you must put your foot down and declare, "If you want my job why don't you just apply for it?!"<br /><br />This seems to be the case with Howard Stephenson. He is so eager to do the job that may or may not be getting done at the Utah State Office of Education that he's literally trying to do it for them. This may reflect on USOE, but it also reflects on Stephenson. Why is he so insistent that one particular business get a contract over another company? Some suggest that he has something to gain, but what if he doesn't. What if he just really believes in the company and believes that they'll do the best job? He gave them an hour infomercial on Saturday during his radio program, ending with their phone number and website address; he must really like them. That's fine, but it's not his job to select the company! That's the job of USOE. If he wants to make decisions in that arena then I suggest he apply within. He certainly has the passion, perhaps he'd do ok in such a position, but he's not in that position!<br /><br />Stephenson also has some strong opinions on what style of math should be taught in public schools. Again, one might ask, "What's in it for him?" I haven't been able to come up with anything substantial as of yet, although I've looked. I can only surmise that there must be some ulterior motive, that's the conspiracy theorist in me, especially when it comes to Legislators. But even if there isn't, even if he just honestly believes that <a href="http://www.utahsmathfuture.com/contactus.cfm" target="_blank">Singapore Math</a> is the absolute best thing for our children, it's not his job to decide that!! There are people hired to make those decisions and their name is not Howard Stephenson.<br /><br />There are other examples, that this blog may decide to investigate further, where Stephenson has overplayed his hand and exerted his power and influence. Stephenson referred to it as so-called meddling on his radio program. That may well have been a good action word to use, but his decision to go on the air and publicly criticize the office has elevated the verb to bullying. Sad that we all know what happens to bullies on the Hill. Virtually nothing!<br /><br />Is his influence still too strong to resist? When we act annoyed at the know-it-alls around us, they usually aren't in a position to give us a cut in pay or even demand that we be fired. But Stephenson believes he is so powerful that he can do just that. It would appear as though he may actually have that kind of influence. Try calling either employee mentioned in the emails that Stephenson recommended be terminated. You won't find them in the jobs they were doing. One of them left USOE earlier than anyone expected and the other is now a secretary. I can't say for certain that both circumstances are not coincidental or unrelated, but somehow I think otherwise.<br /><br />I hope that his colleagues will help him recognize the error of his ways and seek to advise him on how a Senator acts in what must be a difficult situation for him. No matter how justified he thinks he is, his actions and words are inappropriate, to say the least.";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/578898278419473357/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=578898278419473357";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/578898278419473357";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/578898278419473357";s:4:"link";s:87:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-utah-sentator-howard-stephenson.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"5";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-2350253633769493549";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-11-03T09:54:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-11-03T13:50:29.719-07:00";s:5:"title";s:47:"It's the Voters' Turn to Adjudge What's Ethical";s:12:"atom_content";s:6860:"I received the following letter written by attorneys David Irvine and Alan Smith this morning. I hope you'll read it, think about what this kind of behavior means for the state of our law-making process, and then vote accordingly. I'll let the letter speak for itself.<br /><br /><blockquote>We are the attorneys (registered Republicans) who recently were not allowed to put on our clients’ case for ethics violations against Rep. Greg Hughes before the House Ethics Committee. The public may not be aware that, under the House rules of procedure governing ethics hearings, neither the legislators who petition nor their attorneys who have prepared the case for them are given any rights of participation in the ethics process once a complaint is filed. Hence, the committee members, who have no background, information, or knowledge respecting the charges presented, and with no training as investigators or prosecutors, must figure out what evidence might bear upon those charges, determine how to gather and hear that evidence, and adjudge a respondent’s guilt or innocence. In Hughes’s case, moreover, the committee was forced to do all of this on impossibly short notice, secretly, and within an extremely compressed time-line.<br /><br />Notwithstanding these procedural biases which favor the accused legislator, all 8 members of the ethics committee, Republicans and Democrats, found that Hughes was guilty of “conduct unbecoming a legislator.” This rebuke was seconded with an admonition to apologize for his wrongdoing.<br /><br />As to the ethics charges themselves, the committee gave Hughes a pass, not because it found him innocent, but because, in the Committee’s view, the legislature’s current ethics standards were too vague to be applied.<br /><br />Putting the question of ethics aside, and looking at the evidence of crimes, former Republican legislator, Susan Lawrence, testified credibly and forcibly that Hughes had offered her a bribe. This testimony was corroborated by two other Republican legislators, Sheryl Allen and Paul Ray. Many if not all of the key witnesses who testified respecting the misconduct of Hughes, namely, Lawrence, Allen, Ray, Kim Burningham, and Margaret Bird, are Republicans. What is more, our Republican Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, has announced that a criminal docket might be opened to investigate the Lawrence bribery charge, and many believe that Hughes may be a co-conspirator in the Mark Walker bribery scandal and a subject of the grand jury proceeding recently instigated by two county attorneys, one a Republican, the other a Democrat. In the face of so much inculpation by fellow party members, it is no wonder that the Republican chair of the ethics Committee, Todd Kiser, closed the hearing by stating that he had seen exhibited, through days of evidence, a very “unstatesmanlike” exercise of enormous power by Hughes.