Earlier this evening I trudged over to Mound Fort Middle School to the public hearing for the ballot initiatives that the group Utahns for Ethical Government are proposing. If enough signatures are gathered in the next several months, there will be a vote for real ethics reform in the Utah Legislature, including an independent five-member commission to investigate ethics complaints and strict restrictions on gift-taking, lobbying rules and what can be done with campaign cash.
For more information on the initiative, including where to go to sign a petition — they should be available by Thursday — go to http://www.utahethics.org
I”ve watched the Utah Legislature be the least it can be on ethics refom for 10-plus years. I support these measures. Lawmakers have had enough time to change an ethics system that is given an F grade by the Center for Public Integrity.
The turnout, about 30, was a bit disappointing; I expected more. Speaking at the hearing in favor of the initiative were former Republican legislator, Kim Burningham, attorney Alan Smith and Top of Utah educator Glen Larsen. They all provided reasons why the initiative is needed.
Three Top of Utah lawmakers were there. Republicans Brad Dee and Brent Wallis and Democrat Neil Hansen. They all offered comments afterward. Wallis argued that full disclosure of gifts and campaign cash is better than a ban. He said if the voters aren’t satisfied, they’ll vote him out. Wallis also blasted the independent commission saying it would add another layer of bureaucracy. Dee also argued that full disclosure was significant ethics reform. He insisted that legislators are making progress on ethics reform and urged those in attendance to read the entire initiative before signing the petition.
Democrat Hansen wondered why the initiative targeted only the Legislature and not other branches of Utah government. Burningham agreed with Hansen that it should and added, perhaps a bit truculantly, that he hoped the Legislature would pass a law doing that after the initiative passes.
I asked attorney Smith if he was anticipating and preparing for a legal challenge if the initiative qualified for the ballot or passed. I’ve heard of much grumbling from current legislators that the initiative is “unconstitutional.” Smith said they are prepared to successfully defend the initiative if it is challenged.
Both Dee and Wallis are off target when they link election wins as a signal of approval — or disinterest — in legislative ethics. Don’t worry guys, we like you. We’re even proud of the hard work you do on Capitol Hill. But the institutions that comprise our state and national political bodies are as unpopular as they have ever been. The pervasive influence of lobbying, gift-giving, back-slapping, campaign cash-trading, partisan internal ethics committees, post-legislative insider influence jobs, etc., looks exactly like what it is — money-grubbing and a perceived allegiance to the biggest donor, rather than those constituents who don’t have money to burn.
It would be so great if the legislative leadership could see that. But so far they don’t.
Right now the polls look good for the ethics initiatives if it can get the signatures. But that will tighten as the fat money comes in to defend the status quo. It’ll be an interesting battle!
Notes: Some of those providing comments were Scott Stanford of Layton. He asked attorney Smith if unions donations would also fall under the initiative rules. Smith said yes. Ogdenite Marilyn O”Dell, co-president of the League of Women Voters, offered her support for the initiative. Gary Stephens, of Layton, said that he court-martialed officers for offenses less severe than what is the norm today in the Utah Legislature. Stephens described the idea of the Legislature, or any organization, investigating itself as a “self-licking ice-cream cone.”
That was a great line! Wish I’d thought of it.
rick stewart
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 12:20 am:
doug – thanks for going, and keeping us updated … i went to the web site, but didn’t see anything there about signing the petition / did i miss it?
Doug Gibson
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 12:34 am:
The petitions should be ready for signing perhaps as soon as Thursday. I’m sure the Web site will have information on where to go to sign.
Mark Shenefelt
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 9:43 am:
It’s interesting that three local legislators bothered to show up. Credit to Dee, Hansen and Wallis for attending. At least they’re participating in the process. Where were the rest of the local lawmakers?
Their comments, however, are the same old story. Essentially, “just trust us.”
I keep returning to this simple question of the legislators when confronted with even the mildest openness proposal: “What are you trying to hide?”
sageseeker1
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 11:27 am:
Getting Greg Bell to release the signature packets was a squeaker since he believed the initiative could be unconstitutional–the Legislature is to govern itself! Yes! We’ve seen how well that’s worked! One-party rule on Utah’s hill has prompted mischief from Legislators for years! Utah lags behind other states in establishing reform–shocker.
tom
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 1:32 pm:
Doug
Great piece of work, thanks for keeping us informed about this important issue.
