Utahns for Ethical Government

UEG News

Dave Irvine is interviewed by Etopia News

July 28, 2010

In a video interview, UEG attorney David Irvine discusses the UEG petition and electronic signatures with California-based Etopia News.

Correction: Utah has had no more than 20 initiatives over the years, rather than the 100 that Dave indicated.

Dave Irvine’s interview with Etopia News

UEG attorney David Irvine discusses the UEG petition and electronic signatures

July 28, 2010 (Etopia News)

Correction: Utah has had no more than 20 initiatives over the years, rather than the 100 that Dave indicated.

Legislative leadership is bought and sold on the Hill

By Kim Burningham

Jul 23, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

The best leadership results when people of high integrity demonstrate an impressive example of skill. Followers are eager to have such people take the lead. Unfortunately, in many instances leadership instead has been bought by favoritism, family relationships and money.

The Utah Legislature has had all kinds of leaders. Some of these rose to the top through excellence. Others have risen to the top by other means. When such is the case, the people pay the real price.

One former speaker of the Utah House, Greg Curtis, served in that position for two terms using strategic placement of money to assure election.

Curtis amassed a bank account in excess of $300,000 largely contributed by lobbyists. According to Bob Bernick Jr. in the Deseret News (Jan. 8, 2008) Curtis “gave much of his campaign donations to fellow GOP house members…hopefully, endearing them to vote for him as speaker one more time.”

Sen. Sheldon Killpack was a leader in the Utah Senate before his resignation was prompted by a drunken driving charge. Many expected that he would run for a leadership position again. He gathered nearly $200,000 in contributions, coming heavily from lobbyists. As the 2008 election approached, Killpack contributed to many fellow senators or candidates who were up for election including $5,000 to Dan Liljenquist; $5,000 to Steve Urquhart, $3,000 to Mark Madsen, $5,000 to David Hinkins, $5,000 to Carlton Christensen, $3,000 to Alan Christensen, $10,000 to Carlene Walker, and $5,000 to Scott Jenkins. Alliances cemented by money have become commonplace in the Utah Legislature.

House Speaker David Clark intends to run again for speaker. May that explain why Clark is currently giving donations of money to potential Republican members who will later vote for their leader? Or is he simply generous? (In any event, he’s not spending his money; it comes from lobbyists and special interests.)

Even before the primaries were held, Clark had started peddling dollars to potential members of the House. Clark’s June 15 financial report indicates that since the first of the year, he has received more than $120,000, the majority from special interest groups. He has contributed between $1,000 and $3,000 to at least a dozen other men who were running for office.

The candidates were located throughout the state from Logan to Murray and from Draper to Kanab. Most of them have never served before, and for some reason Clark was eager to help them get elected.

Some recipients cover the bases. They accept donations from legislators who may end up vying against one another in election competitions. For example, Kenneth Ivory, who is running for office in the West Jordan area, accepted a $3,000 contribution from Clark, but also accepted a smaller contribution of $250 from “Friends of Carl Wimmer.” Wimmer has been mentioned as a potential challenger to Clark.

Verifying all the giving that has taken place from potential leaders to legislative candidates is not yet possible. Wimmer, for instance, reports zero campaign expenses or contributions. Although most legislators did file a report of campaign expenditures due on June 15, several others (usually highly visible legislators like Wimmer) report no campaign expenditures.

I doubt those reports are true. Likely they are accepting contributions or sharing money through political action committees. Such committees are not required to submit reports with the same frequency as candidates. This may be a deliberate effort to circumvent the current campaign reporting law.

Because of the Utah legislative session’s brevity, and also because the leadership assigns legislators to committee membership, legislative leaders control much of what happens in the Legislature. Where lobbyists supply money, and leaders use that money to increase influence, much power is transferred to a few leaders and the lobbyists who influence them.

Leadership candidates dismiss suggestions about “purchasing votes” by arguing that they are friends helping friends. Perhaps. However, the insidious nature of these transactions is that the recipients of leader largesse then are hooked — they dare not cross the givers of money, lest the spigot be turned off.

“Party discipline” comes at a real price to the public interest, especially where donors’ private agendas come up for a floor vote. Curtis made a very public show of absenting himself from discussions about a deal involving the St. George airport which stood to earn a good deal of money for his employer. He didn’t have to be in the room; everyone knew what he wanted — and the price of opposing him.

The current system is just another conduit for lobbyist money to control the process. (Note: The statistics cited in this article are all registered on the public web sites. See .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Go to the tab, “Public Search” and browse under “Candidates and Office Holders.”)

Contributions from one legislator to another cited above are not illegal under current Utah law. The law needs changing. The safest approach would be to prohibit such exchanges of money. The Utahns for Ethical Government initiative petition does precisely that. If would-be leaders want to help their friends, they should do so from their own wallets, not somebody else’s.

Leadership should be earned by capable performance, not purchased.

Kim Burningham is a former member of the Utah Legislature, chairman of the Utah Board of Education and chairman of Utahns for Ethical Government.

Closing in on the goal

July 20, 2010

We’re closing in on the goal of 95,000 signatures, but in a number of crucial areas, we still have some important work to do, and we need more volunteers over the coming 2-3 weeks.  In targeted areas, we can pay signature gatherers ($1.00 per signature of registered Utah voters). If you’re interested, contact Connie Watts.  For more information, see our volunteer page.

OUR VIEW: A ridiculous e-petition rule

July 18, 2010 (Ogden Standard Examiner)

It’s tough for Utah political leaders to associate democracy with petitions. We understand—they’ve spent so many years and crafted so many dense rules with the sole purpose of making it as difficult as possible to use the petition process to practice grassroots democracy.

However, the latest “rules” devised by the Utah lieutenant governor’s office to allow—on an interim basis—the use of electronic signatures for petitions to qualify a referendum or initiative for the Utah ballot are more cynical than clumsy.

Utah Lt. Gov. Greg Bell’s guidelines allow for e-signatures only if there is a witness in the same room, hovering over the e-petition signer’s computer. The guidelines read in part: “The person electronically signing the petition shall have done so in the circulator’s presence.”

That is ridiculous. Online petition gathering is designed for home or office access. It’s farcical to assume that a “circulator” is going to be in the home or office of someone signing a petition. In essence, the new rules make gathering e-petitions the same as going to a supermarket, library, or some other brick and mortar location to gather signatures. No convenience or relief is provided to the petitions gatherers, and that was the whole idea of e-signatures being allowed—to use security and technology advances to make it easier for the public, you and I, to effect change.

We agree with ethics in government advocate Kim Burningham, who stated the obvious regarding the lieutenant governor’s guidelines. He said, “(Forcing the online signer to have a witness in the room) ... makes it extremely difficult to accept e-signatures.”

We understand that the Utah Legislature’s leadership does want to make it very difficult to accept any petition signature, be it in writing or via the Web. The majority party in Utah doesn’t like the body public to intrude into what it regards as its sole business.

But we are disappointed in Bell. Our lieutenant governor has shown in the past an independent streak. He knows better than to unveil rules on e-signatures that effectively negate any chance of having e-signatures. It’s very disingenuous.

The Utah Supreme Court recently made it clear to Utah’s political establishment that e-signatures will be acceptable. It’s too bad our pols can’t accept that reality.

Initiative petitions

It’s time to relax signature quota

Jul 15, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

Some people are sore winners.

Last month, two initiative petitions fell far short of the 95,000 signatures necessary to qualify them for the 2010 general election ballot. One sought to reform ethics in the Legislature, the other to change the process for redrawing political boundaries.

Utah’s Legislature already has erected high procedural hurdles for initiative sponsors to climb. Yet even though most initiative efforts fail to overcome those obstacles, at least one lawmaker wants to set them even higher. Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, would increase the number of required signatures if the courts decide that electronic signatures are valid on initiative petitions.

Such a ruling is a possibility. The Utah Supreme Court held last month that electronic signatures are valid to qualify unaffiliated political candidates for the ballot.

The Legislature already has stacked the deck against initiatives to the point that it has seriously undermined the right guaranteed to the people under the Utah Constitution to propose laws through the process. Any further effort in that direction should be resisted as unconstitutional.

Current law requires initiative sponsors to gather petition signatures equal to 10 percent of the vote cast for governor in the previous general election. That equates to 95,000 signatures now. In addition, this quota must be met in 26 of the 29 state senate districts, meaning the signature gatherers must travel the length and breadth of a state that is sparsely populated outside the Wasatch Front.

If the courts were to rule that electronic signatures are valid for initiative petitions, that would presumably make it easier to gather them. It would be possible to throw up a web site to encourage Utahns to sign a petition. But sponsors still would have to get people’s attention, not an easy task in today’s fractured and fractious world of Internet media.

The point here should be that a 10 percent standard is enough to demonstrate serious public support and weed out frivolous proposals.

Among the 24 states that allow the people to propose laws through initiatives, Utah has one of the higher signature requirements. In California and Colorado, it is 5 percent of the vote for governor. In Oregon, it’s 6 percent. In Idaho, the standard is 6 percent of qualified electors and there is no distribution requirement. Washington requires 8 percent with no distribution requirement. Nevada and Arizona have 10 percent standards similar to Utah, but Arizona does not have a geographic distribution requirement.

If anything, it’s time to relax Utah’s standard.

Signing petitions

Electronic signatures should be valid

Jul 12, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

Lt. Gov. Greg Bell has issued a rule explaining how election officials should treat electronic signatures on petitions for initiatives and referenda. The rule makes it impossible for a voter to read a petition online and then sign it electronically unless a “petition circulator” witnesses the electronic signing. This provision destroys the utility of electronic signature-gathering. Once again, Bell has placed himself on the wrong side of democracy and the people’s right to initiatives and referenda under the Utah Constitution.

We recognize that under the state constitution it is the prerogative of the Legislature to write the laws that guide the petition process. One could argue, then, that it is prudent for the lieutenant governor, a member of the executive branch, to issue rules that closely follow the laws enacted by the Legislature that govern the gathering of conventional written signatures on paper petitions. That’s what he’s done.

However, we believe that in this case, when a right reserved to the people by the state constitution is at stake, the lieutenant governor should err on the side of protecting and facilitating that right, especially when the Legislature has written laws that enable the use of electronic signatures in all kinds of business transactions with the state.

That is especially true after the Utah Supreme Court last month held that electronic signatures are valid for petitions that qualify political candidates for the ballot. In fact, it is because of that opinion that the lieutenant governor was obliged to issue an emergency ruling on how electronic signatures on other petitions should be treated.

Though the laws that control signature-gathering for those petitions are different than the ones for candidate petitions, many of the legal principles are the same. We would expect a court to construe the petition laws for initiatives and referenda liberally to protect the people’s constitutional rights. We would expect Bell to do the same. Unfortunately, he didn’t.

There are political reasons for that, of course. The Legislature traditionally is hostile to initiative petitions, and it has erected many procedural barriers to the collection of signatures in order to prevent laws proposed by the people from making their way to the ballot. The Legislature is particularly annoyed by the petition to establish ethics standards for legislators that is currently circulating.

But all public officials have a sworn duty to uphold the state constitution and the people’s rights guaranteed within it. Bell has failed that duty.

Ethics commission

New board ready for trial run

Jul 7, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

They’ve just slapped the wheels on, and already, the state may be taking its newly assembled ethics commission for a spin around the block.

Rep. Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, is mulling an ethics complaint against House Majority Whip Brad Dee, R-Ogden. Hansen claims that Dee, Weber County’s human resources director, attempted to silence Hansen’s brother, an employee of the Weber County Sheriff’s Office. Hansen said Dee threatened to “make life miserable” for his brother, who had criticized Dee over proposed changes to the state’s public employee pension system.

At this point, all we’ve heard are allegations. If they’re true, they should be treated as a serious offense by the law, the Legislature and Dee’s employer.

The law has already passed on the case. Hansen filed a criminal complaint but Salt Lake City Prosecutor Sim Gill declined to file charges, noting conflicting claims and a lack of corroborating evidence. Now, if Hansen chooses to file an ethics complaint and it’s deemed “technically compliant” by the leaders of the House Ethics Committee, we’ll see the legislative version of ethics reform in action. Well, actually, we won’t.

The Legislature, in an attempt to shield lawmakers from false charges, put a lid on ethics proceedings from start to finish. If a complaint is discussed publicly after it is filed, it will be dismissed and the person who leaked the information could be held in contempt. The only way a complaint becomes public is if and when the commission deems the allegation to have merit, and forwards a recommendation for punishment to the Legislature.

That’s unfortunate, particularly in cases like Dee’s, when the allegations are already out. If a complaint is filed and Dee is exonerated, he will still be under public suspicion unless he asks to have the record released to clear his name.

Make no mistake, the new system is better than the old closed-door system, when lawmakers tried lawmakers on ethics allegations, and only legislators could file complaints. Now, an impartial panel of three retired judges and two former lawmakers, who were appointed last week, will adjudicate complaints grand-jury style. The commission has subpoena powers, a staff and a $50,000 budget to conduct investigations.

But, until lawmakers allow a public airing of all ethics complaints and proceedings, this attempt to mend the Legislature’s reputation in the eyes of the public will fail, and cynicism surrounding the Legislature, as well as the ethics complaint process, will persist.

Lt Governor’s Office Misleading About E-signatures

July 10, 2010

The Lieutenant Governor’s office announced a rule July 9th purportedly allowing electronic signatures on initiative petitions.  The LG’s rule states that e-signatures would be allowed effective immediately only if witnessed by a petition circulator.  Read the full press release for more details.

Misleading e-signature rule

July 10, 2010

In response to the Lieutenant Governor’s announcement yesterday of a rule purportedly allowing electronic signatures on initiative petitions, UEG Chair Kim Burningham denounced the announcement as “misleading the Utah public and media outlets who announced the rule without having actually read it.”

For the LG’s office to announce that e-signatures would be allowed effective immediately and then to state in the rule itself that they will be allowed only when witnessed by a petition circulator is to “take away with the right hand what has been announced with the left hand,” added Dixie Huefner, UEG Communications Chair. Alan Smith, UEG attorney, referred to the announcement and content of the rule as “double speak.”

The primary purpose of electronic signatures is to allow a supporter of a citizen petition to sign electronically using the internet when the person does not have access to a paper petition. To require that a paper petition circulator verify the electronic signing by witnessing it to confirm its authenticity defeats the whole purpose of electronic signing. It also runs counter to the current ability of a paper petition circulator to both sign a petition and then verify the authenticity of his or her own signature on the same packet. Many other official and commercial transactions use e-signatures without the need for a witness. For instance, when you pay your taxes via email, no one needs to witness the signature.

The “interim rule,” announced yesterday by the LG takes effect immediately—prior to any comment period. As such, it presumably constitutes “an emergency rule,” prompted by a unanimous opinion of the Utah Supreme Court that electronic signatures are valid for purposes of a candidacy for public office. The Utah court also noted that electronic signatures may be less susceptible of fraud problems than are paper signatures.

Burningham asserted that “once again, the LG’s action demonstrates the lengths to which state officials will go to thwart UEG’s ongoing petition drive to place an ethics reform initiative on a future general election ballot.” UEG is continuing to collect signatures to meet an August 12th deadline. UEG’s previous e-signatures have already been rejected by county clerks under a ruling from the LG’s office, an action that UEG is currently preparing to contest in court.

UEG also intends to challenge this latest rule as an unauthorized exercise of authority by the LG.

UEG Requests Immediate Approval of E-signatures Gathered for its Initiative Petition

June 23, 2010

In a letter hand-delivered today to Utah Lt. Governor, Greg Bell [copy attached], Utahns for Ethical Government requested that Bell’s office act immediately to reverse its earlier directive to county clerks that they should refuse to accept e-signatures submitted by UEG to qualify its legislative ethics initiative for ballot placement.  UEG had collected approximately 10,000 such signatures as of April 15th, and will renew its online signature collection in light of yesterday’s Utah Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Bell.

The UEG letter asks for written confirmation not later than June 28th that instructions will issue by June 30th to the county clerks, directing them to disregard the Lt. Governor’s earlier instructions, and consistent with the reasoning of the Utah Supreme Court in Anderson v. Bell, to accept initiative e-signatures.  The letter further requests confirmation that, once signatures are validated by the clerks as belonging to registered voters, the e-signatures, along with paper signatures, will be counted by the Lieutenant Governor toward the statutory qualification requirement.

UEG’s letter further stated that if the Lieutenant Governor declines to provide the written confirmation UEG is requesting by June 28th, the group will seek immediate legal redress.

Kim Burningham, UEG’s Chair, said, “The objections made by the Lieutenant Governor to the use of e-signatures by Farley Anderson’s petition to be a candidate are the identical objections that office has made to the use of e-signatures on initiative petitions.  The Supreme Court very clearly held that all of those objections were without merit and that electronic signatures are valid under the election code.”

Applying the Anderson ruling to ballot initiatives, the UEG letter states, “the reasoning of the court’s opinion surely governs, and probably controls, any determination of those issues.”

Burningham noted that the group is continuing to gather signatures for submission by an August 12th deadline to qualify the petition for the 2012 general election, and that the online signature option is expected to be reinstalled within a week as an active feature of UEG’s website: http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org.  He also said, “While the Court’s approval of e-signatures is extremely helpful, UEG will continue its very heavy focus on paper signature gathering.  Face-to-face petitioning is really the only effective way we can ensure that we target our work to collect the necessary signatures by senate districts, and that effort is critical.”

Burningham also said, “We get mixed signals from the Lieutenant Governor’s office about the Anderson ruling.  On one hand, Mr. Bell says that the office will quickly conform to the intent and spirit of the Court’s decision. On the other, his chief of staff says the office is ‘disappointed in the ruling,’ and Mr. Neuenschwander suggests that he might wait for further legislative direction before deciding how to treat our signatures.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that the legislature has already made the law on e-signatures incontrovertibly clear – they are valid under the election code – and we see any further dithering over them as a very pointed effort to undermine the opportunity of voters to conveniently and easily – and securely – take advantage of the technology the legislature has already approved for virtually every other business or governmental transaction except writing a will.  We are calling on Mr. Bell to act quickly, and we hope he will match actions to words.  But we cannot keep faith with our thousands of supporters and allow bureaucratic niggling to further jeopardize our success.  If we have to go back to court, we intend to do so quickly.”

News Flash: Great ruling on electronic signatures from Utah Supreme Court

June 22, 2010

The court upheld the use of electronic signatures for gubernatorial candidate Farley Anderson. The court held that the Utah Code expressly contemplates the use of e-signatures and that a signature under the unaffiliated candidate filing requirements need not be pen put to paper. The court’s reasoning should result in the validation of e-signatures on initiative petitions too. Click here to read the court’s full opinion. For more details, see our press release.

UEG Testifies at Legislative Hearing on Code of Conduct

June 22, 2010

The Joint Senate and House Interim Ethics Committee will conduct a hearing on June 23rd, at which the Committee will be addressing how to strengthen and improve its current code of conduct. UEG Chair Kim Burningham has been invited to present UEG’s suggestions in person at the June 23rd meeting. He will be accompanied by UEG Executive Committee member and drafting attorney David Irvine.  Read the UEG press release.

Legislative Code of Conduct

June 21, 2010

Today Utahns for Ethical Government is releasing to the media a copy of the memorandum it sent to the Joint Senate and House Interim Ethics Committee. The memo was sent in anticipation of the Ethics Committee’s June 23rd meeting, at which the Committee will be addressing how to strengthen and improve its current code of conduct. UEG Chair Kim Burningham has been invited to present UEG’s suggestions in person at the June 23rd meeting. He will be accompanied by UEG Executive Committee member and drafting attorney David Irvine.

Said Burningham, “Many portions of the current code are widely recognized as so vague as to be unenforceable. If the Legislative Ethics Committee is intent on improving the code, we believe that it should take our suggestions seriously.” Added Irvine, “Adoption of UEG recommendations would help to build public trust in our Legislature, assuming, of course, that the code is then rigorously enforced and that appropriate and skilled training of the Legislature is conducted.”