<br /><br />In addition to these adverse judgments by his Republican peers, the Democratic half of the committee membership found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Hughes was guilty of one count of bribery and two counts of extortion. On another charge, that Hughes had misused taxpayer monies, exercised undue influence with a government agency, and subverted the legislatively prescribed neutrality of that agency in a state-wide election, the Committee voted to absolve Hughes only because his Republican colleague, Senator Curtis Bramble, took the fall for him. Bramble testified that, although Hughes was in charge of the political organization which had perpetrated these wrongs, it was not Hughes, but Bramble, who had acted directly in relation to the agency involved. In other words, even though Hughes knew of the wrongdoing and was in a position to stop if not prevent it, he escaped conviction since he merely stood by, did nothing, and watched while Senator Bramble engaged in malfeasance on Hughes’s behalf. So much for “moral leadership.” (Indeed, the Republican leadership at the state legislature, notwithstanding some recent “noise” that they have “got religion” on ethics, isn’t rushing to bring charges against Bramble -- even though, while “falling on his sword” for Hughes at the ethics hearing, Bramble virtually admitted to conduct that is criminal, and, since then, has bragged on a talk radio program that he would repeat that conduct if occasion arises).<br /><br />Hughes now claims that he was vindicated by the committee’s judgment that he engaged in conduct unbecoming a legislator. This claim could be Hughes showing off his mastery of overstatement. But it more likely reveals, once again, that his moral compass has a hard time finding true north. He stubbornly refuses to take responsibility for his own misconduct, blaming those who merely report his wrongdoing. He is willfully blind to the constitutional requirement that those who run for office must remain accountable to the body politic. Hughes is so far from these qualities of responsibility and accountability that, upon hearing that the ethics complaint had been filed, he went to the state capitol to “get a piece of” and “punch out” one of the legislators who had filed it. The Highway Patrol was called to prevent Hughes from physically harming a fellow legislator.<br /><br />Under the present ethics procedures at the state capitol, a legislator may not be found guilty of misconduct unless there is “clear and convincing” evidence that he has been unethical. For the Republicans on the committee, that would seem to require a videotape of Hughes handing over a bag of cash to someone. But this is not the traditional standard by which those who are given power to be exercised in trust for the benefit of others have been or ought to be judged. Under this time-tested, yes, conservative standard, all fiduciaries, including legislators, once accused, have the burden of persuasion to show that their conduct has been proper, that their actions are above reproach and beyond suspicion. The public, in other words, should not have to worry, wonder, or debate whether their representative has been above-board in his dealings – since this would never occur, after all, if that representative had avoided even the appearance of impropriety. We respectfully submit that Rep. Hughes, in his dealings, has not come within a country mile of meeting this standard. Indeed, the only thing “clear and convincing” about the Hughes case is that he was convicted, by a unanimous, bi-partisan vote, of conduct unbecoming a member of the people’s House. That finding is a vote of “no confidence,” and certainly is no “exoneration.” The public should echo this vote on Nov. 4th by replacing him.<br /></blockquote><br /><em><span style="font-size:78%;">Posted with permission by the authors.</span></em>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/2350253633769493549/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=2350253633769493549";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2350253633769493549";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2350253633769493549";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/its-voters-turn-to-adjudge-whats.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-2667915741041915456";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-11-01T23:16:00.003-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-11-01T23:42:26.682-06:00";s:5:"title";s:46:"A Call to Action for the House Rules Committee";s:12:"atom_content";s:4194:"<div dir="ltr">Many of you have probably already taken advantage of early voting like I have, but with the official election day drawing near I can't help but want to stand here at the podium a few more times. While some of the immediate voting decisions we all need to make revolve around candidates and propositions, the immediacy of some of these decisions also begs some visionary and long-term questions. What do we value, what do we want, what can and should we expect from government leaders?<br /><br />During the 2008 Legislative session, HB 130 (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0130.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0130.htm</a>) outlined a proposal for creating a State Ethics Commission. As an important and necessary call to action for the entire state, hope was high for some real change in legislative oversight. In reality, the bill was summarily dismissed by the House Rules Committee. No policy committee debate, no policy committee work, no progress. The bill was killed.<br /><br />I can't overstate how much power the House Rules Committee has in the legislative process. In a nutshell, this committee serves as gatekeeper. Proposed bills are submitted to this committee where they are discussed and potentially assigned to an approriate policy committee for further debate, refinement, and progress. Of course, any bill can be defeated even if it is assigned to a policy committee, but at least it has a chance to be debated and reviewed in committee work. And, bills that make it to committee are also more easily brought to the public's attention. However, the House Rules Committee can also cause a bill to be "held" which is, in effect, an immediate death sentence for the held bill. The bill goes nowhere and potentially important change is at least another year in coming.<br /><br />I realize this is a simplistic and brief review, but the point is that this committee has a responsibility and power that sometimes goes unnoticed and unchallenged by the public at large. With so much current dialogue regarding ethics and another legislative session on the horizon, I thought it would be important for me to take a look at who currently serves on this committee.