Speaking of ethics and the need for reform, what’s with the Standard these days? They seem to be pandering to mayor Godfrey’s hand picked candidates for the city council and slanting their news articles, and yes your editorial department, to support these candidates.
It must be difficult for professional and ethical journalists like yourself to see this happening. I feel for your personal plight in these times of death of the integrity of the fourth estate.
flatlander100
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 5:48 pm:
Bravo, Doug. Nice bit of reporting and advocacy. And dead on target.
As for Rep. . Dee’s claim that voters unhappy with the gift-takers will vote them out: sorry, but that’s not how it works here in Zion these days, and we have evidence of that. A substantial majority of the public made it plain they did not support school vouchers. The legislature went ahead and passed the voucher program anyway. Angry voters organized a petition drive and got a repeal referendum on the ballot, and it passed by a substantial margin. Legislative leaders promptly began arguing that, despite all that, it was unconstitutional on a technicality [the Utah courts disagreed]. Legislators who had ignored the wishes of a majority of voters in their own districts by voting “yes” on vouchers were in some cases challenged for renomination by the Republican party by candidates who made the incumbent’s support of vouchers an issue. Yet in very nearly every case, the incumbent was renominated, and when his name appeared with an “R” next to it on the ballot on election day, was re-elected. Even in districts that voted down vouchers by large margins.
Dee’s simplistic solution to legislators who can’t keep their hands in their pockets when lobbyists are passing out the goodies just does not work, not here, anyway, not now. [The above summary on vouchers and renomination/election from a piece Paul Rolly did on it recently in the SL Trib, as I recall.]
As Doug notes, they’ve had a decade or more to get it right. Not only have they not gotten it right, they still object to people asking them to get it right.
I will be signing the petition first chance I get. [ If this was the Jersey City my grandfather worked in as a cop under Mayor [Boss] Hague’s regime, I’d be signing it early and often.]
Michael Trujillo
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 6:32 pm:
Well, the worm has definitely turned for you, Doug. Three days ago, people were blasting you for the editorial you wrote criticizing the Ogden City Council – going so far as to say you’re in the Mayor’s pocket. Today, they’re praising you for writing about the public hearing on this ethics initiative – complimenting you on your advocacy and reporting. It must feel good, for a change.
Now if you can only win back those folks who are mad that you “criticized’ the LDS Church.
flatlander100
on Sep 30th, 2009
@ 8:59 pm:
Michael:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the SE editorial stands represent the collective opinion of the Editorial Board, not necessarily the opinion presumably of any one person, or even, particularly, of the person assigned to write the editorial reflecting the Boards’ POV.
But a blog entry under his own name represents the ideas, pure and unfiltered, of Doug and Doug alone, and no bones about it. So it’s not at all inconsistent of critics to slam the SE for recent editorial nonsense, and yet applaud Doug for a pithy, cogent and dead-on blog entry such as this one. Even on the same day.
I think that’s right. Let me know if it’s not.
Michael Trujillo
on Oct 1st, 2009
@ 10:47 am:
Flatlander,
Though you, and a few others, usually criticize the editorials by saying “the editors”, “the Standard Examiner”, “the staff”, etc., many focus on it as being an individual’s piece of writing, such as this: “…did Godfrey write this editorial? I ask that question because I cannot believe a thinking, rational editor would write an article such as this and question the communication desires of our city council leadership and NOT question the poor and at many times non-existent communications of the mayor and his immediate staff.” Or the calls he received after the Editorial regarding the LDS church’s response to the two men kissing in Temple Square where people questioned his personal faith.
I just found it ironic that one of the commenters, above, views Doug as the lone maverick journalist in the S.E. offices, remaining true to the traditional values of the 4th Estate when, in actuality, he’s writing the opinions that the poster views with such disdain. Whether or not Doug is writing only what he’s been ordered to write by the Editorial Board, some of the comments by those who disagree with the Op Ed piece are personal. That’s all I was sharing with Doug; that it must be nice to be personally complimented for a change.
Flatlander100
on Oct 1st, 2009
@ 11:39 am:
MT:
Ah. OK. Got it. Sorry I mis-read the intent. Thanks for the clarification.
Rick Bolin
on Oct 6th, 2009
@ 5:16 pm:
If anyone would like to help collect signatures for the petition, please call me at 801-645-3592. I have a number of petition books complete with instructions and suportting information. The petition books have space for 20 signatures each. Uour help would be greatly appreciated, even if you only want to work on one book.