“UEG is pleased that the Legislative Ethics Committee is interested in improving the code of conduct and we are happy to contribute our suggestions to the Committee,” stated Dixie Huefner, UEG Communications Chair. “We want to be supportive of their effort while also continuing to move forward with our own ethics reform initiative and our August 12th signature gathering deadline.”

The memorandum follows.

Memorandum

TO: Joint Senate and House Interim Ethics Committee
FROM: Utahns for Ethical Government
DATE: June 4, 2010
RE: Suggestions for Revisions to the Legislative Code of Official Conduct

In response to Senator Urquhart’s invitation for public comment on revisions to the current code of conduct, we offer a number of suggestions that we believe deserve consideration. We recognize the difficulty of capturing the appropriate balance between broad principles and explicit prohibitions and hope you will work diligently to do so. We feel strongly that the current Code is inadequate and recall that the House Ethics Committee itself found some of the provisions of that Code impossible of enforcement.

As a preliminary matter, UEG believes that caps on campaign contributions and certain restrictions on solicitation of contributions are needed and would go a long way toward assuring the public that special interest money is not dictating legislative outcomes. We have assumed, however, that the Interim Ethics Committee may believe that these issues belong in the Government Operations Committee, where campaign contributions were taken up during the last legislative session. Therefore, we have not made suggestions about campaign caps in this memorandum although we are not dropping our interest in such matters. We continue to see campaign finance reform as directly relevant to the ethical operation of the Utah Legislature.

The wording below, relating to changes to the current Code of Official Conduct, may be capable of refinement by legislative counsel, but we hope that the intent is clear and reasonably specific.

A few of the terms (e.g., family members, personal advantage, personal benefit, paid lobbyist, person, control person) may require subsequent definitions for clarity.

1. No legislator shall engage in employment as a paid lobbyist while serving as a legislator or for two years after leaving office.

Such prohibitions would have the salutary effect of reducing the risk of engaging in the kind of employment that would “destroy or impair” independence of judgment of sitting legislators. It specifies the kind of activity that is most likely to be perceived as compromising one’s ability to exercise independent judgment. It is narrower than the current code provision prohibiting employment or activity that would impair independent judgment, yet also more explicit. It recognizes the reality that part-time legislators naturally bring employment experience and knowledge that make totally independent judgment impractical and unrealistic.



2. No legislator shall accept employment as a consultant, advisor, attorney, or employee of a paid lobbyist.

Same rationale as above.



3. A legislator shall not use confidential information acquired as a result of legislative status to gain a personal advantage for the legislator or the legislator’s family members, nor shall a legislator use the legislator’s office for such personal advantage.
4. A legislator shall not accept a gift, as defined in [code provision]* from a paid lobbyist.
5. A legislator shall not accept any campaign contribution that is given, explicitly or implicitly, with the expectation of a return governmental favor by the legislator to the contributor.
6. Legislators shall not be control persons in a corporation (including labor unions and nonprofits) while serving as legislators unless legislative status was not a contributing factor to the appointment and does not serve to provide the legislator with any personal advantage or profit.
7. A legislator shall not threaten or exact retribution for a person’s failure to comply with an inappropriate request or demand by the legislator that exceeds the legislator’s legitimate scope of legislative authority.
8. A legislator is expected to obey the civil and criminal laws of the state and shall not engage in any illegal conduct that reflects negatively upon the legislator’s fitness to serve as a representative of the people.

This would obviously require exercise of judgment by those given responsibility to judge the conduct. A parking ticket would probably not reflect upon a legislator’s fitness to serve, while multiple, unpaid tickets over a long period of time might so reflect, as evidence of disrespect for the law, unless there were extenuating circumstances.



9. A legislator shall not attempt to discourage, by any means, the investigation or prosecution of any civil or criminal matter within the jurisdiction of another branch or level of government.
10. A legislator shall not use government facilities or employees in furtherance of a purely personal interest.
11. A legislator shall not attempt to unduly influence documents or opinions, including analyses and audits, prepared by public bodies and public officials in conjunction with any issue that is or proposed to be the subject of statewide initiative or referendum.
12. A legislator shall not suggest that a lobbyist further the personal interest of the legislator or the legislator’s family members, by, for instance, suggesting that the lobbyist hire any of those persons.
13. Legislators shall disclose any potential or actual conflict of interest on any legislation or legislative matter as provided in [code provision]*.
14. Legislators shall not use their campaign money for personal use, as provided in [code provision]*.
15. Legislators shall not give funds from their own campaign fund to other legislators, public officials, candidates for public office, political parties, or charities but shall keep the money for their own campaigns, as intended by the contributors.
16. Legislators may seek an advance opinion from the Independent Ethics Commission with respect to any conduct that might be considered unethical. A written opinion from the Commission, when issued in advance of the conduct and which determines that the conduct is not a violation of the Code, would provide immunity from a complaint lodged against the legislator with respect to the specific facts addressed in the written opinion.
17. A legislator who violates the Legislative Code of Conduct shall be guilty of an ethical violation and subject to procedures provided for in legislation or legislative rule and remedies as determined by the Legislature.

We think it is important to state explicitly in the Code that Code violations are ethical violations. The Legislature’s current code also refers to the criminal code section which provides that a violation of the Code constitutes a class B misdemeanor.

——-

We support continuation of the substance of provisions requiring legislators to follow the procurement code process, as specified currently in (j), (k), and (3)(a).

——-

In this memo we have not attempted to suggest improvements to the related statutes enacted during the 2010 session—statutes regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure of assets, personal use of campaign contributions, and restrictions on lobbyist gifts. We do not think that these separate statutes are adequate as currently written. We assumed, however, that specific content related to these matters could be omitted from the Code of Conduct as long as the appropriate code citations are incorporated in the Code of Conduct. We further assumed that the Interim Ethics Committee would view the content of these statutes as outside the immediate scope of its concerns.

Thank you for the invitation to provide input. We would be happy to meet with members of the Committee and its staff to discuss and clarify any of the above recommendations. In a future memo, we would also be happy to offer our analysis of any relevant statutes, at your request.

* [code provision] refers to statutes passed during the 2010 session of the legislature relating to personal use of campaign contributions, disclosure of assets, and restraints on gifts from lobbyists, as the case may be.

Signers’ identities should remain secret

by David R. Irvine and Alan L. Smith

June 4, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Doe v. Reed, soon will decide whether the names and addresses of those who sign an initiative petition must be disclosed to the public. State officials have defended compulsory disclosure of this information, arguing that citizens endorsing a petition for the ballot must be willing to accept the “consequences” for doing so. In their view, free speech shouldn’t be so free. We disagree.

Speaking anonymously is a venerable form of political expression, and a choice which enjoys First Amendment protection. Founding Fathers James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay understood that the freedom to remain anonymous was integral to the fundamental right to speak freely, and in fact exercised this right when they published The Federalist Papers under pseudonyms. They saw that their principles, however eloquently explained, might be eclipsed in a debate about who authored them. Writers such as George Eliot and A.S. Byatt have used pseudonyms or initials for names, so that their work will be valued on its merits rather than devalued on account of their identities as women. The Tribune‘s editorials contain no byline, giving them a collective, institutional force. They aren’t easily dismissed because “so and so, the publisher, is nothing but a lowdown” ... pick your epithet.

The “consequences” for those who have signed initiative petitions across the country have, in some instances, been dire. Signers have received death threats. Their homes and vehicles have been vandalized. They risk job losses or demotions when they will not conform to the political views of their employers, who have found their names by scouring the Internet. Because their addresses, as well as identities, are found on the petition, signers must accept the risk that they will be called at all hours of the day and night, or that picketers will appear on their doorstep—all because they exercised the right to be wrong in their political thinking.

If it is in the state’s interest that the public must know about our endorsement of a petition, so that these “consequences” can follow, then, by logical extension, all of our political choices—our votes in caucus meetings, at political conventions and at the ballot box itself—should be subject to disclosure and scrutiny. Never mind that, in 1896, the Utah Constitution guaranteed the right to vote in secret, and that, in 2003, the Utah Supreme Court equated the right to sign an initiative with the right to vote. Some of our state officials despise these constitutional protections and judicial precedents. Do they long for a darker age, when the test of civic virtue was how much harassment voters could endure for exercising their rights of conscience? After all, if you’re not willing to be badgered for your political thoughts, you must not be much of a real American.

It is said that citizens endorsing a petition can’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy, since in signing they know that their names will be public. The circularity of this argument is obvious. But for the state’s coercive disclosures, we could and might choose to exercise our rights of political conscience privately rather than publicly.

John Hancock was willing to be a martyr for his principles and signed the Declaration of Independence with a flourish that resounded through the ages. Of course, he was acting as his colony’s delegate to the Continental Congress and in a representative, rather than an individual, capacity, a fact which, where accountability is concerned, makes all the difference.

The choice for individuals, acting for themselves rather than others, to speak privately is all important. Justice Antonin Scalia, at oral argument in Doe v. Reed, had some fine rhetoric about the need for citizens who engage in politics to show “civic courage” by “standing up” and “being counted.” The good justice forgot, however, that we applaud acts of courage only because they are products of volition. Behaviors which are compelled by the state—as where citizens are forced to disclose their voting preferences—don’t reflect much if any virtue, civic or otherwise. (And speaking of “standing up” and “being named,” let’s not forget that, in Bush v. Gore, the most controversial decision of this decade, a majority of justices, including Scalia, chose to write anonymously, hiding the true author behind a per curiam opinion.)

Voting on an initiative is the purest form of political speech, and we protect it with secret ballots and private voting booths. Signing a petition to get an initiative onto the ballot requires privacy for all of the same reasons. Utah’s initiative statute, however, denies this most fundamental, original, freedom of choice to its citizens; and that is simply wrong.

David R. Irvine and Alan L. Smith are Salt Lake City attorneys and two of the drafters of the legislative ethics initiative.

Ethics Reformers Express Pleasure at Recent Court Actions

June 3, 2010

Utahns for Ethical Government announces that it has received permission from the Utah Supreme Court to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the Farley Anderson case. The case challenges the Lieutenant Governor’s refusal to accept Mr. Anderson’s electronic signature submissions. Anderson is seeking to run for governor as an Independent, and the LG’s refusal to accept his e-signatures is keeping his name off the 2010 gubernatorial ballot.

Commenting on UEG’s forthcoming amicus brief, David Irvine, UEG pro-bono attorney, stated that ” We believe that UEG’s position and information on its own electronic signature gathering campaign will be useful to the Court in deciding the Anderson case.” “Our brief will demonstrate that the Utah legislature has mandated the legal recognition of electronic signatures for all purposes.  By taking a contrary position, the lieutenant governor has defied the legislative branch and is out of bounds in doing so,” added co-attorney Alan Smith.

UEG also announces its satisfaction with yesterday’s order by federal district court judge Clark Waddoups. The order granted UEG’s request for a preliminary injunction that prohibits release of the names of signers of UEG’s ethics reform initiative petitions. Kim Burningham, UEG chair, stated that “UEG is especially pleased that Judge Waddoups recognized the irreparable harm that would accrue to UEG signers if the injunction were not granted at this point in time.”
A decisive ruling from the judge awaits the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Doe v. Reed, which deals with a similar set of facts from Washington state. Judge Waddoups stated that the decision in Doe v. Reed is expected to bear upon, if not directly control his ultimate ruling in the UEG case. A decision in Doe v. Reed is expected by the end of June.

Petition hurdle

Legislature should lower the bar

June 3, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

The two initiative petitions that sought to reform ethics in the Legislature and the redrawing of political boundaries fell far short of the 95,000 signatures necessary to qualify them for the 2010 general election ballot. That again raises the question of whether that signature requirement is so high that it severely handicaps the constitutional power of the people to propose laws through the initiative process.

The answer, clearly, is yes.

In the wake of well-known scandals involving legislators and with the push of a highly organized signature-gathering campaign, the Utahns for Ethical Government were able to collect 73,244 signatures of registered voters. Yet that is some 21,000 less than the 94,552 that were required.

Not only that, but the petitioners also did not meet the geographical distribution standard. The law requires that sponsors collect signatures equal in number to 10 percent of the vote cast for governor in the previous general election. That’s where the 94,552 comes from. That standard must be met in 26 of the state’s 29 Utah Senate districts. UEG cleared that hurdle in only nine districts.

The story was even bleaker for the Fair Boundaries initiative, which collected 45,230 certified signatures and met the distribution standard in only two Senate districts.

But suppose, for example, that the law required signatures equal to 5 percent of the vote for governor, rather than 10 percent. That’s the standard in California and Colorado. It’s high enough to eliminate frivolous proposals. Under it, the Utah legislative ethics proposal would have qualified for the ballot. The Fair Boundaries petition, by contrast, would not.

Twenty-four states allow the people to propose laws through initiatives. In Idaho, the standard is 6 percent of qualified electors and there is no distribution requirement. Oregon requires 6 percent of votes cast for governor. Washington requires 8 percent with no distribution requirement. Nevada and Arizona have 10 percent standards similar to Utah, but Arizona does not have a geographic distribution requirement.

If the initiative power is to have any real meaning, the Utah Legislature must set the bar lower for total signatures. Otherwise, only those groups with enough money to hire professional signature gatherers will have access to the ballot. Or, the Legislature should allow collection of electronic signatures. By failing to do either, the Legislature is thumbing its nose at the Utah Constitution and the power reserved there for the people to propose new laws.

Final Tally and UEG Commentary

June 2, 2010                                                              

District	Required	Actual
1	1669	1950	Sufficient
2	2951	4093	Sufficient
3	2796	3494	Sufficient
4	3694	4599	Sufficient
5	2132	1328	Insufficient
6	3090	2574	Insufficient
7	4130	5851	Sufficient
8	3273	4322	Sufficient
9	3435	3580	Sufficient
10	4086	3027	Insufficient
11	4468	2773	Insufficient
12	2893	1376	Insufficient
13	4211	1928	Insufficient
14	3506	1280	Insufficient
15	2943	1749	Insufficient
16	2084	1764	Insufficient
17	3407	1349	Insufficient
18	2170	1401	Insufficient
19	3476	1415	Insufficient
20	2897	1621	Insufficient
21	3163	1908	Insufficient
22	3592	3976	Sufficient
23	3688	4880	Sufficient
24	2867	2340	Insufficient
25	3299	1265	Insufficient
26	3670	2029	Insufficient
27	3165	1821	Insufficient
28	3534	727	Insufficient
29	4264	2824	Insufficient
Total	94553	73244	Insufficient

The final tally as reported by the Lieutenant Governor’s office shows that we exceeded the needed numbers in nine Senate Districts in Salt Lake and Davis counties and gathered considerably over half the needed numbers in thirteen other Senate Districts across the state. Seven districts remained more difficult, particularly Senate District 28, which includes Millard, Beaver, Iron, Garfield, Kane, and a corner of Washington County.

We are continuing to gather the balance of signatures necessary for placement on the next regular election ballot (2012) and are counting on dedicated volunteers to step forward and help put us over the top in the districts where we did not reach our goal by April 15th. We are also planning to arrange for a small group of paid signature gatherers to supplement the work of volunteers. We have until August 12th to gather the remaining signatures. (See our June 2 Press Release for more details.)

Utahns for Ethical Government is Moving Ahead With Its Signature Drive

June 2, 2010

In response to the Lieutenant Governor’s release yesterday of Senate District counts for the UEG ethics reform initiative, UEG reaffirms that it is continuing to gather signatures toward an August 12, 2010 deadline for placement on the 2012 ballot.

UEG Chair Kim Burningham notes that “we have 73,000 signatures in the bank and are now going after the balance of signatures in areas of the state where we did not meet the required numbers.” “We are determined to make it,” he added, and “believe enthusiastically that we will.”

Dixie Huefner, Communications Chair, observed: “When we submitted petitions to the county clerk to meet an April 15th deadline, we estimated that we had collected about ¾ of the number of signatures that were necessary to be on the 2010 ballot, a good showing, given the burdens placed on the initiative process by legislators.” “This estimate did not include electronic signatures that we had also collected but that the LG had ruled were not acceptable” she added.

Examining the count, UEG signature-gathering chief, Vik Arnold, noted that “in some Senate districts, the figures released were higher than our estimates, indicating that in the final days before April 15, some petitions were delivered directly to the clerks rather than to our office.” Continuing, he said that “the actual counts released yesterday also allowed us to estimate how many names had been discarded as duplicates or otherwise considered ineligible by the county clerks.”

“In some instances, discrepancies between our estimates and the actual counts suggest some lack of uniformity across counties, an issue with possible significance for legal action,” observed Alan Smith, UEG pro-bono attorney. “Uniform application of the law is required to provide equal protection to all of Utah’s registered voters who signed our petitions,” he explained.

UEG interprets the June 1 release of the figures as the LG’s determination that he was required to do so in order to establish that UEG’s initiative did not gather enough signatures to be placed on the November 2010 ballot. “In no way does release of the figures establish that we cannot be placed on the 2012 ballot if we gather the balance of required signatures before the termination of the year allowed by the state Election Code,” asserted Burningham. In UEG’s case, the year-long effort must be completed by August 12th to ensure placement on the 2012 ballot.

Ethics reform remains high on the list of concerns of Utah voters. Yet news reports suggest possible new attempts by the opposition to thwart the ability of UEG to have its initiative placed on the 2012 ballot. “These would be cynical moves on the part of the opposition to deny citizens the ability to exercise their right to legislate by initiative. We strenuously reject these attempts and will fight them in court if they emerge,” concluded Burningham.

Judge rules petition signer names secret for now

June 2, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday to keep secret the names of Utah’s ethics initiative petition signers.

That injunction will stay in force until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a similar case from Washington state that would set precedent for subsequent legal decisions on the matter.

“The questions to be answered in John Doe #1 v. Reed bear upon and will very likely directly control the ruling to be issued in the present case,” Waddoups said in Wednesday’s court document.

He said it would be “presumptuous” for the District Court to rule before the Supreme Court decision is out.

At issue in the Utah case are 77,000 names submitted to county clerks on April 15 in support of comprehensive ethics reform that Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) had hoped to get on November’s ballot.

The citizen ballot measure was hotly opposed by most of Utah’s Republican-dominated Legislature and Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, successfully sponsored a law to streamline signature removal.

UEG supporters have argued petition signers would be subject to harassment, retaliation or unwanted pressure if their names became public.

The initiative organizers have since learned that their petition drive failed to clear the 95,000-signature threshold. The group, however, intends to continue gathering names until Aug. 12 in hopes of getting its measure on the 2012 ballot.

Final Count from Lieutenant Governor’s Office

June 2, 2010

On Tuesday, June 1, 2010, the office of the Lieutenant Governor released the final count of signatures that UEG submitted by the April 15th deadline. For placement on the November 2010 ballot, 94,553 signatures of registered voters statewide were needed, plus signatures equivalent to 10% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election in 26 of the state’s 29 Senate districts. UEG obtained 73,244 valid paper signatures (which does not include electronic signatures that were not accepted by the Lieutenant Governors’ office), not enough to qualify but more than 3/4 of the 94,553 required. Considering the many obstacles to a grass-roots effort such as ours, we believe that we did well. We’re planning to gather the balance of the signatures by August 12th. (Click here to see the final tally and additional comments on the tally by UEG.)

Utahns for Ethical Government Supports ACLU of Utah in Electronic Signature Issue

May 24, 2010

Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) today announces that it is planning to request permission from the Utah Supreme Court to file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in the case of Anderson v. Bell. UEG supports the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah Foundation, Inc. (“ACLU of Utah”) and cooperating attorney Brent V. Manning in their representation of Farley Anderson, an independent candidate for governor whose petition to be placed on the ballot was wrongfully rejected by the Lieutenant Governor in March 2010.