<br /><br />The 2008 House Rules Committee (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2008&amp;Com=HSTRUL">http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2008&amp;Com=HSTRUL</a>) who reviewed and killed HB 130 calling for an independent State Ethics Commission is currently comprised of the following members:<br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart, Chair<br />Rep. Gregory H. Hughes, Vice Chair<br />Rep. Jackie Biskupski<br />Rep. James A. Dunnigan<br />Rep. Kevin S. Garn</span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson<br />Rep. Michael T. Morley<br /></span><a href="mailto:Jfellows@utah.gov"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">John L. Fellows</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">, General Counsel<br /></span><a href="mailto:Jcannon@utah.gov"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">John Q. Cannon</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">, Managing Policy Analyst<br /></span><a href="mailto:Ssmith@utah.gov"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">Stewart E. Smith</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:85%;">, Pol Analyst/Spec Projects Mngr</span></div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr"><br />Election results could, of course, change the makeup of this committee.  Tuesday will tell.</div><div dir="ltr"><br />For now, in my opinion, HB 130 was a call to action for the entire Utah political machine. Since it was "held" and went nowhere, and there will undoubtedly be another ethics reform bill submitted in the future, this post is a very personal call to action specifically for the House Rules Committee during the upcoming 2009 Legislative Session: assign the bill, let there be debate, scrutiny, questions, refinement, public input, and real progress towards objective ethics oversight! </div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/2667915741041915456/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=2667915741041915456";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2667915741041915456";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/2667915741041915456";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/11/call-to-action-for-house-rules.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-8785323279430046329";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-10-29T07:43:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-11-01T10:36:40.027-06:00";s:5:"title";s:39:"Know Your State School Board Candidates";s:12:"atom_content";s:6358:"<div dir="ltr">The Utah State School Board election is being overshadowed by other elections, but that's not breaking news to you. It's not for lack of decent information about the School Board candidates that this race is being overlooked. There is plenty of information available if you know where to look. A quick <a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;rlz=1T5GGLL_enUS270US270&amp;q=utah+state+school+board+candidates" target="_blank">google search</a> gives you many options, but by the second page it's hit or miss. In hopes of saving you some time and making sure you're getting good information I've listed some of the resources I've used to get to know our Utah State School Board candidates.<br /><strong><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:100%;">District 1</span></strong><br /><br /></div><div dir="ltr"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.ashliman.org/">Susie Campbell Ashliman</a></span> - <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808531" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li></div><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Shelly Locke</span> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/LockeUTPS_School_Board_Survey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808528" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><br /><hr /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:100%;">District 4</span></strong><br /><br /><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Chris L. Dallin</span> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/DallinUTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/DallinC_USBE4.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808525" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">David Thomas</span> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/ThomasUTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/ThomasD_USBE4.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808520" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2008/10/utah-state-school-board-district-4.html" target="_blank">Utah Moms Care</a><br /><br /><hr /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:100%;">District 7</span></strong><br /><br /><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Leslie Brooks Castle</span> - <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808516" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Randall A. Mackey</span> (Incumbent) - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/MackeyUTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/MackeyR_USBE7.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808507" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><p><a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2008/10/utah-state-school-board-district-7.html" target="_blank">Utah Moms Care</a><br /><br /><hr /><br /><br /><strong>District 8</strong> <p></p><li><a href="http://www.janetacannon.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:100%;">Janet A. Cannon</span></a> (Incumbent) - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/CannonUTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/CannonJ_USBE8.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808504" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li><li><a href="http://www.trentkaufman.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:100%;">Trent E. Kaufman</span></a> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/Kaufman2UTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/KaufmanT_USBE8.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808498" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/09/state-school-board-district-8-didnt-get.html" target="_blank">Utah Education Issues</a><br /><a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2008/09/utah-state-school-board-district-8.html" target="_blank">Utah Moms Care</a><br /><br /><hr /><br /><strong>District 11</strong><br /><br /><li><a href="http://www.electdavecrandall.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:100%;">Dave Crandall</span></a> - <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808499" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Ted H. Heap</span> - <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808493" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><hr /><br /><strong>District 12</strong><br /><br /><li><a href="http://www.markcluff.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:100%;">Mark Cluff</span></a> (Incumbent) - <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/CluffM_USBE12.