ACLU attorneys explain that, among other things, Mr. Anderson seeks a ruling from the Court that “e-signatures”—signatures collected on-line—should be treated the same as handwritten signatures for purposes of independent candidate nominating petitions. The Lieutenant Governor argued that those were not “signatures” under Utah State law.

Similar to Anderson’s contention, UEG believes that the Lieutenant Governor’s decision to reject UEG’s electronic signatures gathered in its initiative petition drive on legislative ethics reform is illegal. UEG has until August 12, 2010, to collect the 95,000 signatures required to place its ballot initiative on the 2012 ballot.” A Supreme Court ruling on the validity of “e-signatures” could play a significant role in whether UEG can meet its August deadline,” stated UEG chairperson, Kim Burningham.

“We look forward to supporting the ACLU’s arguments in the Anderson case,“observed Alan Smith, UEG co-attorney with David Irvine. ACLU attorney Darcy Goddard added: “We welcome UEG’s support of Mr. Anderson in this case.  UEG has a significant, shared interest in establishing the validity of e-signatures in the electoral process, and its attorneys have a wealth of knowledge to share with the Court.  We have every expectation that UEG’s support of Mr. Anderson, if permitted, will greatly assist the Court in reaching a fair and just decision in Mr. Anderson’s favor.”

After filing our request, the next step will be to await the response of the Utah Supreme Court.

Initiative law too restrictive

April 23, 2010 (Deseret News editorial)

State lawmakers make no bones about it, they don’t like citizen initiatives. They contend that the legislative process better serves the electorate because important proposals undergo the legislative hearing process, where members of the public can express their support or concerns for various proposals. Then, the legislation must pass both houses and be signed into law by the governor, who also has the option of a veto.

In concept, we agree with that argument.

On occasion, the Legislature is at loggerheads with public opinion on certain issues. Then, citizens can avail themselves of the initiative process. But the Legislature has set a steep burden for people to place questions on the state ballot — gather signatures equal to 10 percent of the people who voted in the last gubernatorial election, including 10 percent of voters in 26 of 29 state Senate districts.

This requirement, upheld by the Utah Supreme Court in 2004, appears to guarantee one of two outcomes: that citizen backers of initiatives cannot meet the threshold or that special interest organizations back efforts to pay workers to collect the needed signatures. Neither encourages true grass-roots, citizen involvement.

That was true for the Safe to Learn, Safe To Worship initiative effort. This was also the case for the recent Fair Boundaries initiative that failed to get the 95,000 voter signatures needed for the November ballot. The initiative sought to establish an independent redistricting commission to redraw the U.S. House, legislative and state school board districts after the 2010 Census. The commission would have made a recommendation to the Legislature, which would have had the final say.

Contrast that to the 2007 citizen initiative effort to repeal a school voucher law passed by the Legislature. The initiative effort was largely backed by the National Education Association. Its chief opponent, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, spent several millions fighting the initiative, which was ultimately approved by Utah voters.

Like the Fair Boundaries initiative, a second citizen initiative backed by Utahns for Ethical Government also failed to collect a sufficient number of signatures to make this November’s ballot. That initiative would set up an independent ethics commission for the Legislature, cap donations and adopt a stringent code of ethics requirements for lawmakers.

Utahns for Ethical Government has announced it will continue to seek to gather signatures to place the issue on the ballot in 2012. That move, which backers say is allowed under state law, could face a legal challenge.

If that weren’t sufficient intrigue, UEG obtained a temporary restraining order last week to keep the names of petition signees private. The GOP, which opposes both initiatives, has contemplated contacting signees to remove their names from the petition.

These events suggest that the bar may be too high for authentic, grass-roots movements to place issues on Utah’s ballot. Although the Supreme Court says the law is constitutional, it clearly puts ordinary citizens at an extreme disadvantage in collecting sufficient names or, worse, encourages special interests to hijack the process.

One of the oft-heard arguments against a lower threshold is that Utah does not want to become another California — a state where “citizen” initiatives are a dime a dozen. There is little danger of that under the current requirement. The greater danger is setting the bar so high that citizens are effectively squeezed out of this means to place important issues on the Utah ballot.

Strict initiative rules could deny Utahns their rights

April 16, 2010 (Deseret News)

As of this column’s deadline, supporters of the citizens initiative petitions, Utahns for Ethical Government and Fair Boundaries, don’t know if they met the high standard of 95,000 voter signatures to get their initiatives on the November ballot.

That petition turn-in deadline was 5 p.m. Thursday, April 15.

In fact, petition organizers may not know their fate for a week or more.

While reaching 95,000 signatures — 10 percent of the people who voted in the last gubernatorial election — is tough to meet, the really hard part is getting 10 percent of voters in 26 of 29 state Senate districts.

Let me assume in this commentary that neither UEG nor Fair Boundaries reaches the requirements, set in law by the Utah Legislature. Then I say someone or some group should sue, seeking a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court on whether the current voter signature standards are unrealistic, and thus denying regular citizens their right under the state constitution to petition their government through initiative.

The high court, in a ruling several years ago on initiative standards, warned the Legislature that if lawmakers make the initiative standard too difficult, then in reality they are denying the citizens’ constitutional right.

You know what really gets me in all of this?

Conservative Utah legislators talk all the time about constitutional rights. They go on ad nauseam about them. But when there is a constitutional right they don’t like — like citizens initiatives — well, then, it’s a different story.

The best I can tell, both the UEG and Fair Boundaries efforts are just what the Utah Constitution-writers were aiming at — true grass-roots citizen efforts to address state law in areas that legislators, because of their own conflicts of interests, selfishness or otherwise bullheadedness, simply will not act on.

And if these petition folks, nearly all of them volunteers (Fair Boundaries is paying its top staffer a small salary) can’t make the signature-collection goals, then I think the law is too stringent.

Utah legislators, especially the dominant Republicans, don’t like either petition. They especially hate the UEG initiative, which would ban all gifts from lobbyists to legislators, cap campaign contributions, set up an independent ethics commission and adopt a stringent code of conduct for lawmakers.

Democratic legislators actually like the Fair Boundaries initiative. Republicans dislike that one, also.

Fair Boundaries would set up an independent redistricting commission that would recommend to lawmakers new boundaries in U.S. House, legislative and State School Board districts after each 10-year Census. Now, GOP lawmakers (as the majority party) draw the lines. (Yes, they hold public hearings to take comment, and legislative Democrats get a vote. But when push comes to shove, it’s the Democrats who suffer in the redrawing.)

If UEG and Fair Boundaries can’t gather the 95,000 signatures after six months of an organized volunteer effort, then Utah basically doesn’t have citizens initiative petitions — even if it is in the state Constitution. So if volunteer citizens can’t do it, who can?

The answer is a paid effort backed by special interests.

And is that what we want here?

Some well-backed special interest group — be it gun-rights opponents or public school teachers or anti-immigration groups or anyone else — coming in here and running an initiative with paid signature gathers?

Look at what happened with the public school voucher fight of 2007. On the anti-voucher side we had the Utah Education Association, which was financially backed by the National Education Association, which poured millions of dollars into Utah. On the pro-voucher side, Patrick Byrne, owner of Overstock.com, put in several million bucks.

So, what the failure of UEG and Fair Boundaries means (if they don’t make the ballot) is don’t waste your time and effort on a grass-roots citizens initiative. Go find yourself a really rich backer or a special interest group that will put up cash. Then hire professional petition gatherers to get the job done.

On the other side of the issue, make sure your initiative doesn’t anger some really powerful political groups — like the Utah Republican Party and majority legislators.

Otherwise, they will pass a new law to hamper your efforts in midstream — like they did this year.

(A quick aside here. I’m getting a kick out of Republicans crying foul that UEG attorneys are asking a federal court for a restraining order to keep petition signees’ names private — if that is granted it will thwart the GOP’s anti-initiative effort. Now you GOP legislators know what UEG supporters felt when you passed a law making it easier to get names off of petitions. Sweets to the sweet, I say.)

So, if the petition supporters fail to get the 95,000 signatures, it’s time for the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in on Utah’s high initiative thresholds.

If the justices say that’s fair play, fine.

But it’s clear you can’t trust the Utah Legislature to make that call.

Deseret News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. may be reached by e-mail at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A bar too high

Time to ease initiative requirements.

Updated: April 19, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune Editorial)

It’s the political equivalent of pole vaulting over the Wasatch Front. The Legislature has set the bar way too high for citizen ballot initiatives, making it nearly impossible for the people to exercise their constitutional right to make laws.

This year, three determined efforts by energized citizen groups failed to pass muster. Utahns for Ethical Government, proponents of comprehensive legislative ethics reform, believes it fell just short of acquiring the book-load of signatures needed to place its proposal on the 2010 ballot. Fair Boundaries, which espoused an independent commission to assist with legislative redistricting and limit gerrymandering, and The Peoples Right LLC, which proposed campaign finance and spending reforms, didn’t even come close.

It’s hard to believe that the failures resulted from citizens refusing to sign the petitions. Public opinion polls have shown that Utahns, as a rule, support ethics reform, campaign finance reform and nonpartisan redistricting. It’s more likely that logistical problems—the need to hold seven public hearings and canvass residents across the entire state—led to the downfall of the petition drives.

The number of signatures required from registered voters to place an initiative on the ballot—an amount equal to 10 percent of the votes cast statewide in the most recent gubernatorial election—is onerous. This year, that worked out to 95,000 John Hancocks, a nearly insurmountable goal.

While a high standard should serve to winnow out frivolous proposals, 10 percent is too high. Five percent—in this case 47,500 signatures—seems sufficient.

Even worse is the signature distribution mandate. Not only are 95,000 signatures required, initiative supporters must meet the 10 percent mark in at least 26 of Utah’s 29 state Senate districts. That’s absurd, not to mention undemocratic. All signatures should count equally, and the residents of a handful of Senate districts shouldn’t be able to deny the rest of the state the right to sound off on proposed statutes. This requirement should be dropped.

But instead of making it easier for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights regarding initiatives, lawmakers made it more difficult. A new law approved this year makes it simple for citizens to withdraw their names from petitions, and thus makes it easier for initiative opponents to scuttle a successful petition drive by targeting signatories in districts where the minimum has barely been met.

These overly restrictive regulations undermine the right of the people to enact laws and, as such, they undermine the Utah Constitution. The Legislature needs to lower the bar.

ETHICS REFORM PETITION: A NEW DEADLINE

April 23, 2010

We now have a new deadline for obtaining sufficient signatures to place ethics reform on the general election ballot.  If we are able to obtain the required number of signatures in 26 of 29 Senate Districts by August 12, the question will be put before the public in 2012.

Previously, we had one goal in mind: to obtain the signatures by April 15.  We came close and did very well, but we did not succeed in that immediate goal.  Had we succeeded with our first goal, the public would speak in the 2010 election.
 
Some opponents question our ability to continue gathering signatures.  Our lawyers are convinced we are on strong legal ground and the popular demand will be heard.

I now invite you to join me in making the final push.  Your determination in gathering signatures in sufficient numbers in the necessary districts will move us toward greater accountability in the Utah State Legislature.

Two issues:

• How far did we miss the goal?
• What can you do now?

HOW FAR DID WE MISS THE GOAL?

State Law requires approximately 95,000 valid signatures across the State.  This figure is based on the stipulation that we must obtain 10% of the number who voted for the governor in the last election.  Those signatures must be distributed throughout the State with at least 10% in 26 Senate Districts.

We do not yet know if we achieved the first requirement.  We did not achieve the second.

According to our calculations, 77,000 signatures were delivered by our volunteers to county clerks across the State.  Additionally, workers—who could not get their completed packets to our central headquarters and back to the county clerks in time—were to take packets directly to the county clerks.  There are several thousand of these, but do not know the exact number.

We also received many signatures electronically.  None of these are included in the 77,000 figure.  These could only be counted if legal action were taken to the State Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of the procedure.
Actual numbers will shrink when some of signatures cannot be validated because the signer is not registered or for some reason does not match up with voter records on file in the county clerk’s offices.  Past experience shows that number will range between 5 and 12 % of the total.

Using the 77,000 figure, signature counts in nine Senate district exceeded the required amount.  Several of these have a large buffer margin.  In addition to those, many others are close to the goal, while some have considerable distance yet to go.
Any way you look at it, our current goal is a whole lot less than it was in the Fall of 2009 when we began!

WHAT CAN WE DO NOW?

Our task is clear.  We must gain additional signatures in specific locations to qualify not only in total number but also in the required distribution in 26 Senate Districts.  We are committed to that goal.
Senate district leaders and volunteers throughout the state are being provided with exact figures, and they will know what must be done to qualify.  If you do not know how you are doing in your area, ask.  Your help is of great importance.
 
Some frequently asked questions with the answers follow:

• Should we move ahead on gathering signatures?  ABSOLUTELY YES!
• Should we sign electronically?  Our first preference is that you sign on paper, but if you are unable to do so, sign on line.  (Counting those will still demand court approval.)
• If you do not have petitions where can you get them?  Consult the web site: www.utahethics.org.
• Do we need funds?  Please contribute if you can.  We have not gone in the hole, just barely, but we are operating on a limited budget.  Your contributions are needed!  (Contribute on the web site using Pay Pal, give it to members of the executive committee,  or you can send it to my address: 932 Canyon Crest Drive, Bountiful, Utah 84010.)

DO NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY.  Save and put up your signs now.  Any flyers or handouts you have may still be useful.  Use, don’t discard, your current petitions.

Thanks so much for your work thus far.  With your help, we can get the issue on the ballot in 2012.  With a clear set of ethical standards, ethical improvement will happen!

Kim Burningham
Chair, Utahns for Ethical Government

Moving Forward

May 12, 2010

UEG will continue to collect signatures through mid-summer to qualify its initiative for the ballot. Because the number collected by April 15 fell short of the 95,000 threshold needed for the 2010 ballot, UEG has until mid-August to make up the difference and qualify its initiative for the next general election. We welcome more volunteers to help us in various parts of the state.

Check back regularly for more updates. We are currently awaiting Judge Waddoups’ ruling on release of the names of petition signers.

See Terry Wood’s ad for UEG

April 6, 2010

Right of voters

Public Forum Letter

March 2, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

Utah voters are fortunate. The Utah Constitution gives voters and the Legislature equal rights to initiate and pass state laws. This year it’s time for voters to use that right or lose it by signing two initiative petitions that put independent citizen commissions on the ballot. One commission helps legislators maintain good ethical practices.

The other helps legislators create compact election districts, keeping communities intact without protecting incumbents from fair competition.

The Legislature already has its own independent ethics commission proposal on the November ballot. It’s a constitutional amendment. Only the Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, so if it passes voters cannot initiate future changes.

This makes adding the citizen ethics initiative to the ballot especially important.

Many legislators are genuinely convinced they know best and are determined to protect their power. They have made getting initiatives on the ballot increasingly difficult for voters by requiring more signatures from more areas and unfairly giving opponents extra time to remove signatures before the final count.

We can overcome these roadblocks, but only if enough of us act by signing the ethics and fair boundaries petitions before April 15.

Sandy Peck Executive director, League of Women Voters of Utah
Holladay

UEG Releases Update on Status of Ethics Reform Petition Drive

April 2, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY - Entering the final two weeks of its petition drive, Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) released information Thursday on the status of its petition to place an ethics initiative on November’s ballot.

By the end of the weekend, UEG anticipates reaching somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of its mandated 95,000 signatures of registered Utah voters, according to Kim Burningham, chair of UEG. Of the approximately 8,000 petition packets that have been distributed statewide - enough for 180,000 signatures - about one-third have been returned to UEG. Status of those “somewhere in the pipeline” and the intensity of signature collecting efforts during the next 10 days will determine the fate of UEG’s legislative ethics reform effort in Utah.

“If we stopped right now, we would not make it,” Burningham said.  “But we are within reach. It is doable but it will take a big effort.”

Burningham cautioned that the numbers were UEG’s best estimates and should not be considered definitive because of logistical problems encountered in a massive drive conducted by volunteers in all 29 of Utah’s Senate districts. The number of signatures on petitions that have not yet been returned will be critical to UEG success, and electronic signatures still need to be tallied.

Other highlights of UEG’s grass-roots petition drive include:

• Roughly 3,000 volunteers have been involved in varying degrees.
• About 175 donors have contributed in the neighborhood of $60,000.
• Recent expenses have included purchase of print advertising in the state’s two largest daily newspapers and 40 weeklies; production of a video currently running on cable television; an automated telephone message to specially targeted areas; and part-time services of computer, communication and campaign specialists. Additional funds are still being sought to facilitate the final push to reach our signature goal.
• The campaign is using Internet-based “social networking” sites more extensively during these final weeks.
• A two-week, 20-city “road trip” across the state has been launched to support on-going petition drives.

“In these days of active distrust of government, it is more important than ever for the Utah Legislature to have a clear and stringent code of ethical conduct,” said Dixie Huefner, communications chair of UEG. “We are asking Utah voters to go the extra mile during these next 12 days: Help put our initiative over the top so that Utahns can have a say about the ethical standards, accountability, and openness of our Legislature.”

For more information contact:
Dixie Huefner, (801) 359-6705
Kim Burningham, (801) 292-9261
Alan Smith, (801) 521-3321 (on background)
David Irvine, (801) 949-6693 (on background)

Utahns for Ethical Government is a nonpartisan coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and unaffiliated voters who are committed to meaningful legislative ethics reform. UEG is working to obtain 95,000 signatures of registered voters to qualify its initiative on the November 2010 ballot. The initiative would establish a strict code of ethical conduct for the Utah Legislature and an independent ethics commission to advise the Legislature.

Join UEG on final road trips to gather signatures.

UEG Hits the Road for Final Push to Meet Petition Deadline

April 2, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY - Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) takes its campaign for honest, open and responsible government to the St. George Art Festival today and tomorrow.

With just under two weeks left to reach its deadline of 95,000 signatures on a petition allowing Utahns to vote on its ethics initiative in November, UEG is accelerating its regional Utah petition drive.

“Should Utahns be able to vote on creating a more ethical Legislature? Should citizens be in charge of their government instead of well-funded, narrow interests looking out only for themselves?” asks Kim Burningham, chair of UEG.  “We believe thousands living in Utah’s Dixie would without hesitation say ‘Yes’.”

En route to St. George, Burningham said that was the reason UEG expects to collect hundreds of signatures at the region’s largest arts and crafts festival, which will be held in St. George’s new Town Square.

The effort is part of a two-week tour of Utah to ensure success of its petition drive. In addition to St. George, UEG volunteers will be collecting signatures at prominent locations in the following Utah towns:

• April 4th and 5th - Price, Moab and Spanish Fork
• April 6th and 7th - Vernal, Roosevelt, Heber City and Park City
• April 8th and 9th - Kamas, Huntsville, Eden and North Ogden
• April 10th - Pleasant Grove and Orem
• April 11th - Clearfield
• April 12th - Roy
• April 13th and 14th - Logan

Persons interested in helping UEG at any of these locations are urged to contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

There will never be a better time for Utahns to require their elected representatives to perform their duties according to values all Utahns can be proud of.

For more information contact:

Dixie Huefner, (801) 359-6705
Kim Burningham, (801) 292-9261
Alan Smith, (801) 521-3321 (on background)
David Irvine, (801) 949-6693 (on background)

Utahns for Ethical Government is a nonpartisan coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and unaffiliated voters who are committed to meaningful legislative ethics reform. UEG is working to obtain 95,000 signatures of registered voters to qualify its initiative on the November 2010 ballot. The initiative would establish a strict code of ethical conduct for the Utah Legislature and an independent ethics commission to advise the Legislature.