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808478" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Carol A. Murphy</span> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/MurphyUTPS_School_Board_Survey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.lwvutah.org/VG%202008/VG%202008%20htmls/MurphyC_USBE12.html" target="_blank">LWV Questions</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808438" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2008/10/utah-state-school-board-district-12.html" target="_blank">Utah Moms Care</a><br /><br /><hr /><br /><strong>District 13</strong><br /><br /><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Kyle Bateman</span> - <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/documents/BatemanUTPSSchoolBoardSurvey.pdf" target="_blank">UTPS Questionnaire</a>, <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808430" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a> </li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">C. Mark Openshaw</span> - <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10808426" target="_blank">Trib Profile</a></li><br /><a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/state-school-board-district-13.html" target="_blank">Utah Education Issues</a>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/8785323279430046329/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=8785323279430046329";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/8785323279430046329";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/8785323279430046329";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/know-your-state-school-board-candidates.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-6817164447356404035";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-10-28T08:22:00.000-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-10-28T08:22:00.418-06:00";s:5:"title";s:34:"State School Board Election Review";s:12:"atom_content";s:5092:"<div dir="ltr">Readers of this blog will remember that it was with great fervor that I attempted to create some level of awareness of the importance of the School Board elections.  With just one week to go until election day, I'd like to bring it to your attention one more time.  I'll begin by reminding you about what's already been said.<br /><br />On May 18th I talked about <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-process-for-selecting-state.html" target="_blank">the process for selecting State School Board members</a>.  The process began early in May at the Governor's office with what was nearly a closed-door meeting, but thanks to concerned citizens who showed up to attend, the meeting was opened as it should have been to begin with.  I talked about the process and how it's changed over time.  I'm now convinced it needs to be changed again.<br /><br />With all of the to do about the meetings of the State School Board Nominating Committee being kept open to the public, I got to wondering <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/state-school-board-elections-who-cares.html" target="_blank">why anyone would event want to serve on the State Board</a>.  On May 26th I outlined the important responsibilities that Board Members have and I thought about the ramifications of someone opposed to any public school system or disenfranchised with ours being able to undermine it from within by getting elected.  If you're wondering why your vote matters as election day approaches, read this post.<br /><br />After suggesting that a State School Board candidate might have ill-intent, a reader directed me toward some interesting information on the state elections office website showing that <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/state-school-board-already-infiltrated.html" target="_blank">infiltration had already occurred</a>!  The old adage "follow the money" was hitting me square in the jaw and I couldn't ignore it.  On May 28th I outlined the large donations made by voucher pushers Parents for Choice in Education.  It was quite apparent that one board member had already been bought in the 2006 race.  If it could happen once could it happen again?<br /><br />I thought I'd do well to further explore the question, "<a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-school-board-candidates-have-hidden.html" target="_blank">Do school board candidates have hidden agendas?</a>"  There seemed to be quite a few candidates that had filed and were being interviewed that had ties to vouchers.  If you're curious about which ones, read or re-read this post.  On May 31st I talked about all of the candidates who have obvious ties to Parents for Choice in Education or had voiced a public position in favor of vouchers.<br /><br />It didn't take long to discover that the <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/school-board-election-process-fails-us.html" target="_blank">School Board election process failed us</a>, but it was no surprise to many of us.  On June 2nd, the nominating committee votes were in and <a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pGrlKebn2aTmgFKqCBMQzHg" target="_blank">the results</a> showed that they had eliminated two incumbents and ranked another in third place.  How is it that we have a process where ELECTED officials don't even have the opportunity to be re-elected?  If the people voted them into office shouldn't it be the people who essentially vote them out?  The results also showed how the business members of the committee voted together to get their way.  The vote was stacked and in one instance (District 7) two business members didn't even bother to cast their last vote, despite agreed upon rules.<br /><br />On June 6th, just four short days later, <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-just-happened.html" target="_blank">the Governor finished the job</a> by summarily picking the top two candidates as put forth by the Nominating Committee.  Why our Governor was even involved in the process at that point was a mystery to me.  It was supposed to be his job to make sure that the two most qualified and capable candidates were put on the ballot.  That didn't happen as yet another incumbent (Theresa Theuer) was axed and a capable and well qualified candidate (A. LeGrand Richards) was cut.<br /><br />Since then I've turned my focus elsewhere, but with the election right upon us it's important to bring this up again.  We'll have to live with the decisions we make and in some cases it will be a matter of choosing the lesser of the two, if you know what I mean.  We need to make sure that this process is changed in the future.  The decision should be put back in your hands!  The elections need to remain non-partisan.  We can't leave these important decisions up to committees and governors.<br /><br />Stay tuned for part two tomorrow.  I'll make sure you get the information you need on the remaining two State School Board candidates in each district so that you can make informed decisions.<br /></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/6817164447356404035/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=6817164447356404035";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6817164447356404035";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/6817164447356404035";s:4:"link";s:87:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/state-school-board-election-review.