No vetoes - Herbert signs three outrageous bills

March 30, 2010 (Tribune Editorial)

The governor’s veto is supposed to be a check on the power of the Legislature. When legislators pass an outrageous or unconstitutional bill, the governor can wield the veto pen to force them to reconsider. Yet, although this year’s Legislature passed some pretty outrageous stuff, Gov. Gary Herbert’s response so far has been to sign it all into law, with one exception.
Some check.

In the category of outrageous, three bills come to mind. Two of them also share the distinction of likely being unconstitutional.

One, HB143, purports to assert the state’s eminent domain on federal land unless the property was acquired by the federal government with the consent of the Legislature. This bill supposedly would salve the still-festering wound of Bill Clinton’s designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in 1996. That the wound still is festering is largely because energy development satraps in Utah keep picking at it. They can’t get over that all that coal on the Kaiparowits Plateau will go unmined, so they want to use the state’s supposed power of eminent domain to get it. Ditto for some roads on federal lands and oil and gas leases near national parks that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has wisely withdrawn.

Trouble is, the legislators’ own attorneys have told them this is a losing proposition under the property and supremacy clauses of the Constitution.

Another bill, SB11, is based on the legal fallacy that federal gun laws can’t touch firearms if they are made in Utah and sold only within the state. This bit of loopy reasoning rests on a misreading of the jurisprudence of the Constitution’s commerce clause, something that the Legislature’s lawyers also tried to point out, again, to no avail.

Finally, there’s SB275. It’s not unconstitutional, just petty. It’s aimed at the Utah Independent Ethics Commission Act being offered in an initiative petition by Utahns for Ethical Government. Legislators loathe the act, and are doing everything they can to discourage Utahns from signing the petition, which would place it on the ballot in November. To that end, SB275 would make it easier for people who have signed the petition to withdraw their signatures and for opponents to encourage them for a month after the filing deadline. That’s changing the rules mid-game.
At some point, the courts will bring the power-drunk birds of the Legislature back to Earth from their Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Apparently, Gary Herbert isn’t up to the job. Maybe he doesn’t have a net. Or maybe he’s one of the birds.

UEG Disappointed Governor Signed Bill Targeting Ethics Reform, Eroding Citizen Initiative Rights

March 28, 2010

Why it’s news: UEG will be joined by the leader of a national citizen rights group in expressing disappointment regarding Gov. Gary R. Herbert’s signing of SB 275. The law’s sole purpose is to stymie efforts of citizens to enact statute by initiative, specifically UEG’s efforts on legislative ethics reform. Many petition signers will be targets of harassment in campaigns attempting to remove their names from petitions. In a state with one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country, the law likely will further discourage participation in Utah’s political process.

When: Noon, Monday, March 29, 2010
Where: Capitol Rotunda, west staircase
Who: Representatives of UEG and Citizens in Charge

Winner of CPAC “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award” Joins UEG News Conference

SALT LAKE CITY - Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) believes Utahns should be in charge of their state government - not lobbyists or well-funded special interests - and is disappointed Gov. Gary R. Herbert signed into law SB275. It was a clear demonstration of the governor’s unwillingness to stand up for initiative rights enshrined in the Utah Constitution.

“We believe Gov. Herbert tries to live by the basics of fair play and suspect he was personally uncomfortable with SB 275. But it’s just not fair to change the rules in the middle of a game as a way to win,” said Kim Burningham, chair of UEG. “The governor had an opportunity to put politics aside and demonstrate his mettle.”

The law, one in a series of moves by lawmakers to obstruct UEG’s effort to enact ethics reform, gives opponents of its citizen initiative an additional 30 days after the petition deadline of April 15 to persuade signers to remove their names. However, petition sponsors would not be allowed to solicit more signatures during that period.

“Now more than ever Utah needs bold, independent leadership,” said Dixie Huefner, UEG communications chair. “A veto would’ve sent a signal that our governor is willing to take the courageous step of standing up for the rights of Utah citizens, even against pressure from legislative leadership.”

Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge, will join UEG representatives at Monday’s news conference. Citizens in Charge is a transpartisan national organization based in Virginia. It is dedicated to the belief that one of the best tools citizens have for enacting change is the initiative and referendum process.

Last year Jacob was awarded the “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award” from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for his commitment to citizen-led reform and his fight to uphold initiative rights in Oklahoma. The award is presented annually to an individual who has stood for principle, even when doing so put him or her at risk physically, politically or economically.

Barb Guy: Join revolution to help ensure a more ethical Utah Legislature

Barb Guy | March 19, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

A little more than two years ago, in view of the capital’s iconic capitol dome, several Utahns sat around drinking cocktails and complaining about the Utah Legislature. Not about every single legislator; there are many who are sensible and well-meaning. Just the notorious ones, the ones with well-earned bad reputations.
It was after midnight and the blazing hot December day had finally given way to a balmy, pleasant evening. The palm trees moved hypnotically, sending a faint breeze across the swimming pool and among the lounge chairs we had arrayed near the outdoor bar. (I didn’t say we were in Utah’s capital.) A few Christmas trees winked from the windows of apartment buildings nearby.

Why on Earth in such wonderful circumstances so far from Utah would the conversation settle on what for many of us is just about our least favorite thing? What would possess a group of Utahns, on a tropical island on a December night full of rum and nice people, to arrive at what is probably Utah’s most embarrassing topic?
We were in Havana, the capital of Cuba, and its beautiful capitol, El Capitolio, bears a strong resemblance to Utah’s own capitol building.

Havana’s was built to house the country’s legislature, which it did until the Cuban Revolution changed everything. So since 1959 El Capitolio instead is home to the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment.

Utah is facing a little revolution of our own right now, and if Utahns for Ethical Government has its way, our Legislature will become a lot less embarrassing as a result. The group is a nonpartisan coalition committed to legislative ethics reform. This group of Democrats, Independents, Republicans and unaffiliated voters wants to establish a code of conduct for legislators, set standards for contributions to candidates and create an ethics commission—a kind of nonpartisan citizens panel to keep our folks on the Hill out of the back pockets of corporations.

The nearly universally beloved Olene Walker, former Utah governor and former Utah legislator, endorsed Utahns for Ethical Government’s initiative, pointing out Utah is one of only five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Further, we allow corporations to make donations to candidates even though such activity is banned by most other states.

The Utah Legislature put on a big show this past session trying to demonstrate that it can police itself, but everyone knows it can’t. The Trib ‘s editorial board said recently that even though 74 percent of Utahns approve of a cap on campaign contributions to legislators, we still don’t have one.
Until now, even if a legislator saw a corporation’s semitrailer-truck drive to another legislator’s house and start unloading cash by the pallet-load, he or she would be hard-pressed to do anything about it. Forty-some former Utah legislators have signed on to the ethics petition, and I think it’s because they know it simply can’t be done from within. So this revolution is up to us.

We only have until April 15 to sign the petition to get a bill on the ballot this fall. Sign the petition and you will help stem the flow of loose cash and special interest groups on Utah’s Capitol Hill. You will break the revolving door between the Legislature and corporate lobbyists.

I don’t want to storm our capitol and turn it into the ministry of science, technology and the environment or anything else, although that would be ironic on so many levels, but let’s try to get the Utah Legislature to be a little more accountable to the people of Utah.

¡ Que vive, Utahns for Ethical Government (http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org)> !

Barb Guy is a regular contributor to these pages.

Ethics, shmethics

Public Forum Letter

March 16, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

The 2010 Utah Legislature took only baby steps toward real ethics reform. Requiring disclosure of more potential financial conflicts and prohibiting personal use of campaign money were more than offset by narrow, self-interested actions to protect the status quo.

For example, legislators can still give their campaign money to other legislators or legislative candidates to buy influence, and there are no limits on campaign contributions.

Lobbyists can still be legislators. Legislators can still become paid lobbyists for many organizations when they leave the Legislature. Lobbyists are now required to report gifts worth $10 or more, but the exceptions are big enough to drive a truck through.

The Legislature’s proposed constitutional amendment to establish an independent ethics commission is a clever attempt to prevent voters from ever passing an initiative on what kinds of ethical standards we expect from our Legislature.

The new procedures for a supposedly “independent” ethics commission ensure that complaints will seldom be filed, that commission hearings will be secret, that recommendations cannot reveal evidence, and that a supermajority must agree on the existence of misconduct.

The public cannot afford to sleep!

Dixie S. Huefner
Salt Lake City

Time to take the state back from legislative ‘desperadoes’

John Florez, Monday, March 15, 2010

And in the category for “best show” of the year, the winner is — “The 2010 Utah Legislative Desperadoes.”
The Wild West extravaganza broke all records with its portrayal of a band of tough guys who rode into town and with their bluster intimidated the locals, while the sheriff was nowhere to be found. They immediately began to take what they wanted and ignored the pleas of the people, who for years had been crying for real ethics reform, a return to civility and integrity to their state government. The people were hoping they could live in harmony with their neighbors and do what their pioneer predecessors did — look after each other.

The desperadoes exacted ransom in the form of campaign financing money. They promised transparency and instead mocked it by unabashedly passing legislation that would let them accept campaign money contributions without any limits, justifying it by saying they were making it transparent. That’s like the Sundance Kid saying, “I told you I was going to rob the bank, so it’s OK.” They didn’t want caps on campaign finance contributions because it limited free speech, when in reality the average citizen cannot afford to pay the asking price for so-called free speech. Free speech has become too expensive.

And the longer they stayed, the more brazen and frantic they became at imposing their will on the people and disrupting any civility folks had come to know. They told the people they wanted to protect them from the federal government. They wanted to have a town that’s free from government regulations, then went about imposing their own rules; claimed they believed in local control, then debated whether they wanted to prevent locally elected officials from passing ordinances to protect their gay constituents from discrimination in their communities. And while the town was undergoing tough economic times with longer food and unemployment lines, and empty food pantry shelves, desperadoes were receiving greater gifts for themselves and passing cosmetic ethics laws to stay in office, more concerned about getting gifts than for the more than 200,000 Utahns who depend on the Utah Food Bank for their food.

In previous years, the riders who came to town wanted longer school days; this band came in saying it wanted shorter school days/years and to spend less money, while the school-age population continued to explode. The desperadoes came in demanding that people live by the rule of law, yet they went around it and even railed against established laws such as civil rights.

They boisterously demanded the right to protest against the federal government and for their right to freedom of expression, yet residents who wanted to do the same with a petition aimed at ethics reform were labeled “hucksters,” “bamboozlers,” “deceitful.” And rather than embracing citizen participation, they circled the wagons and made it more difficult for people to voice their opinion, threatening retaliation, even undermining their legal, constitutional and legitimate right to free speech.

The show ended with the desperadoes riding off into the sunset praising themselves for the wonderful job they did.

Missing in this Western is the happy ending where the sheriff finally rounds up a posse and stands up to the desperadoes and tells them to mend their ways or leave town. One is left to wonder if the desperadoes will return with more money in their pockets to continue claiming squatter rights and keep on circling the wagons.
The old Western movies end when a couple of courageous folks stand up together and decent citizens take control of their own town — not a bad idea.

A Utah native, John Florez has founded several Hispanic civil rights organizations; been on the staff of Sen. Orrin Hatch; served on more than 45 state, local and volunteer boards; and filled White House appointments, including deputy assistant secretary of labor and as a member of the commission on Hispanic education. E-mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Fox and henhouse

Public Forum letter

March 09, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

The Legislature’s effort to craft its own ethics bill in the face of the competing initiative put forth by Utahns for Ethical Government seems to be a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse (“Lawmakers working to win ethics reform war,” Tribune, Mar. 2). The fox says he is closest to the situation, understands the problems and has the best plan for guarding the henhouse. Does giving this fox the job make us feel comfortable at night?

We need a guard independent of the fox, like the initiative by Utahns for Ethical Government. Go to http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org and sign the petition.

Dave Stolfa
Moab

Nutcakes and hucksters

Public Forum Letter

March 10, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

Senate Bill 275, sponsored by a lobbyist/legislator who calls those of us gathering petition signatures for the ethics reform initiative “hucksters,” changes the rules of initiative petitions in the middle of the game. It is an unethical sabotaging of the democratic process. The Legislature has now changed the rules of the petition process to allow legislators to score points after the game is over.

Gov. Gary Herbert is now the referee. The public is waiting to see if Herbert sides with the team that quits at the final buzzer or the team that insists on scoring points after the game is over, when there is no opposition on the floor. Whose side are you on, governor? Are you with the public or the legislators?

I was just a “nutcake,” now I’m also a “huckster.”

Joe Watts
Murray

Corruption outrage

Public Forum Letter

March 10, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

Regarding the bill now on the governor’s desk that stops adding signatures to the ethics reform initiative on one date but allows its opponents an additional 30 days to talk signers of the initiative into removing their names:

It’s late in the game. One team (ethics reformers) could win. That possibility prompts the other side (lawmakers) to huddle with the referees (also lawmakers). They change the rules, deciding to extend the game. However, the new rules prevent the team that’s poised to win from obtaining possession of the ball during the extended period. Only the losing team can score more points. If this happened anywhere in the sports world, we’d be outraged at the corruption. It would be front page news.

Are we so cynical that we just shrug and accept it as the way our democracy works when Senate Bill 275, “Removing Signature from Initiative and Referendum Petition,” breezes through the Utah Legislature?

Garl Fink
Salt Lake City

Propositions Compared

March 2, 2010

How do UEG’s propositions compare with those of the Legislature?  Read this very informative document to find out.

Lawmakers wind up session dancing the “Fox” trot

March 11, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY - Call it the Henhouse’s Ethics Reform Foxtrot: three steps forward, four steps backward and five steps in place.

“Lawmakers seemed to dance around many of the most significant aspects of meaningful ethics reforms,” said Dixie Huefner, communications chair of Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG), commenting on the 2010 session of the Utah Legislature and the need for UEG to accelerate its petition-drive efforts. “We’re disappointed so much effort has produced so little toward actually changing the way business is conducted at our Capitol.”

“The backroom organizers of the 45-day party gave Utahns - the folks who actually paid for it - half a loaf of ethics reform or, in several respects, only the crust. The fox still calls the tune at the henhouse party,” said Kim Burningham, UEG Chair.

Three steps forward

• Required disclosure of more potential financial conflicts of interest (but not those of close family members)
• Limited prohibition on use of money for purposes other than funding candidate campaigns (some but not all personal uses were excluded)
• Lobbyists must report gifts worth $10 or more (but with multiple large exceptions)

Four steps backward

• The proposed constitutional amendment to establish an independent ethics commission is an attempt to prevent voters from ever passing an initiative on what kinds of ethical standards of right and wrong Utahns expect from their Legislature.
• The new procedures for a supposedly independent legislative ethics commission ensure that complaints will seldom meet the filing requirements, that commission hearings will be secret, that commission recommendations cannot reveal evidence, and that a super majority must agree on the existence of misconduct before forwarding a recommendation to a partisan ethics committee of the Legislature.
• The Legislature passed a bill allowing the opposition to initiatives more time (when the proponents can no longer collect signatures) to pressure petition signers to remove their names from the petitions so as to defeat an initiative from appearing on the ballot.  Changing the rules in the middle of the game happened because the Legislature set an immediate effective date to specifically thwart the current initiatives.
• The attorney general issued an opinion that electronic signatures would not be acceptable for the purpose of an initiative petition, making it more difficult for initiative supporters to gather signatures. Ironically, this opinion, while not issued by the Legislature itself, was issued while the Legislature was making it easier for signers to remove their names.

Five steps in place

• The Legislature did little to strengthen its vague code of conduct. Among the missing elements are the following: Lobbyists can still be legislators.
• Legislators can still become paid lobbyists as soon as they leave the Legislature, as long as they don’t join a lobbying firm. Legislators can still give their campaign money to other legislators or legislative candidates to buy influence among their colleagues.
• Accepting gifts from lobbyists that exceed the lobbying limits is apparently not considered an ethical violation. There are absolutely no limits on campaign contributions from corporations, individuals, or PACs. Utah is now one of only four states that has not established any limits.

Utahns for Ethical Government will accelerate its “March to the Ballot” efforts, including soliciting donations to air its cable TV advertisement. Go to UEG’s Web site or YouTube  to see and share the ad.

Also, UEG will continue gathering signatures on Saturday afternoons through March outside many public libraries in various counties across the state.

Go to http://www.utahethics.org to sign the petition electronically or find a location where you can sign the petition in-person.

For more information contact:
Dixie Huefner, (801) 359-6705
Kim Burningham, (801) 292-9261
Alan Smith: (801) 521-3321 (on background)
David Irvine: (801) 949-6693 (on background)

Let’s give lawmakers a hand—and a hand up

Terrell Dougan | February 19, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

Don’t get me wrong. I love living here. My people came here on foot and knew the value of hard work. They still do. These are the people I want to be living around: organized, resourceful, independent. In a flood or an earthquake, Utahns know just what to do. I am so proud of our state!

I also love the way our state constitution insists on a balanced budget. The joke is going around right now that California is so heavily in debt it’s asking to be annexed to Nevada. Not so Utah.

I am grateful to our legislators who work tirelessly to keep us out of debt as a state. I applaud conservative thought, which suggests giving people a hand up, not a handout. It preserves the dignity of every individual.

However. Now the time has come to give our hardworking legislators a hand up to high moral and ethical ground. Three major problems: 1) There is no limit on the amount of campaign funds they can receive. 2) They can hand out their extra campaign funds to other legislators in order to buy influence with them. And get this: 3) Not only is your legislator essentially for sale to the highest bidder, it is legal for your legislator also to be a paid lobbyist at the very same time he/she is a legislator.
Does this sound right to you? Surely the terms “conflict of interest” must still have meaning in the way we govern ourselves. And yet this concept is ignored on Capitol Hill more and more every year. This means that little voices, voices of those who cannot afford paid lobbyists and huge contributions, often have no voice at all. Call me crazy, but I think it’s time we citizens gave these gentlemen and ladies a hand up toward ethical behavior.

Oh, they’ve made a weak little gesture about doing their own ethics reform and policing themselves, but my question is: How can you police yourself? They want us to believe they’ve got it handled. But the reforms they suggest totally avoid the three issues listed above. This is beneath their dignity as individuals and as advocates for all citizens of this state.

Someone very clever up there thought of a really ingenious way to keep us citizens out of the picture: They will propose a change in our fine state constitution to include their insubstantial ethics reform system forever, so that no citizens can ever question it again.

Bothersome sort, we citizens are. We shouldn’t be involved, they may be thinking. What else could be behind this latest move?

If you want to help them change in a meaningful way, with an independent commission to correct these abuses, go to utahethicsreform.org, get a petition, help collect the signatures needed to address and correct all three issues on November’s ballot.
Help these people up onto the high ground. In their true hearts they must really know how bad conflict of interest is when making public policy. If your legislator tells you he or she is against this, perhaps it is time to get yourself a new legislator.

Terrell Dougan , a writer and community volunteer, spent many years advocating for those with developmental disabilities and served for a time as community relations assistant to former Gov. Scott Matheson.

Signature removal

Another way to hobble initiatives

March 5, 2010 (Tribune Editorial)

Gov. Gary Herbert could not use his veto pen in a better cause than striking down SB275, which makes it easier for signers of initiative petitions to withdraw their signatures if they change their minds. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with the bill. But the Legislature has gamed its effective date to make it easier for opponents of the Utahns for Ethical Government initiative to defeat it. Not by coincidence, those opponents include most members of the Legislature.

The state constitution reserves to the people the right to make laws through initiative petitions that place proposed laws on the general election ballot. That power is equal to the Legislature’s power to make laws. But the constitution allows the Legislature to set the procedural ground rules for how initiative petitions are circulated and how many signatures must be gathered. The Legislature has wielded this power repeatedly in recent years to hamstring the people’s initiative power with rules that are difficult to follow. SB275, sponsored by Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, is the latest in this line of procedural hurdles.

SB275 would repeal a requirement in current law that a voter submit a notarized statement to a county clerk to have her signature removed from a petition. Instead, the voter could simply sign a statement requesting removal and including the name, address, last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number, a driver license or identity card number and the voter’s signature.

For a petition to qualify for the ballot, it must include a number of signatures equal to 10 percent of the vote cast for governor in the previous general election. That number is now 95,000. In addition, that 10 percent requirement must be met in 26 of the state’s 29 Senate districts.

Petitioners must submit signature packets to county clerks by April 15. By May 15, the clerks must verify that each signature belongs to a registered voter. That gives initiative opponents from April 15 to May 15 to identify qualified signers and convince them to withdraw their names. Republican Party leaders already have said that they may join such a campaign if the signature count on the ethics petition is close.

Meanwhile, SB275 provides that unless Gov. Herbert vetoes it, the bill will become effective immediately upon his signature, or April 1 at the latest. The bill passed by two-thirds majorities in both houses.

If legislators want to change the rules, they at least should have the grace to wait until after the current election cycle to do it.

A roadblock too far: Legislature and citizen initiatives

John W. Milliken | MARCH 4, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

The Utah Legislature has made no secret of its disdain for citizen initiative campaigns. The state Constitution provides recourse to Utah citizens through such initiatives. However, the Legislature establishes the procedures governing such petitions. Our legislators have enthusiastically embraced this authority by passing extremely high hurdles with tight time frames for getting initiatives on the ballot.

For example, petitioners must gather signatures from 10 percent of the total number of citizens who voted in the last election for governor and also from 10 percent of the number of citizens who voted in each of 26 of the 29 state senate districts. Because of the latter requirement, opponents of an initiative can concentrate pressure in just four of Utah’s 29 senate districts to prevent an initiative from getting on the ballot, no matter how strong is public support in the other 25 districts.

In spite of such existing hurdles, when it came to the initiative proposed by Utahns for Ethical Government on legislative ethics, the Legislature shifted into high gear to prevent citizen voices from being heard. Not only has the Legislature almost finished passing a series of watered-down ethics rules in comparison to UEG’s initiative, but Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, has also proposed changing the rules governing the process in mid-stream to favor opponents of the initiative.

These proposed ethics bills and resolutions fall short of real reform and include, most disturbingly, effective perpetuation of self-regulation by the Legislature of unethical behavior by its members, all behind closed doors. In raising opposition to citizen-driven reform, the Legislature has also, in many minds, mischaracterized significant elements of the UEG’s petition.

Sen. Stephenson’s bill—SB275—which has now passed both houses by two-thirds majorities, will make it easier for signers of petitions to remove their names after the petitions have been forwarded to county clerks. Although generally troubling as a further attempt to restrict the exercise of citizens’ constitutional rights, the bill seems targeted to undermine the specific initiative at hand and not to the furtherance of more general, good governance policies.

There are two fundamental problems with SB275:

The first gives more time for signers to request removal of their names. This shift is clearly directed at providing opponents of the initiative increased opportunities to pressure or even intimidate signers into removing their names at a time when backers can no longer collect signatures.

The second establishes an effective date immediately upon the signing of the bill by the governor if the legislation passes by a two-thirds majority. Usually, legislation becomes effective 60 days after the end of a legislative session—providing further evidence that this legislation is directly aimed at defeating the current initiative.

The bottom line is that SB275 is patently unfair and directly supports opposition to UEG’s initiative by making it more difficult for the legal voters of Utah to express their opinions as constitutionally provided. Hopefully, Gov. Gary Herbert will decide not to sign it into law.

On Monday, House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, responding to a question about the need/purpose for a citizens’ ethics initiative, said, “So at the end of the day I don’t get it.”

Could there be a more resounding endorsement for putting this initiative on the ballot and letting the people of Utah weigh in on this important matter?

John W. Milliken is president of Salt Lake City-based Milcom, Inc.

Campaign finance

Lawmakers scrap contribution caps

Tribune Editorial, March 5, 2010

The only people opposed to reasonable limits on campaign contributions in Utah are those who make big donations, and those who take them.

The Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy recommends caps. The people of Utah—74 percent in a recent public opinion poll—demand them. And 45 states see the obvious wisdom in having them. But not Utah.

A provision to cap annual contributions at $10,000 for statewide races and $5,000 for House and Senate races was stripped from a campaign finance reform bill last week. The limits would have applied to individual, corporate, union and political action committee donations. HB329 now focuses on tightening disclosure laws.

Many lawmakers claim campaign caps are unnecessary, that they cannot be swayed by contributions. But to deny that giving imparts a sense of entitlement, and receiving a sense of obligation, is to deny human nature. And to claim that transparency alone will erase the perception that politicians are bought and sold is to deny common sense. When citizens read the lists of contributors, it will confirm, not refute, their belief that contributions drive government spending and public policy.

Campaign cap foes in the Legislature claim that limiting donations will make politics the exclusive domain of the well-to-do. If that’s the case they should limit campaign spending, an option employed to varying degrees by at least 20 states.

They also maintain that campaign contributions are a form of free speech that should not be limited. That argument seems to confirm the belief that money talks in politics. It’s time that it plays a lesser role in the conversation.

Utah officeholders, candidates and political action committees collected $4 million in campaign contributions in 2009, a nonelection year. Gov. Gary Herbert gathered $1 million at a single event. It’s little wonder, considering that money can buy elections and incumbents have a decided fundraising advantage, that there’s no stomach for campaign contribution caps on Capitol Hill.

But there appears to be an appetite among citizens, who are floating a pair of ballot initiatives that include campaign contribution limits far more restrictive than the ones lawmakers nixed. One would ban corporate and union donations and cap individual contributions at $1,000 per year.

Many observers claim the citizen initiatives are driving ethics reform in the Legislature this year, as lawmakers try to prove to the public that they can police themselves. If that’s the case, the decision to forgo caps was a big mistake.

Contact the Governor to Veto SB 275

Tell your friends to do the same!

March 5, 2010

Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Phone:  801-538-1000 or toll-free 1-800-705-2464

Fax: 801-538-1528

The Legislature has passed a bill that is extremely adverse to our initiative petition and for ALL citizens’ initiatives of the future - our constitutional right. Please immediately call or email the Governor and ask him to veto this bill. This is a knife in the back of democracy.
                     
Points to express (select a couple that are personal to you):     

1. SB 275 could signal the death knell for citizen initiative and referenda “enshrined” in the constitution.
   1. The Legislature objects to any and all citizen initiatives and referenda, although both are an important right in the Utah Constitution.
   2. Legislators think only they should be able to legislate. They keep making it more and more difficult for initiatives to get on the ballot.
   3. Getting initiatives on the ballot is way harder than California; there’s no way we’ll be like California.
2. SB275 is an attempt to make it easier for the opposition to obstruct all initiatives and referenda, the current ones and others in the future. It gives the opposition unfair advantage.
3. Allowing removal of a signature without a notary is not the issue.
4. The bill extends the timeline for removal, which no longer will end when the county clerk submits names to the Lieutenant Governor.

5. The timeline to submit requests for removal of one’s signature extends until May 15th, a whole month after the time when no more signatures can be gathered.

   1. Both sides should have equal opportunity to solicit signatures and invite signers to remove signatures—with the same deadline for the clerks to certify which signatures should go forward to the LG.
6. The rules have changed in the middle of the game when one side can no longer play. What procedural unfairness!”

OUR VIEW: Utah House nixes spending limits

Standard-Examiner Editorial, March 5, 2010

We’d describe the latest effort by the Utah House’s majority party to strip away campaign spending limits as weaselly, but it would be an insult to compare weasels to campaign cash-grubbing pols.

Suffice it to say that earlier this week, House Bill 329 was sufficiently gutted to allow Utah to remain one of the handful of states that allows candidates to beg, borrow and gobble campaign cash without limits. The Utah House’s vote to change HB329 is a direct slap in the face to the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy, which last year recommended spending caps.

This is why the Utah Legislature should not be trusted to enact ethics reform: Rep. Craig Frank, R-Cedar City, a member of the governor’s commission who had supported the campaign limits, publicly changed his mind and urged the House to reject limits.

Frank said the issue was one of freedom of speech. That must be news to the 45 states that have campaign limits, as well as our federal government, which also has campaign cash limits.

House Republicans also claimed that HB329 was flawed in its language and had to be changed. They point to new reporting rules involving electronic filing as evidence the bill is still ethics reform. If that’s the least that can be done, we guess HB329’s changes could be construed as “ethics reform.”

However, legislators had a chance to adopt the commission’s recommendations. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, proposed capping donations at $40,000 for parties, $10,000 for state offices, and $5,000 for legislative offices. Needless to say, King’s proposal was defeated.

The legislative leadership is doing everything it can do to defeat legitimate ethics reform in this state. The fate of HB329 is just the latest example. It will be a travesty if the citizens legislative ethics initiatives fail to qualify for voter approval this fall. We urge people to sign the petitions. Information is at http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org/index.php/ueg/petition/

If the Legislature’s leadership defeats this grassroots effort to promote decency in government, we really have to ask ourselves, why do we keep electing these people to high office?

‘March to the Ballot’ launches UEG’s homestretch push

Press Release and Press Conference Remarks

March 3, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – Utahns for Ethical Government today announced the launch of its “March to the Ballot” drive, an aggressive campaign to complete its signature gathering in the coming weeks before the April 15 deadline. 

By the end of the current week, it will be unveiling a revamped and informative Web site (http://www.utahethics.org ) and will be launching a TV ad designed to stimulate dinner table conversation about the ethics initiative. Electronic signature gathering will continue, as will efforts to overturn the opinion of the attorney general. “With signature gathering teams planning to fan out across the state, we believe that we will be successful in gathering the 95,000 signatures needed to get our initiative on the November 2010 ballot,” said UEG chair, Kim Burningham.

Commenting on the current legislative session as it enters its final week, Burningham said “although the Legislature has initiated reform efforts in a few limited areas, they have been marginalized by attempts to thwart citizen initiatives.” 

“Most legislative attempts at reform have been piecemeal and some have actually been counterproductive,” Burningham added, calling the efforts “half a loaf or worse, just a crust.”

Communications committee chair Dixie Huefner echoed earlier remarks of former Gov. Olene Walker and former congresswoman Karen Shepherd saying “elected officials cannot be expected to police themselves effectively. Citizen input is part of what makes a democracy strong.” Rob Ence, AARP director and UEG supporter, said “citizen efforts elevate democracy. UEG’s is one of the most earnest and heartfelt.”

UEG spokespersons also commented on the lack of civility of some legislators, referring specifically to those who have accused UEG of being “hucksters and” “bamboozlers” who use “subterfuge and deceit” in asking people to sign the petition. “It reflects fear on the part of legislative opposition,” said Huefner. 

The initiative drive moves into high gear this month, and UEG will continue to solicit volunteers.

____________________________

Remarks of Kim R. Burningham
Chair, Utahns for Ethical Government
News conference at Utah Capitol

Good afternoon.  It is the beginning of March, and we are pleased to be announcing the Utahns for Ethical Government “March to the Ballot.” Signatures are multiplying on the initiative all over the state—and this March, we will pushing hard to finish collecting the signatures needed to place our initiative on the ballot. The citizens deserve a real opportunity for real ethics reform.

Today we will also be introducing our redesigned website and a new cable TV ad that will be airing around the state. Today we also offer our assessment of legislative efforts so far as the 2010 session heads into its final week.

We recognize that we have some good legislators.

But the Legislature as a whole has given the public only “half a loaf.”  Less than half a loaf, it is a crust.

Legislators say we will have an ethics commission, but they make that commission the creation of the legislators themselves and they deny citizen input.  The fox is guarding the henhouse.

And when they create that ethics commission, they make sure most of what they do is done in the dark.  Meetings are held behind closed doors.  They won’t even consider a measure unless 4 out of 5—not a majority vote—but 4 out of 5 of their own self-selected commissioners believe there is a problem.  They set up a standard of evidence so high that all but the most obvious violations will be ignored.

This is a pretense at reform.  We want real reform.

They say they will improve the disclosure of conflicts of interests.  That is good, but they still let legislators be lobbyists.  They still allow legislators to divvy out thousands of dollars to other legislators to literally purchase leadership positions.

And perhaps most frighteningly they still allow the highway of money to flow from lobbyists to legislators in a conduit of control that inhibits unfettered examination of issues.

They put limits on gifts and travel from legislators—a move in the right direction—but include loopholes so large that a truck could get through.  For instance, lobbyists can still pay for that trip to Florida—as long as it is associated with some legislative purpose.

The citizens of Utah and of this nation are tired of a system where money blatantly buys influence.  There is a need for real ethics reform, and the “crust” of reform being offered up by the legislature is not enough…not nearly enough.

So it is now that we call on all Utahns to join us in our final push, our March to the Ballot.  We invite everyone to visit our website for information on signing our petition: http://www.utahethics.org.

Not for a crust, not for half a loaf, but for REAL reform NOW.

____________________________

Remarks of Dixie Huefner
Communications Committee Chair, Utahns for Ethical Government
March 3, 2010 Press Conference

Following up on Kim Burningham’s remarks, I’d like to elaborate on the Legislature’s attempts to thwart citizen efforts to get an independent ethics commission and strict code of conduct on the November 2010 general election ballot:

Among the obstacles placed before UEG supporters have been the following:

1) Senator Stephenson’s Senate Bill 275, which makes it easier for opponents of the petition to pressure signers into submitting requests to remove their signatures. With an immediate effective date and longer timelines for opponents to pressure signers into removing their signatures, this is clearly an obstructionist and unfair tactic, one that changes the rules in the middle of the contest and allows one side to keep playing after the other side can’t gather any more signatures.

In this context, I have a comment about remarks issuing forth from legislators. UEG is tempted to give some of them an award for undermining Utah’s reputation for civility. If we did, it would go to those legislators who called us hucksters and bamboozlers, and accused us of subterfuge and deceit as we gather signatures. To us, this is not only uncivil but wrong and an evidence of the fact that they’re afraid of our ethics reform package.

2) Another obstacle is the suspect opinion by the Attorney General stating that electronic signatures will not be accepted as valid, despite clear factual and legal arguments to the contrary;

A second line of legislative opposition is the serious attempt to reserve every bit of control over their behavior to themselves alone. Among legislative attempts to preserve the status quo and preserve current lobbying privileges and protections are the following:

HJR 15, a proposed constitutional amendment that is unnecessary and that would arguably preclude citizens from being able to establish an Independent Ethics Commission and code of ethical conduct now or in the future.  If I were grading this effort, I’d give it an F

SJR 3, a proposed legislative rule establishing a Legislative “Independent” Ethics Commission with severely limited jurisdiction and limited authority to review complaints of ethical misconduct. The Legislative Commission would be able to review only those complaints that are forwarded to them by a partisan legislative ethics committee and would report to that partisan committee. Grade: D-

HB 267: so many lobbying loopholes as to be only 1 baby step better than the current rules.  Grade: C-

HB 270: improved financial disclosure requirements   Grade: B-

HB 124: improved limitations on personal use of campaign expenditures. (Because of a giant exception that permits contributions to other legislators and candidates from one’s own campaign fund, Grade is a C+)

HB 329: no caps on corporate (or PAC, or individual) contributions.  Grade: F (Ben Ferry’s attempt to introduce some modest caps that reflected the compromise coming from the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Democracy was gutted by Craig Frank’s substitute bill, even though as a member of the Commission he had initially agreed to introduce the Commission recommendations)

Finally, there have been no bills at all prohibiting paid lobbyists from serving simultaneously as legislators, and no bills closing last year’s loophole that allows a legislator who leaves the legislature to lobby as long as it’s for a big company and not a lobbying firm. Grade: F

UEG’s conclusion: the Legislature has made some progress in a couple of areas, coupled with major preservation of current privileges in others.
Overall, most of the bills introduced during this session pay lip service to ethics while doing a disservice to what ethics really should stand for. The bills and resolutions thus far continue to flaunt the role of big money and embrace it as the means of establishing who obtains power in the Legislature.
 
The public was reminded several weeks ago by Gov. Olene Walker and Congresswoman Karen Shepherd that legislators can NOT be expected to effectively police themselves and that citizen input into the ethical standards of office holders is more than appropriate; it is necessary.

As Governor Huntsman reminded us when he left office, “You’ve got 2.7 millions Utahns who don’t have a lobbyist, who don’t have a special interest representative, who just want good, competent, ethical leadership, and they’ve got voices that matter.” (S.L. Tribune, 8/11/09). We couldn’t’ agree more.

____________________________

Rob Ence, AARP Utah State Director
UEG Press Conference - March 3, 2010
South Steps, Utah State Capitol
We say that this (the Capitol) is the peoples’ house. Legislators are our guests. But when the people want to have a say in how their house is managed, some of our guests act like they own the place. 

We say we want citizens to be responsible and take an interest in the process of government, to have an opinion and be sure to vote. But when the citizens exercise their constitutional rights to improve our government through initiatives or referenda – the purest forms of grassroots engagement – we are told not to meddle in the affairs of our elected officials.

I have personally worked side by side with volunteers gathering signatures along the Wasatch Front and as far south as Washington County and will continue north and east until we meet our objective. This is what I am experiencing:

The energy & enthusiasm of our volunteers who spend countless hours from St. George to Logan are infectious. They are passionate and dedicated advocates who deserve more than the irresponsible label of “huckster” placed upon them by at least one legislator.

The citizens we talk to know what is at stake. We want people to be informed. Even with the underhanded efforts by the opposition to circulate misinformation, individuals who are willing to take the time, do understand what is missing and embrace what needs to be done.

There is overwhelming nonpartisan support across the state in all voting districts. For every 100 people we encounter, roughly 10 don’t want to be bothered – that is their choice; another 10 may not agree with our approach or solution – again, they have a right to their opinion; but an overwhelming 80 of every 100 – 80% - get it, support it, and sign the petitions with conviction. They want to have a chance to vote on this initiative and the Fair Boundaries initiative in November.

We all want the best for our state and believe that by creating high standards, limiting the influence of money, and adopting independent review – benefit all – especially our elected officials. 

I find it ironic that our legislators trust the citizens’ voice when it comes to electing them but reject their input when it comes to accountability and good governance. 

Citizens have a right and a responsibility to act and speak when our legislature fails to do so. We have a right to have our names counted – whether on paper or through proven electronic means – and to have our voices heard especially in offering guidance on how our guests should behave in our house.

Avoiding public debate

February 28, 2010 (Deseret News)

Sen. Howard Stephenson called those of us gathering signatures on the ethics petitions “hucksters.” Other Republicans legislators use words like “subterfuge” and “deceit” to describe the ordinary voters who are out in the cold on their own time trying to make a difference in our state.
What will we gain personally by doing this?

Nothing.
What does Sen. Stephenson have to gain by preventing this initiative from going to the polls in November?
Either his senate seat or his job. He is both a senator and a paid lobbyist.
SB275 (sponsored by Stephenson) is another example of the Republican hierarchy assuming that average voters are uneducated, misguided or stupid enough to sign something they don’t understand. Anyone who wants to read this petition can do so before signing. Getting this issue on the ballot will not make this law. It will give voters months to debate its virtues or flaws. That public debate is what legislators want to avoid.

Debbie Swenson
Salem

A Direct Attack on Utahns’ Ability to Prevent Legislative Abuses

February 6, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) applauds the decisive action taken today by the Utah House of Representatives in approving several ethics-related measures. Our representatives demonstrated they clearly see a need to clean up their house.

On the other hand, one measure, HJR 15, approved by more than the two-thirds vote needed, is directed at reducing citizen input into ethics reform. The resolution would allow voters to decide whether to create a legislative ethics commission by amending the Utah Constitution. The proposal sounds better than it really is.

UEG believes the rights of Utahns to effectively respond to legislative abuses by enacting ballot initiatives would be eroded by the amendment. The speaker of the House said as much today when responding to a question from another member of the House. HJR 15 is clearly intended to override certain provisions in UEG’s citizen initiative that provide for an ethics commission.