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:21;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-459077730838535569";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-10-19T21:24:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-10-19T21:54:49.214-06:00";s:5:"title";s:64:"Attorney General's Race Fires Up Over Vouchers and Ethics Reform";s:12:"atom_content";s:4038:"<DIV DIR="ltr"><DIV>Change is afoot.&nbsp; Possibly.&nbsp;&nbsp;Two-term Republican incumbent, Mark Shurtleff, is getting a run for his money (so to speak) from Democratic challenger, Jean Welch Hill.&nbsp; The two recently debated some of the hottest topics in Utah politics, including the ubiquitous push for ethics reform and the equally charged voucher dialogue.</DIV><br />&nbsp;Click here to read the article:&nbsp; <A href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10708500">http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10708500</A></DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;<STRONG>First, Vouchers or No Vouchers</STRONG></DIV><br /><DIV>While vouchers haven't been headlining local news lately, heated dialog and feelings on both sides of the issue continue.&nbsp; While Republican leaders claim the bill died on the day it was soundly defeated by public vote, speculation exists that there will indeed be another run.</DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;Ms. Welch insists that&nbsp;Utahns need an AG that protects public education rather than one who supports dismantling it.&nbsp; Moreover, she says that&nbsp;as the current AG, Mr.&nbsp;Shurtleff, provided&nbsp;"legal and moral support" to vouchers from his office and blocked her efforts to put the kibosh on it.&nbsp; Mr. Shurtleff denies that he has ever publicly supported vouchers or misused his influential position.&nbsp; Questions remain and the debate, statewide, and between these two candidates, continues.</DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;As the dialog goes on, I come full circle to the cadre of questions I had during the referendum contest.&nbsp; One in particular speaks both to the soundness of vouchers and to transparency about the end goal.&nbsp; Had the referendum passed,&nbsp;the first round of proposed voucher funding&nbsp;wouldn't really make it possible for most families to attend a private school, based purely on the gap between the scaled voucher amounts and the actual cost of tuition.&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV><br /><DIV>If families aren't immediately benefiting from a voucher program, then what is the practical purpose and who is benefiting?&nbsp;&nbsp;Would the voucher bill&nbsp;have been&nbsp;a "baby step" toward more voucher funding and more "choice"?&nbsp; Everyone wins, right?&nbsp; Maybe.&nbsp; Maybe not.&nbsp;&nbsp;Another possibility is that it is&nbsp;indeed intended as a baby step, but one&nbsp;towards an undisclosed endgame: a largely, if not completely, privatized education system.&nbsp; Sit with that one for awhile....I'll probably come back to it soon.</DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;<STRONG>And Then There's the Question of Ethics</STRONG></DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;Ah, yes, ethics reform.&nbsp; Legislators and other individuals vying for public office (and your trust) have had their halos knocked askew by recent ethics complaints and probes.&nbsp; Read a recent article here: <A href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10711007">http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_10711007</A>&nbsp;, and also look for more news regarding the Mark Walker plea deal.&nbsp; You could also look over this formal request from Phil Riesen's attorney's supporting his right to release the Greg Hughes complaint draft, and other relevant documentation,&nbsp;to the media: <A href="http://media.bonnint.net/slc/722/72209/7220928.pdf"><FONT face=georgia,serif>http://media.bonnint.net/slc/722/72209/7220928.pdf</FONT></A>.</DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;Both Attorney General candidates&nbsp;seem to agree that ethics in government&nbsp;is important, although it has not&nbsp;been a focal&nbsp;point for reform during Mr. Shurtleff's tenure.&nbsp; Ms. Welch believes that the AG should lead the charge in changing "business as usual" ethics on Capitol Hill.&nbsp; She just doesn't see the wisdom in having legislators police themselves and would call for an independent ethics commission to provide objectivity and obviously much-needed oversight.&nbsp; Oh yeah, and a ban on gifts to elected officials could also be coming to a legislature near you.</DIV><br /><DIV>&nbsp;Yes, change is afoot.&nbsp; Possibly.</DIV>";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/459077730838535569/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=459077730838535569";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/459077730838535569";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/459077730838535569";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/attorney-generals-race-fires-up-over.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-295418069665059404";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-10-09T08:43:00.000-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-10-09T08:43:00.351-06:00";s:5:"title";s:24:"Pledge for Ethics Reform";s:12:"atom_content";s:4208:"<div dir="ltr">Just two weeks ago, the coalition of Utahns for Public Schools released their best effort to bring ethics reform to the front and center for the next legislative session <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/ethicspledge.pdf" target="_blank">in the form of a pledge</a> that legislators were invited to sign if they agreed with the actions that are being called for.  A mix of incumbent legislators (17) and candidates (48)  have already signed the pledge.  The effort is bipartisan in nature with 22 Republicans and 42 Democrats on board with the five points of ethics reform that pertain to campaign financing.  They are:<br /><ol><li><span style="font-family:ArnoPro-Display;color:#191919;">Require full disclosure of any and all gifts and meals, (not including those provided to the entire legislative body), by both the recipient legislator and the provider of the gift/meal when that provider is a registered lobbyist, PAC, or acting on behalf of a company or corporation.<br /></span></li><li>Prohibit legislators or campaign committees from using campaign contributions for anything other than “legitimate” (i.e.: directly related to their campaign for election to public office) campaign expenditures, or for the execution of duties directly related to their public office.</li><br /><li><span style="font-family:ArnoPro-Display;color:#191919;">Require that unexpended campaign funds, upon defeat or retirement from the office in which the legislator served while generating the funds, be donated to a registered public charity or political party, or transferred to the School Trust Land Permanent Fund.</span></li><br /><li><span style="font-family:ArnoPro-Display;color:#191919;">Establish appropriate sanctions for legislators and others who fail to comply with the requirements listed above.