“It’s pretty clear that our representatives do not want to share lawmaking power with the people of Utah,” said Kim Burningham, chair of UEG.

“Members of the House seem to believe that only the Legislature knows what is needed and how to control and police its own members. And they’re willing to go to great lengths to protect their power,” added Dixie Huefner, UEG communications committee chair.

UEG believes strongly that the state Capitol is “our house” – that it belongs to all Utahns. The constitution provides that the people of Utah can enact statutes on legislative ethics by initiative. HJR 15 is a direct assault on the part of our checks and balances system that allows citizens to guard against legislative abuses.

AG says: ‘No can do’ - UEG says: ‘Expect A Challenge”

Supporters of ethics, redistricting initiative discussing range of options

February 10, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) will continue its on-line and print signature-gathering at full speed. The citizen’s group will challenge the Utah attorney general’s opinion that says electronic signatures for initiative petitions will not be accepted as legal. UEG believes that valid signatures can be collected both on line and on paper.

UEG and Fair Boundaries are discussing various options and plan to call a joint press conference in the coming days.
Fair Boundaries is also gathering signatures on line for its ballot initiative to create an independent, advisory commission to recommend redistricting maps and methods to the legislature to avoid gerrymandering and to address inherent conflicts when legislators draw their own legislative districts.

“Although we are not surprised at yesterday’s ruling by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, we are disappointed,” said Kim Burningham, chair of UEG’s executive committee. “It’s just another in a string of obstacles our elected representatives have erected to prevent themselves from being held accountable to the people of Utah. We will fight it.”

“All registered voters signing the petition deserve to have their signatures count in support of real ethics reform,” added Dixie Huefner, communications committee chair.

Utah law establishes the right to collect electronic signatures and does not limit this right to specified uses.

Meanwhile, UEG continues to collect signatures on line and by paper. If registered voters have a chance to sign the paper petition, they should do so. If not, they should sign on line. UEG asks each person to enter his or her complete residence address and email on the e-signature form accessible at http://www.utahethics.org. If necessary, UEG representatives will contact persons who signed on line and ask them to sign manually.

According to Vik Arnold, UEG signature-gathering co-chair, “UEG is close to having sufficient signatures in a number of Senate districts, and is now focusing its efforts in areas that got a late start.”

Utahns for Ethical Government needs 95,000 signatures of legal voters in order to place its initiative on the November 2010 ballot. The initiative would establish an independent ethics commission as an advisory adjunct to the Legislature. It would also establish a strict code of conduct for Utah legislators, including limits on campaign contributions to reduce the influence of big money and special interests on legislative policy decisions.

TOP 10 Reasons SJR 3 is “Same Song, Different Verse”

January 30, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – From our reading of Senate Joint Resolution 3, which purports to establish an independent ethics commission, Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) is convinced that the Legislature is less than serious about creating a genuinely independent commission. Major problems reveal how weak its commission would be and how much the Legislature intends to retain extraordinary control over any commission that reports to it.

Here is UEG’s TOP 10 list of the problems we have so far identified:

10. The Ethics Commission cannot hire its own staff. The Legislature does that.

9. The legislative committee’s standard of proof for finding an ethical violation is “clear and convincing evidence,” an atypically high standard. The Legislature is making sure that it is in a position to reject the commission’s decision.

8. If a complaint is made public, it will be dismissed (even if the legislator or the legislator’s attorney makes it public).

7. The chair of the legislative ethics committee screens the complaint. In other words, the Legislature is the gatekeeper for what the commission can investigate.

6. The commission cannot report its judgment and recommendation to the Legislature within 60 days of a contested primary or 60 days of a contested regular election. This is despite the fact that the complaint may have been filed months before and the commission’s decision is not the result of a complainant trying to gain a pre-election advantage for a certain candidate. Is the Legislature unwilling to trust that its hand-picked commission is going to behave impartially?

5. The commission cannot reveal any of the specific evidence that formed the basis for its recommendation when it makes its recommendation public.

4. When a recommendation is forwarded to the relevant ethics committee of the Legislature, the process will too easily become partisan. The chair of that ethics committee will be a political party member. There will no longer be a co-chair from the opposite party but instead be a vice-chair. The membership of the committee remains four Republicans and four Democrats. Unless five committee members overrule the chair, the chair has authority to reject evidence, refuse to call a witness and dismiss the complaint even at this late stage in the proceedings.

3. A super majority of four commissioners out of five is required to find that a legislator has violated the code of conduct. Without the vote of this super majority, nothing will be forwarded to the Legislature.

2. Commission meetings and hearings will be held in secret. What kind of accountability is that? SJR 3 runs counter to what the Legislature says it values.

And the top reason why the Legislature’s proposal is nothing more than the same old song …

1. Citizens are virtually shut out of the complaint process by the requirement that one of the two citizens must have first-hand knowledge of the alleged ethical violation, that is, must have been present and witnessed the violation. How unreal is that?

Our top two specific problems with SJR 3 are consistent with problems related to the overall constitutional amendment proposal. It seems intended to keep the public out of the public’s business.

Beyond these problems with SJR 3, the Legislature’s current ethics reform proposals will not strengthen the code of conduct that guides decisions of the ethics commission. Even legislators on last year’s ethics committee characterized the current code as vague and meaningless and therefore unenforceable.

All of the flaws that allow politically partisan control of the current process and procedures are preserved. In other words, the second verse is the same as the first.

UEG concludes that SJR3 is carefully designed to ensure that complaints are not likely to be filed and, if filed, unlikely to result in a finding of unethical conduct unless admitted by the legislator. We do not understand how legislators can look the public in the eye and say, with straight faces, “this is meaningful ethics reform.”

Peter Corroon’s Criticism of AG’s Opinion

February 14, 2010

Statement from Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon regarding online petition signatures

In response to the State of Utah’s rejection of online petition signatures, gubernatorial Candidate Peter Corroon (a supporter of the ongoing citizen petitions for ethics reform and independent redistricting) believes that citizens should have the right to sign these petitions online. According to Corroon, “Citizens are able to apply for a mortgage, pay their bills, renew their vehicle’s registration, and file their taxes online; registering to vote and signing petitions should be no exception.

I believe the best functioning democracy is one that welcomes and facilitates public access. An open government that allows easy participation of its’ citizens is a cornerstone of our democracy.

We have the technology to ensure that there is a fair and accurate method for recording the names of those who support a particular proposal for their government. As Governor, I would work to expand participation in our government, rather then finding ways to keep people out.”

Former Gov. explains support of ethics reform

KSL, January 6, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY — Former Utah Gov. Olene Walker is speaking out about what is expected to be one of Utah’s big political issues this year: ethics. She signed a citizen’s petition on ethics reform, and on Wednesday she explained why.

When Utahns for Ethical Government held a rally recently, the headline was clear: Utah’s 15th governor, Olene Walker, is backing a comprehensive ethics reform petition. She says she made the move after careful deliberation.

“I had to ask myself the question: If not me, who? Who is better qualified, having been both in the legislative arena and the executive office?” Walker says. “But I felt like there’s a time in your life when you have to do what’s right.”

The former governor, who served eight years in the legislature, says she’s alarmed by the spectacular rise in campaign contributions, the vast majority from special interests. It’s something ethics reforms would limit.

Walker’s first legislative campaign cost $4,000; her last, $20,000. Just 20 years later, candidates are raising $100,000, even more.

“That’s just not right for the state of Utah. And when you get huge, huge contributions, it has to make a difference,” Walker says.

Another worry: big-time lobbying. Now there are upwards of 500 Capitol Hill lobbyists, many hired by cities and counties.

“Somehow, as we’ve evolved, the feeling is that if you don’t hire a lobbyist, you’ll never be heard. That’s not right,” Walker says.

Walker says solutions include ethics training and an independent ethics commission.

“I still feel we have a great state and a good democracy, and I want to see it preserved,” Walker says.

Some current lawmakers argue the reforms are unnecessary, too broad and will have unintended consequences. But Walker predicts reformers will gather the necessary signatures and the measures will be on the ballot next fall.

Former Governor Olene Walker’s Remarks

Her spoken remarks were an extension of these written remarks

November 24, 2009

It is with some degree of personal conflict that I am here today, because I realize that in doing so, I will be on the opposite side of the ethics question from some of my friends in the legislature. I do want the citizens of Utah to know that the vast majority of legislators have a high degree of integrity and are giving invaluable service to the state of Utah. However, I find that many citizens of the state feel that the members of the legislature receive many gifts and privileges from lobbyists. Having served in the legislative and executive branch of Utah government for twenty-five years, I realize that the majority of the items are relatively small such as meals, tickets or travel. I have come to realize that such small items are not worth the impression that the public has of the negative aspects of lobbyists’ influencing legislators. As a result, I have determined it is time that the legislature finally pass laws that are meaningful regarding ethics and integrity. It is because I love Utah and value our democracy process that I am here today.

For thirty years I have watched ethics legislation, campaign reform and legislation limiting lobbyist activities die in the rules committee, or the few that have passed often contain loopholes that lobbyists can work around. Because Utah is often recognized as the best managed state in the nation, we have rationalized that it doesn’t matter that the Center for Public Integrity gives Utah an F for its financial disclosures. The truth is that any organization needs rules and standards to function in an ethical manner. It is ironical that so many of our laws contain specific guidelines, but we have not been willing to impose guidelines and rules regarding ethical conduct by the legislature. Basically, the current law governing ethical action by legislators is so vague that it is extremely difficult for any action to be taken by fellow legislators. I know that when I served in the House, I would not have chosen to question any other legislator’s action even though it may have been questionable.

When I first ran for the legislature in 1980, I ran as a Republican in an area that was known as a democratic district. I spent only $4,000 of my own money. In the eight years it increased to over $20,000. In many contested areas today the cost can be near $100,000 and the Senate Districts significantly higher. We have always said that reporting was sufficient and that any citizen could get the reports in the election office or on line, but the truth is that few do. Usually it is only the more visible legislators that have those reports scrutinized by reporters. Utah is one of only five states that have no limits on contributions. Also, in Utah contributions can be given to candidates by corporations. This is prohibited in most states. The result of not having any caps on contributions or not having rules governing contributions is that 81% of the contributions given to candidates for the legislature are given by special interest groups. This is unacceptable in our great state of Utah.

When I was responsible for the election office from 1992-2002 I watched the number of lobbyists double and triple until today there are 481 lobbyists registered with the Lt. Governor’s office. With that number of lobbyists, it seems to me that it is critical that we have specific laws governing their relations with legislators. I also think it is unacceptable to have legislators immediately become lobbyists when they leave the legislature. It also should be unacceptable for lobbyists to simultaneously serve in the legislature.

For these reasons Utahns for Ethical Government studied this problem and determined that it was time that we as citizens of Utah be given the opportunity to do several things including:

  1. To establish standards for contributions to candidates.
  2. To establish an ethics commission of five individuals drawn from a list of twenty individuals who are agreed on by leadership of the House and Senate. The commission would operate on a non-partisan basis and would review complaints for validity prior to holding hearings and referral for legislative action.
  3. To establish a standard of conduct for legislators

It is essential that all citizens realize that this calls for legislation and not a constitutional change. It also means that the legislation can be amended in the future, although any amendments should not gut the initiative.

It is my earnest hope that as citizens and legislators we can pass this initiative so that in future we will have ethics legislation we can all be proud of.

Karen Shepherd

November 24, 2009

It’s an honor to be here today and follow Governor Walker’s clear and detailed outline of the specifics of this proposition. I want to follow-up in a more general way. I want to talk about common sense. One of the oldest clichés in the language is the one that says the fox should not guard the henhouse. The fox cannot guard the henhouse because he has an obvious and compelling conflict of interest. After Enron and several other ethical business failures, corporations recognized this and revised their standards for “best practice,” determining that 75 percent of each board of directors should be made up of people independent of the company and that the chair of the boards should be independent as well. Legislators, just like interested directors of companies and just like the fox guarding the henhouse, have a conflict of interest when they manage, behind closed doors, all the ethical issues which inevitably arise during the course of the legislative process.

This principle is widely accepted across the nation. Why would Utah want to be one of 10 states that do not have an independent ethics commission? Why would Utah want to be one of only 5 states that do not set limits on contributions and gifts given to the people who make its laws? Why would Utah turn a blind eye to the obvious and inevitable connection between money and law-making? Why would Utah want to rank at nearly the bottom when it comes to the financial and conflict of interest disclosures of its lawmakers? Utah should be first, not last, in this respect.

During my time spent in the Utah State Legislature, where Republicans were a majority, and in the U.S. House of Representatives, where the Democrats were a majority, I worked on ethics reform and learned this: Members of legislative bodies do not want outside interference in their processes. They do not want to lose control of their power to decide ethics issues internally. This is going to be a hard fight because no one ever gives up power without a fight. But it is an important fight and it can be won. If you can imagine, even the U.S. House of Representatives now has a fully funded and fully staffed independent ethics commission. They didn’t want to do it but ultimately they bowed to the pressure of millions of Americans who demanded it. I can’t imagine anyone arguing that that is not an important milestone in the political process of national government, and I can’t imagine the Utah Legislature wanting to turn away from a higher ethical standard.

For all these reasons I am joining with many of my colleagues who also once served as legislators and urging the passage of this initiative.

Karen Shepherd
Former Senator, District 1

Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives, District 2

Karl N. Snow

November 24, 2009

The proposed Ethics Initiative is designed to establish a playing field and environment that will allow the legislature to focus on the public interest without the undue influence of the special interests. The initiative is not a harness, but a liberating guide post. It might well be labeled a return to the Citizen Legislature.

It was hoped that key members of the legislature would respond with an invitation for open dialogue on an issue that has plagued the Legislature for the past decade. Instead, they have expended their time meeting with Republican party women’s groups, party central committees, and other government organizations attacking the initiative and poisoning the water with misinformation. In so doing, they have missed their opportunity as elected officials to gather input as to what voters want from their elected officials.

One might well ask; what is it that makes some legislators so reluctant to yield their individual interests for the common good of the people? This reluctance is evident when examining the proposed legislative interim committee’s bill calling for an “independent commission,” where it is extremely difficult for citizens to file a complaint; a commission where a super-majority vote is required to pass on a recommendation to the legislature that doesn‘t have to act.

As former Republican state senate leader, I urge all citizens of varying political persuasions to step up and sign the Ethics Initiative? We need to keep the legislature’s feet to the fire of ethics reform.

Kim Burningham

August 12, 2009

Utah has been served by many capable and unselfish legislators. Unfortunately, that is not true of all who serve, and our system is riddled with laws or the absence of laws which not only allow but encourage unethical behavior in our Legislature:

Ethical abuse in the Utah Legislature

For example,

* Utah is one of only ten states that have no independent ethics commission. The only oversight to legislative ethics comes from the legislature itself. (Michael E. Christensen, Office of Legislative Research, 2009, Scott Bell, March 2009, Weber State University Student Ethics Committee, 2009)

* The Center for Public Integrity graded Utah an “F” for its legislative financial disclosure laws, the 47th worst in the nation. (Center for Public Integrity web site, 2009.)

* According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Utah is only one of six states that have no limits on contributions to political candidates. (SL Tribune, June 27, 2009)

* A Deseret News analysis showed that 81 percent of money contributed in all legislative contests came from “special interest” groups. (Deseret News, June 22, 2009)

* Federal requirements ban donations from corporations, but in Utah there is no limitation and 1/3 of all 2009 donations (approximately $2.5 million) came from such corporations. (Deseret News, June 22, 2009)

* According to one representative, because Utah laws are so lax, legislators can spend their campaign funds for digital cameras, car repairs, travel for their family members, even additional salaries for themselves. (Representative Kraig Powell web site, “Legislative Ethics”)

* Although Utah did finally pass a partial bill that prohibited former legislators from serving as certain types of lobbyists for a year, we still have registered lobbyists serving as legislators. (Deseret News, February 16, 2006)

The list could go on.

Such appallingly weak ethics measures have led to strong indictments. The Salt Lake Tribune suggested that Utah lawmakers were “for sale” (June 28, 2009) “and that the gravy train was still chugging along.” (July 16, 2009)

Failure of the Legislature to act

The 2009 Legislative session began with promises of ethics reform. With the exception of a few very modest steps, the promise was unfulfilled. (Deseret News, April 17, 2009)

At the end of the session, The Ogden Standard Examiner described legislators as “experts at excusing bad ethics,” grading their efforts with a “D.” (March 16, 22, 2009)

The City Weekly (April 1, 2009) presented an award to the Legislature for the “best toothless reform.”

The Salt Lake Tribune (March 16, 2009) lamented, “Lawmakers took baby steps…No way do the minor revisions to legislative ethics laws resemble the comprehensive reform…promised.”

Honorable legislators have tried to change the system. In the last session over thirty bills for improving ethics were proposed. (Utah policy.com, July 7, 2009, WSC Student Ethics Committee, 2009) Only a few survived. Many never emerged from the rules committee!

Governor Huntsman starts to address the problem, but stops

Recognizing the problem Governor Jon Huntsman appointed a commission to make recommendations. (Deseret News, January 23, 2009) A few months later, however, he withdrew the subject of “legislative ethics” from the commission’s charge. (Deseret News, April 23, 2009) Why? Some observe that heavy pressure from legislative leaders may have contributed to that decision.

The answer is public action

Clearly, the answer to this problem is to arouse the public, resulting in the necessary pressure for change. Thus, the initiative we are proposing today.

Earlier today on these same Capitol steps, another initiative effort regarding redistricting began signing petitions. One of their initial signers, Peter Corroon has championed the need for “an open, honest, and ethical” system of representative government. It is in that same spirit that we launch another Initiative which focuses specifically on legislative ethics.

State law requires five people to file an initiative petition. Momentarily, we will be filing the initiative with the backing of a “Committee of 100.” In fact, the number far exceeds that. A list of the supporters who are endorsing this effort is being distributed to the press today: the list has reached 302 as of 9:30 p.m. last night. And the number of supporters is growing daily!

Many people have been involved in bringing this Initiative to you. Some have given, without any pay, hundreds of hours to the cause. I wish to thank these willing volunteers.

This is not the effort of one or two malcontents; it is a ground swell rising up from frustrations of Utah citizens. We need more clear ethical guidelines for our Legislature. Elected officials must never seek to profit personally from their positions, but rather strive to bring about the public good.

Although at least 19 former legislators are included among the endorsers, we have not asked current legislators to sign the initial list, but we are sure many of them will be privately supportive and some will likely step forward to sign on.

Good ethical guidelines will help keep honest people honest! Failure to provide such guidelines invites and has invited shoddy, unethical practices.

Undoubtedly, you want more information. The Utahns for Ethical Government web site is being opened as we speak. You may go online and read about the effort. Within hours you will be able to examine the entire initiative yourself. That web site is: http://www.utahethics.org.

The need is clear.

The opportunity for change is available.

The time is now.

David R. Irvine

WHAT THE INITIATIVE DOES

August 12, 2009

*[To honor time limits, the material in italics was omitted from verbal remarks]

As with any significant piece of legislation, this initiative has been the product of careful consideration and compromise. It does not go as far as some would like, and it does not address every ethical issue. There may be better ways to deal with this or that; but whatever its flaws, when passed by the voters of Utah, it will bring a huge cultural shift to our state’s legislative process. The motto over the House Speaker’s dais reads “Vox Populi” – the voice of the people. The voice of the people, however, has too often been drowned out.

The initiative does four things: (1) it establishes a 5-member independent ethics commission which will function in an advisory capacity to the legislature; (2) it establishes a specific and comprehensive Code of Official Conduct for legislators; (3) it establishes a substantive, fair, and transparent process for the commission to follow in evaluating complaints of unethical conduct; and (4) it requires the House or the Senate to either adopt or reject the commission’s findings and recommendations in a recorded yea or nay vote.

THE COMMISSION

Commissioners may not have been elected officers, or candidates, or lobbyists for 5 years preceding appointment.

The Senate President and Senate Minority Leader, House Speaker, and House Minority Leader, must unanimously agree on 20 qualified names, and the first five drawn from a hat shall constitute the commission. If the legislative leadership cannot reach unanimous agreement, then the first five Initiative Sponsors shall make the selection through a similar process. This process of appointment is unusual and slightly cumbersome, but we believe it is a reasonable way of using random selection to guard against political cronyism.

Commissioners will serve staggered 5-year terms, and they will meet on an as needed basis.

The commission will appoint an executive director, who must be a licensed Utah attorney, necessary staff, and they will elect their own Chair. We see this as a small office which could be augmented by staff support from the Office of Legislative General Counsel or other legislative staff where requested.

The commission will have authority to issue administrative rules and advisory opinions.

We have estimated the cost of this operation to be less than $500,000 per year, and the Fiscal Analyst’s office has already prepared fiscal notes for several ethics commission bills which come in at $250,000 or less.

CODE OF CONDUCT

The various provisions of the Code of Conduct are highlighted in the Executive Summary, but a few deserve special note.

1. Legislative candidates shall not accept contributions from corporations. Utah law has already prohibited union contributions, but it is wide open to corporate giving, and corporations walked through that door in 2008 to the tune of more than $2.5 million for state legislative races.

2. Utah is one of only six states with no limitations on candidate contributions. The initiative limits contributions to $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per PAC every two years.

3. For most candidates, the most distasteful part of running for office is going out and asking people for money. However, a culture has developed in Utah where some legislators go to special interests over and over– a process that develops a subtle but powerful sense of quid pro quo. So, the bill restricts legislators and candidates from soliciting contributions from lobbyists to anything but their own personal campaign committee. It also prohibits campaign committee transfers between candidates. We believe this will end the market trade in legislative leadership elections. This is not an indictment of legislative leaders; it’s a simple acknowledgment that good people are trapped in a bad system.

4. The legislature is a co-equal branch of state government. Lawmakers are not in charge of implementing or enforcing the law. There have been too many instances where legislators have tried to use their positions as legislators to browbeat agency heads and judges into dispensing special treatment to special friends. The Code prohibits that.

5. The Code requires more comprehensive disclosure of potential conflicts of interest than ever before in Utah. Current rules allow the broadest possible obscurity, such as “I’m in the construction business.”

6. Every year, the legislature goes through an awkward drill of determining how much money lobbyists shall be allowed to spend on meals and entertainment. The bill has a simple standard: it allows anyone to provide legislators with light refreshments of negligible value. That’s it. The bill doesn’t prohibit lobbyists and legislators from going to a pricey restaurant, but it DOES require legislators to pay their own wy – and 87% of Utahns agree that this is how it should be.

COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT

Any three people may file an initial complaint. The executive director may use subpoena power to conduct a preliminary, confidential investigation of the complaint. If the commission finds the complaint to be frivolous or without merit, it may dismiss. If it finds reasonable cause to believe there may have been a violation, the complainants prepare a formal complaint which is then heard in a public hearing, in which the complainants and the charged legislator may fully participate. A majority of three is required to either dismiss or recommend formal sanction by either the Senate or the House, and the commission’s findings are a public record. The legislative house may then either adopt or reject the recommendation upon a recorded vote in a public session.

The bill also provides that a legislator may seek an advance opinion from the commission as to any particular issue. If the commission approves, no complaint as to that issue may go forward as to the legislator.

SUMMARY

We have carefully drafted the bill to assure constitutionality. That will not deter opponents from claiming that it isn’t constitutional. No one, of course, wants to be seen to be opposed to high ethical standards. So the opposition will be over technical–this or technical-that. But the key question should always be this: who benefits from opposing this bill? The voice of the people? Or the voices of special interests?

Rob Ence

August 12, 2009

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that represents over 220,000 members in the state of Utah. AARP does not have a political action committee that funds or contributes to individuals running for office. The Utahns for Ethical Government initiative clearly aligns with our public policy and the interests of our members.

* Political advocacy is a cornerstone of democracy, and organizations such as AARP serve an essential function in bringing information and expertise to the legislative process. We believe that influence should come by the voice of the people and through the ballot box.

* Trust in government is extremely low. Government officials and processes are often viewed as more responsive to the concerns of moneyed special interests than those of the general public.

* All Utahns have a vital stake in ensuring the integrity of our democratic processes and government institutions. The ability of government to respond to the concerns of citizens, promote the public interest, and retain public confidence in its fairness, competence, and relevance is dependent in large measure on adhering to policies that promote and sustain integrity.

* Without needed reforms in campaign finance, lobbying, ethics and accountability, the public’s voice in government is likely to be diminished and the health and vitality of our democracy threatened. Older citizens vote and they are vitally interested in making certain that their votes and views are given appropriate consideration in the deliberations of government.

* Government officials and institutions must avoid conflicts of interest and the undue influence of special interests in the performance of their responsibilities. Ethical standards and safeguards must be in place and enforced to ensure the integrity of government decision making.

AARP supports Utahns for Ethical Government and will work hard to see that this initiative is brought to a vote of the people to assure better government for all of Utah’s citizens including our members, our children, and our grandchildren.Your browser may not support display of this image.

Chase N. Peterson

August 12, 2009

Our democracy is an experiment:

Inspired founding statesmen shaped it;

A constitution guides it;

The spirit of liberty illuminates it.

One hundred and fifty years ago, Lincoln asked if the experiment could survive the challenges it faced. It has: not because we were given some documents under glass;

not merely because we had an inheritance of fertile top soil, mountain streams, lodes of precious ore, and favoring sunshine. It survives because of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and protecting courts. And because the spirit of liberty is anchored in our faith in the fairness of our elective processes and officials.

That spirit of liberty requires transparency in the conduct of our local and state and national government, just as the financial markets of capitalism require transparency provided by honest company reports and prudent reserves.

Our faith in our elected and appointed government servants will wither if those servants are not seen to hold, day by day, to the highest standards of honesty, and not to forces of power and money whose actions are closed to public scrutiny. Constant monitoring and oversight over such details distinguish a democracy from a tyranny.

My ancestors and yours gave us a rare and precious instrument that allows us to be simultaneously governed and free. We must sustain our attention to the expectations a democracy requires. We cannot do it only as individuals, but we can when organized with a watchdog commission, appointed democratically, to serve as Lincoln said as the “better angels of our nature.” Unmonitored and without stewardship day by day and week by week, we will not sustain or deserve our precious experiment in democracy.

That is why I am honored to support the initiative being announced today, for my grandchildren and in honor of ancestors who sacrificed for me.

Petition bill flawed

February 24, 2010 (Deseret News)

In his effort to derail the ethics reform and fair boundaries petitions, Sen. Howard Stephenson seeks to add to the already unfair requirements of the petition process (Feb. 19).

There are actually two timelines in his bill. One potentially extends the time allowed for signers to request removal of their names from citizens’ initiatives after the deadline for submission of signatures to the county clerks. The other establishes that the bill would take effect immediately, without the normal 60-day waiting period, if the legislation passes by a two-thirds majority and is signed by the governor.

The former is suspicious, the latter clearly partisan. Both give initiative opponents increased opportunity to browbeat signers into removing their names. This is like going into overtime at the end of a game with only one side allowed to play. These timeline shifts have no bearing on the ability of the clerks to perform their duties. Sen. Stephenson is scapegoating in the name of fairness. Why are the ethics reform and fair boundaries initiatives so threatening to so many legislators?

L. Jackson Newell
Salt Lake City

Ethics not ‘dangerous’

February 14, 2010, Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum Letter

Some legislators and the conservative Sutherland Institute believe that legislative ethics reform in Utah is “dangerous” (“Ethics initiative battle heats up,” Tribune Feb. 8). Proponents for reform, including Utahns for Ethical Government, argue that it’s necessary because:
1. The people’s business should be conducted by legislators acting as our trustees, with fidelity, integrity and selfless judgment.
2. Special interests regularly inject unlimited money into Utah’s political system on matters for which they will benefit. Common sense tells us such donations are to influence legislative action rather than to create better government.
3. Utah’s financial disclosure laws are ranked among the worst in the nation, with 81 percent of donated campaign money coming from special interest groups — $2.45 million in 2008 alone.
4. Past bills to strengthen ethical conduct have been smothered by affected legislators or special interests.
5. Power can corrupt, and unchecked power combined with unlimited monies creates circumstances where the public interest becomes blurred by self-interest, favoritism and a sense of entitlement.

So the bottom-line question to ponder is: For whom and why would standards for ethical and fiduciary conduct in the Legislature be “dangerous”?

Gary Jones
Bountiful

Quest for ethics changes

January 18, 2010 (Daily Herald)

I am surprised that in a recent letter to the editor, a Pleasant Grove legislator asked why former Utah County legislators had not dealt with ethics reform. Apparently this legislator did not read newspapers during the decade of the 1990s when for nine of the 10 years I served in the Utah House I sponsored, and worked endlessly, to pass ethics bills.

One, limiting gifts to legislators, finally passed. However, bills requiring campaign finance reform, fuller lobbyist gift disclosure and a bill to prevent a legislator from becoming a paid lobbyist for at least one year failed.

In order to get the initiative petition on the November 2010 ballot, it needs to be signed by all concerned citizens who want to curtail such gift giving and influence peddling by special interest groups on Utah’s Capitol Hill. Go to http://www.utahethics.org to find out where you can sign this petition.

Jordan Tanner
Provo

Speak out on ethics

January 18, 2010 (Deseret News)

 

As a concerned citizen of this state, I am discouraged at the resistance our legislative leadership is giving to the ethics initiative being proposed by Utahns for Ethical Government. A problem does exist, and leadership would like to sweep it under the rug. Are lobbyists important to a democracy? The answer is yes. Lobbying itself is not the problem. It is when paid lobbyists can buy access and influence that the playing field for the private citizen becomes very uneven.
The Utah State Legislature has shown little effort in banning gifts and limiting campaign contributions. It’s time for the people to speak.

Mark R. Marsh
Coalville

Legislative disdain

January 7, 2010 (Salt Lake Tribune)

As a Utah citizen who wants a high bar for ethics to guide my representatives’ work in the Legislature, I am frankly scratching my head at the outbursts many legislators have made toward the citizens’ initiative to get real ethics reform onto the ballot (“New Utah ethics drive aims at bribes, corruption,” Tribune , Jan. 1). Utah citizens deserve a chance to weigh in on this issue, especially since legislators have spent years tinkering with it with no real results to show for their work.

Why do legislators disdain so much the public they represent? Are they convinced that no matter how outrageous their rhetoric or lack of action they will not be voted out of office, since Utah now has the lowest voter turnout in the country? Do Utahns fail to turn out to vote because they think their votes don’t matter in our state’s largely one-party system?

And yet, poll after poll shows that Utahns do favor robust ethics reform that moves us in the direction of what most other states have long ago put in place. This is an opportunity to restore public faith in the legislative process. I hope we don’t let it slip away.

Tracy Jensen
Murray

Fat-man ethics

December 16, 2009 (Salt Lake Tribune)

We will more likely see a fat man pass through the eye of a needle than we will witness meaningful ethical reform in the Republican-dominated Utah Legislature.

Jonathan C. Seegmiller
Salt Lake City

Why are our lawmakers afraid?

December 13, 2009 (The Spectrum)

The Utahns for Ethical Government initiative does not provide some new way to remove people from office. The established ways remain: Voters do not re-elect them or the Legislature itself expels a member. Ethical misconduct, of course, could become a catalyst for not voting for someone, but nothing in the UEG initiative results in getting “certain people out of office” as long as they comply with the ethical standards in the initiative. We wonder what these legislators are so afraid of.

Some legislators act as if the initiative would operate retroactively, but that only shows that they do not know their own laws. The Utah Code (UCA 68-3-3) prohibits any legislation from being retroactive unless it specifically so states, which the UEG initiative does not. No alleged misconduct that predates passage of the initiative at the 2010 election would be subject to UEG standards.

Legislators, heed your own advice: Read the initiative, but know your own laws when you do so.

Dixie Snow Huefner
Salt Lake City

Ethics initiative misrepresented

December 7, 2009 (The Spectrum)

The Nov. 28 Spectrum (“Officials resist ethics proposal”) quotes Southern Utah legislators Urquhart, Stowell, Ipson and Noel as believing that the ballot initiative sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government will make it “nearly impossible for business owners to serve in the Legislature.”

That is a great exaggeration. All that is prohibited is that, after 2013, if a sitting legislator is appointed as a “control person” (typically a member of a board of directors or officer) (1) primarily because of the legislator’s status as a legislator and (2) is compensated for that service, then accepting the appointment would be an ethical violation. If one is already a business owner, officer, member of the board before becoming a legislator, the prohibition does not apply.

Why the prohibition? It is to prevent corporations, unions, non-profit associations from appointing legislators to paid positions in their organizations with the intent to gain special access to the legislator and promote legislation in which the organization is particularly interested.

If the organization does not pay the legislator for the service, or if it wants to lobby legislators in general, those are acceptable routes that may be pursued.

Legislators should stop misrepresenting the UEG initiative to the public.

Carmen Snow
Washington City

Ethics reform

Public Forum Letter

December 1, 2009 (Salt Lake Tribune)

A petition for ethics reform in the Utah Legislature is being circulated throughout the state. The Utah Citizens’ Counsel, a nonpartisan group of 14 concerned senior citizens, urges all registered voters to sign the petition.

Because ethics reform has failed to make significant progress in the Legislature, more than 20 former legislators and many other community leaders created Utahns for Ethical Government to develop an initiative that will enable voters at the 2010 general election to establish limits on the amounts that individuals and corporations can give to legislative candidates, prohibit retiring lawmakers from becoming paid lobbyists for two years, and ban all lobbyist gifts to legislators except for light refreshments.

Utah is one of only 10 states lacking an independent ethics commission. The Utah Constitution provides that citizens may legislate through the initiative process, and we believe that when the Legislature fails to act, citizens must assert their right to act to correct bad behavior. The Utah Citizens’ Counsel (Robert Archeleta, Genevieve Atwood, Aileen Clyde, Gale Dick, Irene Fisher, David Irvine, Boyer Jarvis, Chase Peterson, Grethe Peterson, Bonner Ritchie, Karl Snow, Emma Lou Thayne, Raymond Uno and Olene Walker) strongly supports the petition drive.

Boyer Jarvis
Salt Lake City

Ethics commission

Public Forum Letter

November 27, 2009 (Salt Lake Tribune)

The establishment of an independent ethics commission for Utah’s Legislature has been unsuccessfully brought before the Legislature many times; now it appears our legislators wish to comply, but using their rules. Perhaps the fact that citizens have been circulating petitions to force the issue on the ballot in 2010 has persuaded them that we mean business.

Unfortunately, the issue of who will sit on the commission is still in disagreement. Utahns for Ethical Government proposes that citizens oversee the process and legislators want judges (or, better put, their old cronies) to preside. Since citizen juries daily decide whether someone is guilty, they can handle complaints against office holders accused of unethical behavior, particularly since the commission would only recommend sanctions to the legislative body, which would mete out any justice if circumstances show it is needed.

The second part of the proposed legislative ethics reform is to cap political contributions so that a large company’s big donation won’t sway a legislator.

Visit http://www.utahnsforethicalgovernment.org and see if you would like Utah to have an ethics commission similar to what 40 other states have. Then sign the petition to put the proposal on the ballot.

Pat Barrett
Salt Lake City

A Survey or a Push Poll?

Deon Turley watching the Utah State Legislature | January 13, 2010

As the 2010 Legislative Session gets underway, my state senator and representatives say they are collecting information from their constituents. Our household received a survey from them last week.

The first clue that this might not be a survey to collect real attitudes and opinions was that the Utah Republican Party paid for the survey. This suspicion is confirmed as soon as the recipient reads the questions. Bad news is introduced with “Due to the economic downturn,” and good news with “Due to wise fiscal management”.

Opinions are interspersed with the questions. Such as: (Do you support or oppose) steps to opt out of provisions that would raise taxes and harm businesses if a ‘Cap and Trade’ agreement passes congress?”

The final question deals with the legislative ethics initiative. There are six statements that the survey asks the voter to check if they agree. There is no space for explanations or exceptions.

The first is “I prefer having laws made through the legislative process with public hearings rather than by initiative.” Of course, we all prefer the legislative process over walking petitions around. There is, however, a constitutional right to petition government when the elected representatives ignore the will of the people. The current initiatives are two such cases.

The second statement is “I am aware that the initiative creates and (sic) Ethics Commission that has not (sic) accountability to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch (sic) and that its decision cannot be appealed.” How do you agree or disagree that you are aware of a falsehood? The commission is legislative staff chosen by the legislators themselves. The question of accountability comes because the legislators do not control their decisions. The decisions they make are whether to forward a complaint to the Ethics Committee — a committee of legislators — who will hear and rule on the complaint. A ruling may be appealed. Why should a decision to hear the complaint need to be appealed?

The third statement is “I am aware that the Ethics Commission would consist of members who have life time appointments.” Again, how can you state you are aware of a falsehood? Commission members serve five year terms with staggered dates of replacement.

The fourth statement is “I have/would sign (sic) the 21 page Citizens Ethics Initiative without reading it.” Is this an attempt to intimidate? It shouldn’t be, since the writers of this survey obviously haven’t read the initiative.

The fifth statement is “I would prefer laws that create an increased transparency in lobbyist activities?” The State of Utah can dump a pile of data onto the website, calling it transparency, and it would be far more obscure to voters than having the legislators sign a code of conduct.

The last statement is “I think campaign contributions should be capped notwithstanding that such a cap could prevent citizens in lower income brackets from running for office.” A cap would indeed prevent a candidate from running a campaign financed solely by a few special interest groups. This, unfortunately, is common practice. To have a campaign financed by constituents who believe in the candidate, is an opportunity for the candidate to talk to these constituents and really hear what they think. If the Ethics initiative accomplished just this much, it would be worthwhile.

I have decided not to send in the survey. It will not tell my representatives anything about what I think. But then again, it wasn’t meant to.

GOP just won’t take ethics seriously

Utah State Democratic Party Facebook Page | November 24, 2009

The Utah Republican Party made it official last Saturday; It opposes an ethics initiative currently being circulated by a group known as Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG). In the resolution passed by the GOP’s central committee, the Utah Republican Party cites constitutional concerns with UEG’s ballot initiative and the fact the legislature has already passed some ethics reforms, and more is on the way.

What the Utah GOP keeps overlooking is the fact ethics reform wouldn’t be on the ballot at all if the Republican controlled legislature had taken advantage of numerous attempts to reform itself. Up until last year’s legislative session, there was virtually no movement on ethics reform. It took evidence of growing public disgust with the way business was being conducted on Capitol Hill to get a handful of relatively weak reform measures passed. Fear of UEG’s ballot initiative appears likely to have the same effect on the legislature in 2010.

In a draft Joint Resolution on Ethics Complaint Procedures circulated during a recent interim committee meeting, yet another reform is being proposed in hopes any effort by the citizens of Utah to take matters into their own hands can be derailed. This joint resolution would create an independent ethics commission, but the commission would only be empowered to recommend the House or Senate Ethics Committee take up a complaint against one or more representatives or senators.

The chair of the commission and the chairs of the House and Senate Ethics Committee are given extraordinary powers to “set time limitations on any part of a meeting or hearing authorized” by the resolution. Depending on the amount of time a committee chair allows for arguments, this could make it difficult to impossible for either complainants or defendants to make their case before the commission or the relevant legislative ethics committee.