</span></li><br /><li><span style="font-family:ArnoPro-Display;color:#191919;">Encourage transparency by providing sanctions for candidates, legislators, lobbyists, PACs, PICs and corporations who fail to file timely and accurate reports.</span> </li></ol>I'm sure it's no mistake that the campaign was launched less than two months before election day.  Incumbents and candidates who sign now will benefit since it certainly makes for a strategic campaign move.    However, the true test will come when a bill comes before them in the 2009 legislative session concerning campaign finance reform.  If they support it then they will be true to their pledge.  If not, hopefully we'll take note and hold them to their word.  You can see the full list of those who have signed at the <a href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php" target="_blank">Utahns for Public Schools Policy Center</a>.<br /><br />Unfortunately the UTPS pledge has been stripped down to only include ethics reform related to campaign finances and contributions, a noteworthy and necessary undertaking.  But, <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/legislative-ethics-process-time-to.html" target="_blank">in August I suggested that what we really need is an ethics commission</a>.  This ethics problem is big enough that legislators are already drafting up an ethics reform bill for consideration in the 2009 session, however, they aren't even hoping for the formation of a commission.  It may take some time, but we need to keep talking about it.  The efforts by UTPS are a great start and hopefully it will make a difference, but it's still not enough!<br /><br />Yes, Utahns for Public Schools has certainly given us the start we need.  We're also getting a big shove by the likes of several unprecedented ethics complaints this year.  A big "thank you" goes out to people like Susan Lawrence who are willing to speak up (despite the untimely politicization of it).  I'm proud of her for writing a letter "<a href="http://media.bonnint.net/slc/714/71455/7145532.pdf" target="_blank">To Whom it May Concern</a>".  It had a different effect than she intended, but I hope in the end it will bring to pass much needed change in a system that more closely resembles the mob than a body of elected officials whose actions should be beyond reproach!<br /></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:166:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/295418069665059404/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=295418069665059404";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/295418069665059404";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/295418069665059404";s:4:"link";s:77:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/pledge-for-ethics-reform.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:23;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-4927737487446231104";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-10-06T00:20:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-10-06T00:52:10.905-06:00";s:5:"title";s:42:""Pay to play" or just "business as usual"?";s:12:"atom_content";s:11649:"Former Representative Susan Lawrence recently illustrated a good example of why lawmakers should take reform seriously in the next session. She wrote a letter detailing alleged unethical behavior by Greg Hughes that occurred nearly two years prior. The complaint was leaked by Representative Riesen who claims that the public had a right to know about it. I agree, despite the spotlight this is going to put on Lawrence who says that she is saddened by the premature release of the information.<br /><br />After reading <a href="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/1001/20081001_083059_Hughes%20complaint.pdf">the complaint</a> I began to wonder, if Susan Lawrence was confronted with a deal to trade votes for cash, how many others were approached with the same deal? How many of them might have taken them up on it and how many turned them down like Lawrence did? According to a footnote in the complaint: <blockquote dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;">Corroborating these allegations respecting the attempted bribe of former Representative Lawrence, complainants are aware that another legislator, within the same time frame, also was offered equivalent campaign contribution assistance in exchange for a "yes" vote on the anticipated voucher bill. This legislator, like Lawrence, declined the bribe. We have not included this allegation in the complaint because, according to present information, the person making the bribe was not a legislator. </span></blockquote>I recently received information that Representative Paul Ray will possibly be testifying this week in the ethics hearings. He has spoken to others about a bribe that he received and those who have heard him talk about it say that he was offered $100,000 if he would change his vote on the voucher bill from nay to yea. He also reported the attempted bribe to the FBI. Why then, I wonder, if he was comfortable in making an official report to the FBI did he not report it as an ethics violation to his colleagues? Is it because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere by ruffling feathers and complaining about something that happens all the time? Is it because he would lose "all influence" in the House, a promise reportedly made by Hughes to other people who have tried to report abuses by those in power?<br /><br />I was curious to see if I could find a contribution by a voucher-tied donor so I started looking at 2006 campaign contributions. I wasn't able to find anything that came close to $50,000 or $100,000, but I did find the same trend that I found <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/state-school-board-already-infiltrated.html" target="_blank">when I looked at the contributions to school board members</a> in 2006. I thought that it was worth showing how not only voucher PACs like Parents for Choice in Education donated large sums of money, but other sources that could be tied to possible bribes. There is no proof as to whether or not the money came with strings attached, but at the very least I believe it demonstrates how it's common place for money to be influential in a campaign.<br /><br />When I was searching for the smoking gun I looked at the contributions to every candidate that <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2007/status/hbillsta/hb0148.001h.txt" target="_blank">voted in favor of HB148</a>. I looked at the donors that might be tied to Greg Hughes or another known voucher-pushing-lawmaker. I included contributions made by Parents for Choice in Education since the voucher vote was at the crux of the matter, as well as contributions from Stephen Urquhart who was the sponsor of HB147. Due to the ability of funds to be filtered through the party I also included the contributions made by two Republican Party PACs. When I didn't find a whole lot in terms of people who had the opportunity to vote on the voucher bill, I turned my efforts to candidates who ran in 2006 but lost to their opponents. That's when the money painted a much different picture. The only other candidate that appeared to have the same pattern was that of Gage Froerer who won his bid for candidacy. All the other candidates listed below him in the table lost their bids. And what about contributions from the same voucher-tied donors for Lawrence and Ray? Well, they didn't get any. That raises some questions as to why not. Is it because they refused to change their vote?<br /><br />Lastly, when we talk about campaign ethics we have to think about the contributions that might have been made, but not reported. Surely, if someone is willing to unethically take cash for a vote they might also be willing to "forget" to report said cash. Could it be that the trading of cash for votes is so common place in our current system that people think nothing of it? It happens all the time, right? We'll need someone with subpoena power to ask the hard questions if we really want to get to the bottom of this.<br /><br /><div dir="ltr" style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><strong>2006 Contributions to House Candidates in Tight Races</strong></div><div dir="ltr"><table align="center" border="1"><tbody><tr><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Candidate</span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Parents for Choice in Education PAC</span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Utah Republican Party &amp; Utah House Republican Election Committee</span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Committee to Elect Stephen H Urquhart<sup>1</sup></span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Other Large Contributions with possible links to voucher votes</span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Total Funds Raised</span></p></th><th><p align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;">Total Funds Raised by Opponent(s)</span></p></th></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3261" target="_blank">Gage Froerer</a></td><td><p align="right">$0</p></td><td><p align="right">$14,629<sup>+<span style="font-size:78%;">**</span></sup> &amp; $2,000<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup></p></td><td><p align="right">$1,000</p></td><td><p align="right">$0</p></td><td><p align="right">$61,552</p></td><td>$1,925 (Frandsen) $0 (Herbst)</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3341" target="_blank">Jess Clifford</a><br /></td><td><p align="right">$9,910.34<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span></sup></p></td><td><p align="right">$11,050.75<sup><span style="font-size:0;">**</span></sup> &amp; $2,500<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup></p></td><td><p align="right">$2,000</p></td><td><p align="right">$3,150<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">2</span></sup></p></td><td><p align="right">$64,032</p></td><td><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$24,346 (Gowans) $1,882 (Garrard)</p></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3346" target="_blank">Denna Detton Ely</a><br /></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$7,848.25<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$8,255<sup>+</sup><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>** </sup></span><span style="font-size:85%;">&amp; $4,500<sup>+<span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup></span></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$1,500</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$52,377</div></td><td>$24,957 (Duckworth) $400 (Froehle) $190 (Roose)</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3389" target="_blank">Thomas Wright</a></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$2,471<sup>+<span style="font-size:78%;">**</span></sup> &amp; $3,500<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$3,000<sup>+</sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$3,000<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">3</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$77,057</div></td><td><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$42,494 (McGee)</p></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3391" target="_blank">Phillip M. Conder</a><span style="font-size:0;"> </span></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$2,000</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$2,281<sup>+<span style="font-size:78%;">**</span></sup> &amp; 2,500<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup> </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$1,500</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$33,556 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$16,833 (Fisher)</div></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3396" target="_blank">Sandy Thackeray</a></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$9,284<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$7,968.89<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">**</span></sup> &amp; $2,000<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$66,773 </div></td><td><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$47,625 (Moss)</p></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3410" target="_blank">Duane Millard</a></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$3,384.92<sup><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span>**</span></sup> &amp; $2,000<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup> </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$1,000 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0 </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$40,762 </div></td><td><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$27,205 (Hemingway)</p></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ucrsppc/public.html?Target=pubAccountSummary&amp;CandidateID=3579" target="_blank">Robyn Bagley</a></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$8,464<sup><span style="font-size:85%;">+</span></sup></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$6,022<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">**</span></sup> &amp; $2,000<sup><span style="font-size:78%;">***</span></sup> </div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$1,500</div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right"></div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: right">$0</div></td><td><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">$54,575 </div></td><td><p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: left">$38,313 (Morgan)</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div><span style="font-size:78%;">+ Multiple Contributions by the same PAC were added together.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">** Contributions made by the Utah Republican Party</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">*** Contributions made by the Utah House Republican Election Committee</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">1 Contributions were listed from either "Stephen Urquhart" or "Committee to Elect Stephen H. Urquhart" or "Commitee <em>[sic]</em> to Elect Stephen H. Urquhart"</span><br /><div class="nobrtable"><span style="font-size:78%;">2 Committee to Elect Howard Stephenson<br /></span><span style="font-size:78%;">3 Salt Lake County Republican Party</span> </div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/4927737487446231104/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=4927737487446231104";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4927737487446231104";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4927737487446231104";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/10/pay-to-play-or-just-business-as-usual.html";s:11:"author_name";s:10:"Sara Brate";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08149625599068733011";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:24;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403.post-4096400273208246253";s:9:"published";s:29:"2008-09-18T14:08:00.004-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2008-09-18T14:22:41.089-06:00";s:5:"title";s:70:"Transparency in Campaign Financing: The Windows Need a Lot of Cleaning";s:12:"atom_content";s:4269:"<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">CampaignDisclosure.Org just released their 2008 rankings for nationwide state campaign financing disclosure. If you are not familiar with this group, take some time to visit their website at <a href="http://www.campaigndisclosure.org/">http://www.campaigndisclosure.org/</a>.</div><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br />Their purpose is to "bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics" and they give each state a grade for overall performance in four categories: campaign disclosure laws, electronic filing programs, public access to campaign finance data, and disclosure web site usability.<br /><br />If you look at the rankings, 10 states failed the test (literally received an "F"), and 40 states are considered to have passed. Utah comes in at the bottom of the passing states with a solid D-. The good news is, that's an improvement over the F's we've received in the past.<br /><br /><strong>Improvements, But Come On...</strong><br /><br />The Deseret News covered the release of this report (<a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,70025960.00.html">http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,70025960.00.html</a>) and gives a view of both the problems we still have with campaign finance transparency as well as the progress being made toward electronic filing requirements for candidates and a user-friendly database for the public.<br /><br />Believe me, I'm all for appreciating improvement and success along the way, but please, a D-??? The grade Utah recieved is not just an indictment of the process and tools involved; I believe it is a clear indictment of our campaign financing laws, or relative lack thereof. In a state that talks a lot about values, morals, and ethics, our campaign financing laws (and the resulting questionable campaign financing ethics?) are some of the worst in the nation...almost to the point of being egregiously non-existent.<br /><br /><strong>We Notice, We Care, We Want Reform!</strong><br /><br />In a January, 2007 report, KSL revealed that "an exclusive poll by Survey USA for Eyewitness News asked Utahns to ascribe a level of importance, on a scale of one to ten, of certain issues. Nearly a third gave campaign finance reform an 8, 9, or 10, ranking it as very important. Those in favor of campaign finance reform say special interests have too much influence, while those opposed say access to public officials should not be unfairly restricted." (<a href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=847824&amp;nid=148">http://www.ksl.com/?sid=847824&amp;nid=148</a>).<br /><br />Just yesterday, a coalition of concerned groups launched an official campaign regarding government ethics reform. They are calling on the legislature to do its own house cleaning by addressing this very issue. Too many legislators, and the special interest groups who court them, are benefitting far too much from the current state of affairs. See the story at <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;sid=4288838">http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;sid=4288838</a>, and take a look at the pledge to address reform that UTPS is asking legislators and legislative candidates to sign at <a title="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php" href="http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php"><span style="color:#800080;">http://www.utahnsforpublicschools.org/policycenter/good-government.php</span></a>.<br /><br />It's an age-old political dilemma: how does the common man compete with money and power? How do we hold our elected officials accountable for things we cannot see, track, and evaluate? I'm on the side of the little people who simply ask for honest disclosure and representation. We need to do some house cleaning, window cleaning, a good old scrub down from top to bottom. Transparency and ethics in government is achievable and we cannot let Utah fail this test year after year! </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:168:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/4096400273208246253/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5395150359773904403&postID=4096400273208246253";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4096400273208246253";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default/4096400273208246253";s:4:"link";s:87:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/09/transparency-in-campaign-financing.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Gracon W. Maeddis";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/08299603327114650843";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}}s:7:"channel";a:14:{s:2:"id";s:45:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395150359773904403";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2019-01-13T04:47:43.243-07:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"Accountability";s:8:"subtitle";s:116:"An honest and bold look at issues that may be holding back the progress and improvement of public education in Utah.";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:59:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default";s:9:"link_self";s:62:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default";s:4:"link";s:40:"http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:92:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5395150359773904403/posts/default?start-index=26&max-results=25";s:11:"author_name";s:14:"Referendum One";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/01972187764951632626";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"120";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:70:"W/"189f2ad227f249559fad944c0e8787d3d647fb99c73ffef98cbb11eae0cb53fa"
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:47:43 GMT
";}