In addition, citizens or legislators may only file a complaint against a sitting legislator if at least two citizens/legislators submit the complaint and one of those has “actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances supporting each allegation.” In other words, while citizens or fellow legislators may have substantial evidence of ethical violations, unless they actually witnessed or were a party to the wrong doing – and they would have to be one or the other to have “actual knowledge” – they can’t ask either the independent ethics commission or one of the two legislative ethics committees to look into the matter. How convenient.

In the proposed resolution legislators also shield themselves from any complaint filed within 60 days of an election. So, if evidence comes to light – excuse me – if “actual knowledge” of an ethical problem comes to light or if a violation of ethical standards actually occurs within two months of Election Day, don’t count on the ethics commission or legislative committees looking into it.

But in their effort to shield themselves from accountability while still appearing concerned about ethics, the Republican controlled legislature seems poised to go much further than prohibiting ethics complaints within 60 days of an election. Under the draft resolution, unless the independent ethics commission created by it refers a complaint to one of the two legislative ethics committees for possible further action, no one can reveal a complaint was even filed.

“Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b) or (c), a person, including the complainants, the respondent, commission members, a committee chair or vice chair, or staff to the commission or a committee, may not disclose the existence of a complaint, a response, nor any information concerning any alleged violation that is the subject of a complaint.”

Subsections (1)(b) and (c) refer to a response which is “publicly released by the commission and referred to an ethics committee” and “disclosing facts or allegations about potential criminal violations to law enforcement authorities” respectively. Subsection (2) goes on to state any revelation to the press or public a complaint has been filed not covered by one of the above two exceptions, would put the leaker in potential “contempt of the Legislature”.

Whatever flaws are allegedly contained within the ethics reform initiative currently circulating, Republicans on Capitol Hill have no one but themselves to blame for the fact it got to the point citizens felt the need to take matters into their own hands. Proposing another weak piece of “reform” legislation shielding legislators from public scrutiny when ethical questions arise does nothing to address public doubts legislators take ethics seriously. If the goal is to do ethics reform better than the initiative and render it moot, lawmakers have a long way to go.

Ethics Reform: What if Voters Never Know?

Utah County Democrats: Why We Need an Ethics Initiative, case in point.

KVNU’s For The People | October 20, 2009

During the early summer of 2007, the Utah County Republican Party was in need of a float for the parade season coming up. Senators John Valentine and Curt Bramble asked Mountainlands Applied Technology School administrators if the school could build a float for the Republicans. This conversation took place in the middle of a meeting discussing the school’s funding. That funding is determined by the state legislature and, at that time, Valentine and Bramble served, respectively, as Senate president and majority leader.

Not surprisingly, the president of the school, Robert Brems, recruited the school’s instructors to work full time on building a float for the Republican party. After it was finished, Representative Becky Lockhart picked up the float.
When word of this breach of legislative ethics and improper use of taxpayer resources leaked out, the chair of the board of trustees for the school quickly paid for the float out of his own funds. An internal investigation by the Utah Board of Regents found that Brems had acted improperly. He resigned under pressure in the wake of the float controversy and other improprieties. Even though three state legislators were involved in the improper use of state funds, including two of whom actually initiated the request, only the school’s president was punished.

I know, it’s a parade float, so who cares, right? But this, to me, is the most important example of the challenges to ethical behavior in the Utah legislature. An internal investigation was conducted by the Utah Board of Regents. From the legislature? Huh? What impropriety?! Hey look over there! A liberal!

It’s an unsexy issue without far reaching or very damaging consequences, but it was inappropriate and “only the school’s president was punished.” At several public meetings and in person I’ve heard state legislators out campaigning against the UEG initiative saying (basically): “We don’t need an ethics commission… if we’re unethical, vote us out!”

Quaint. And a valuable argument, to a point. But it also greatly oversimplifies the situation. Using this example provided by Utah County Democrats, I still ask the legislators in opposition to an independent commission, what if voters never find out? What if the legislature actively ensures that voters never find out?

The legislature’s response to the example provided (i.e. nothing) proves that voters often don’t. So the “just vote us out” becomes almost an insult to voters, not a defense of maintaining a status quo.

Ethics petition vital to reform in state Legislature

G. Donald Gale | FEBRUARY 6, 2010 (The Deseret News)

There was a time when Utah voters didn’t worry about the ethical standards of elected officials. “The system” took care of itself. The state Legislature had a healthy balance of political viewpoints. Journalists were aggressive, well-trained and informed. Lobbyists operated on the margins; few were full time, well paid or influential. Politicians were often statesmen, not political ideologues. And voters were generally well-informed.

Those vital checks and balances don’t exist today. The Legislature is politically one-sided, few journalists wander the halls of the state Capitol, ever-present lobbyists seek influence by any and all means, statesmen and stateswomen are scarce, and the public prefers propaganda over information. No wonder elected officials are tempted to push the limits of ethical behavior.

Poll after poll shows voter concern over abuse of ethical standards. In response, a citizens committee called Utahns for Ethical Government developed a petition to help voters raise their voices about the issue. If you believe in good government, sign the petition. It’s the first step in the long democratic process necessary to identify reasonable ethical guidelines.

Actually, it’s probably the third, fourth or fifth step along the way. The first step was public unrest. Citizens complained about too much influence peddling, too much vote buying and too much favoritism. Lawmakers recognized the public unrest, but their response was more cynical than realistic. They pretended concern, but they didn’t want to give up power or perks. So-called “ethics bills” were largely cosmetic — designed to fool voters into believing the problem was solved.

After years of this charade, it became obvious the Legislature would not voluntarily respond to voter complaints. Concerned citizens formed Utahns for Ethical Government to move the process along. Members include representatives from business, education, government and other groups. Some are former legislators who remember a time when ethics were part of the Legislature’s culture.

Most of the men and women we elect are good individuals. That isn’t the issue. The Capitol culture has changed. It’s difficult to hold your freeway speed at 65 mph when everyone around you is going 70 or 75. At the Legislature these days, money, tickets, meals and other “benefits” fly by at 80 or 90 mph (figuratively). The gift-givers do what lobbyists are paid to do — influence legislation. It’s difficult to reject tempting gifts when no one knows either the boundaries or the consequences.

Creating ethical standards is a way to make it easier for the good men and women who represent us to resist temptation. Some object to that line of thinking, but it’s the basis for most laws, moral standards and social mores — the “contracts” that keep society functioning.

The petition does not impose ethical standards. It simply opens the subject for public discussion so voters can decide by majority vote in November whether they want to put a process in place. Voters will have a chance to vote “yes” or “no” on specific ethical standards, on the enforcement process, and on sanctions to be applied when standards are violated.

But the process cannot proceed unless citizens approve the concept by signing the petition.

In addition to the ethics petition, two others are circulating. One involves the redistricting process and the way voting district boundaries are determined. Redrawing boundary lines must be done after this year’s census. The last attempt was badly botched. This petition begins the process to correct that serious problem.
The third petition deals with campaign contributions and the disposition of leftover campaign funds. It wasn’t a problem when campaign costs were small, but in recent years the cost of conducting campaigns — even for minor offices — has skyrocketed. The petition is the first step in making sure campaign funding mechanisms are not abused.

You can sign none or all of these petitions. Each deserves support.

In addition, the Legislature may offer a constitutional amendment to create some sort of legislative committee to look at ethical standards. This is simply a cynical stalling tactic to negate the more practical citizen petition. Make no mistake about it, if the petition were not circulating, the Legislature would not act. And if — when the April deadline comes — the petition doesn’t have enough signatures, you can be sure the legislative effort will fade away … or be altered into meaninglessness.

Add your voice to the many voices asking for ethical behavior by elected officials. Sign the petition!
G. Donald Gale is president of Words, Words, Words. He is a long-time observer of the political scene. He was formerly editorial director at KSL. He earned a Ph.D. at the University of Utah and was awarded an honorary doctorate by Southern Utah University.

Fiction vs. Reality

January 23, 2010

Confusion and obfuscation abound on the subject of ethics reform.  Read this document to separate fact from fiction.

UEG Position Statement on Legislature’s Proposed Amendment to Utah Constitution and Ethics Reforms

January 27, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – Utahns for Ethical Government (UEG) is, of course, interested and pleased whenever the Legislature is willing to consider substantive ethics reform proposals. We welcome its interest but believe that without our initiative its current efforts would not have been forthcoming.

We will carefully follow the bills introduced during the legislative session – including Senate Joint Resolution 3, which was introduced Wednesday – and will examine the distance between our substantive reform proposals and the others. At this point we believe that much of the content of the Legislature’s proposals is only partially responsive to the need for substantive reform and still leaves many loopholes and issues unaddressed.

In addition, we believe the joint resolution to establish a “Legislative Ethics Commission” by constitutional amendment is a cynical political ploy to confuse the public. In our view, an independent ethics commission that remains an advisory adjunct to the Legislature, such as the one we’ve proposed, requires no constitutional amendment. The Joint Ethics Committee of the Legislature acknowledged this in drafting its own so-called Independent Legislative Ethics Commission in preparation for the 2010 session. It saw no need for or discussion of a constitutional amendment. We note that the current legislative language of the proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution has deleted the word Independent. We wonder why.

Although the language of the proposed constitutional amendment does not clearly remove the right of the people to establish, by initiative, laws governing the operation of the ethics commission, if this is the Legislature’s intent, it should immediately disclose that intent. Absent an express disclaimer of such intent, legislators voting on the proposed amendment and voters going to the polls this November will understand that UEG’s initiative can be implemented in tandem with any constitutional change.

Moreover, because transparency begets accountability and accountability is the wellspring of representative government, commission proceedings should be open to public scrutiny. Language providing for secret or confidential commission hearings should be struck from any proposed amendment. Otherwise, members of the Legislature would be providing for themselves a constitutional cloak of secrecy granted no other elected official.

The fox is guarding the henhouse. UEG encourages registered voters to sign our petition so voters will have the chance to have an independent watchdog.

U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision

January 23, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY – While it is too soon to know all of the consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the ban on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, this much is clear: The Court did not deal with statutory bans on direct corporate contributions to legislative candidates, nor did it unsettle the longstanding rule that such bans are constitutionally valid.

As a result, Utahns for Ethical Government does not expect the court’s ruling to affect the language of its state-level ethics initiative or efforts to qualify the initiative for November’s ballot.

“It’s the people’s chance to allow voters in November to express their support for better ethical standards in the Utah Legislature,” said Dixie Huefner, communications chair for UEG.

––––––––––––

UEG is a nonpartisan statewide citizens’ group committed to legislative ethics reform. For more information contact:

Dixie Huefner, (801) 359-6705
Kim Burningham, (801) 292-9261
Alan Smith, (801) 466-4774

Thirty-Five Former State Legislators Endorse Utahns for Ethical Government Initiative

Urge Utah Voters to Sign the Citizens Petition

November 24, 2009 Dixie Huefner .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Contact: Kim Burningham 801-292-9261 .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Salt Lake City — Thirty-five former state legislators from both major political parties today announced their support for the ethics initiative being sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government.

Observing that Utah is lagging behind most other states in creating an independent ethics commission, setting limits on campaign contributions, and requiring full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and campaign contributions, former Governor and former state representative, Olene Walker urged Utahns to support the ballot initiative. Aware of opposition from some Republican leaders, she also mentioned that differences of opinion about specific provisions of the initiative can result in refining amendments after passage of the initiative, as long as they don’t undermine the basic ethical standards and the Commission’s independent functions.

Others speaking at the press conference included former Democratic state legislator and former U.S. Congresswoman Karen Shepherd and former Republican state senate president Karl Snow.

Shepherd asserted that “power is seductive to whoever has it and it needs to be monitored. The fox should not be guarding the henhouse.” Shepherd stated that it is always difficult for the Legislature to want to relinquish any power to those outside its ranks but best practice demands that it be done and that enforcement mechanisms be introduced and implemented.

Snow added that “the initiative is not a harness but a liberating guide post. One might have hoped that key members of the legislature would have responded with a desire for open dialogue on an issue that has plagued the Legislature over the past decade.”

“Utahns of all political persuasions want real ethics reform, not cosmetic or weak reform such as that currently being proposed by some current legislators,” Snow asserted. Speakers called on citizens to exercise their independent judgment as ethical members of the Utah community and to sign the petitions to ensure that the initiative is on the 2010 statewide ballot.

Citizen Group Launches Ethics Initiative

Utahns for Ethical Government Calls for Reform

August 12, 2009 Dixie Huefner .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Contact: Kim Burningham 801-292-9261 ; .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[Salt Lake City, UT] Standing on the steps of the Utah State Capitol, representatives of Utahns for Ethical Government [UEG] today announced a citizens’ initiative to reform the ethical standards and processes governing the Utah State Legislature. The initiative would enact a strict code of ethical standards for Utah lawmakers and create an independent ethics commission to apply the code and make enforcement recommendations to the Utah State legislature.

Citing public concern about legislative ethics and inaction on the part of the legislature, UEG representatives asked Utahns to join in the effort to demand responsible behavior from their legislators. “The Utah State Legislature’s failure to enact meaningful ethics reform and to effectively monitor its members necessitates action from the public,” said Kim Burningham, a former Republican legislator.

A group of active supporters, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, including former legislators attended the launch. “Utahns from all walks of life are concerned about this issue, said David Irvine, another former Republican legislator. “The time is now for citizens to step forward and address the lapses in legislative behavior that are demeaning our democratic form of government.”

“Additional impetus for the initiative came after former-Governor Huntsman, in response to a request from legislative leaders, withdrew ethics reform from the issues to be addressed by his Commission on Strengthening Democracy,” Burningham noted.

In addition to Burningham and Irvine, also providing remarks were Chase Peterson, former President of the University of Utah, and representing the Citizens’ Counsel; Karen Hale, former Democratic State Senator, and Rob Ence, AARP Utah State Director.

The initiative petition now goes to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office for review. Seven public hearings will then be held statewide to inform Utahns about the effort. At the completion of the hearings, the initiative petition will begin circulating throughout the state. More than 100,000 signatures will be sought to ensure that the initiative will be placed on the ballot for the 2010 general election.

Initiative highlights, a list of initial UEG supporters, as well as the full text of the initiative can be found at http://www.utahethics.org.

Utahns for Ethical Government is a nonpartisan coalition of Utah citizens committed to legislative ethics reform.  For more information about the UEG, its initiative petition and how you can get involved, please visit http://www.utahethics.org.

Effort for ethics reform needs grassroots strength

Alicia Williams | FEBRUARY 1, 2010 (The Daily Chronicle)

Faced with the real threat of several citizen initiatives concerning legislative ethics reform likely making it to a vote in November, it comes as no surprise that the top priority of the Utah Legislature is to pass its own set of bills regulating legislators’ ethical responsibilities.

Although budget deficits, taxes and health care issues are dominant, Republican House Speaker Dave Clark’s opening remarks zeroed in on the immediate need for ethics reform. It seems a series of ethics bills, which are preapproved by the House of Representatives, will be introduced this legislative session as something Clark said would “ensure that our actions on behalf of the public are above reproach.” But the Legislature just now announcing its plan to enact ethical legislation as a Constitutional Amendment sounds a bit unethical, especially since ethics reform has been an ongoing request of the citizens of Utah for years.

Requests that were previously easy to ignore are now imperative to a legislative body facing the unacceptable possibility of having to comply with laws created directly by the people. Unfortunately, this sudden enlightenment serves as proof for the theory that citizen initiatives act as a force to propel lawmakers to listen to their constituents.

Utahns for Ethical Government is a bipartisan group trying to gather 95,000 signatures by April 15 for an initiative calling for the creation of a legislative code of conduct and an independent ethics commission. Apparently, the Legislature now agrees there needs to be ethical reform, but it wants to decide what and how much is appropriate, and it wants to beat the citizen initiatives to the punch.

The Senate Joint Resolution 3 was finally posted Thursday for public view. The resolution calls for the establishment of an independent commission and defines the organization, structure, responsibilities and power of the commission. Although the bill meekly concedes the fact that an independent commission is necessary, it seems as though lawmakers are still not listening. Several legislators’ code-of-conduct requests made by the citizen initiative are missing or drastically different from S.J.R. 3.

UEG’s citizen initiative calls for a complete ban on gifts from lobbyists. This will act as a guarantee that our elected officials are listening equally to all sides of an issue, which they are paid to do.
The initiative also calls for a complete ban on legislators’ and candidates’ ability to appropriate campaign funds for their personal use. This means lawmakers must rely on their public paid income just like other public employees.

It also bans legislators from becoming paid lobbyists for at least two years after leaving office, limits campaign contributions to $2,500 per person or $5,000 per political action committee and bans the giving of campaign funds to other candidates.
The citizen initiative does have some questionable provisions. Mainly, the sponsors have set themselves up as the alternative vote for the commission member candidates if the legislation leadership does not unanimously agree.

Kim Burningham, chairman of UEG, said this provision should act as a promoter to compel the leaders to work together in choosing 20 individuals from which five would be drawn.

“We hope it will never be used,” Burningham said. “It’s intended to never be used. What if the leadership refuses to do it? Well then, we entered a backup procedure.”

But even with this unusual term, UEG’s initiative is packed with code-of-conduct requirements that are popular with Utah citizens. Burningham said UEG has a lot of questions, especially with the legislation’s new revelation of a constitutional amendment, which he said doesn’t seem to be justified. Rather, he said, it’s like the Legislature is doing it for the appearance of doing something great, but if what it is doing only implements a weak commission form, it’s all show without substance.

If the Legislature truly wants to assure the public of its stellar conduct, it needs to address all of our concerns. Instead, the legislators have predictably chosen to only address the issues that don’t hurt them where it counts: their pocketbook.

Polticians shouldn’t shy away from push for ethics commission

Glenn Mesa | Posted: JANUARY 22, 2010 (St. George Spectrum)

What do you do when there is a fast-approaching election with two candidates? Candidate A has an undistinguished past with little public service or involvement, has been a lobbyist and may have a shady past. Candidate B is squeaky-clean, regularly attends local and county political meetings, and promotes high moral values. Give up? If you live in Southern Utah, obviously, you vote for the Republican!

Now, before the truth begins to offend you, consider that during the last general election 79 percent of Washington County residents voted straight Republican Party. Clearly, there has to be some sort of political discernability. That is why several recent proposals for independent ethics commissions and code-of-conduct overseers for Utah legislators seem so logical and practical.

The commission should do what non-discreet Utah voters typically do year-in and year-out: Check to see how the politicos are behaving, hold them accountable, and then make their actions transparently public. As The Spectrum has reported, this move has made current politicians quite nervous. But it shouldn’t. If politicians are acting appropriately, and if they are honest, they should welcome scrutiny.

Three groups heading in this direction and gaining momentum are the Peoples Right LLC, Fair Boundaries Initiative and Utahns for Ethical Government. UEG takes aim at eliminating conflicts of interest while in office, especially the giving and receiving of money from lobbyists during and after office. Their efforts strive to keep citizens at the forefront of legislative decisions rather than being puppets for big business or other causes.

Political oversight appears to have overwhelming support from former/retired politicians. Most of these aforementioned folks have little to gain, yet, they appear to see the need to encourage current politicians to always act responsibly.

Here’s another compelling reason.

Energy Solutions (the same basketball arena sponsors of the Utah Jazz) is in the business of disposing depleted uranium. Currently, they are attempting to bring in more of it from Italy and are getting strong objections from the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah and legal challenges from a federal appeals court in Denver. Depleted uranium is already buried here in Utah. But why ship it here? Why not bury it in Italy?

Presumably, because of the nuclear fallout fiasco of the 1950s, Utah Reps. Jim Matheson and Jason Chaffetz have co-sponsored legislation to ban most radioactive waste. Meanwhile, the Salt Lake Tribune reports, “Rep. Rob Bishop, a former lobbyist for (Energy Solutions) has not supported the legislation.” Morally, Bishop should be recused from debating and, especially, voting on this issue. An ethics commission on the federal could ensure that this happens.

I don’t, necessarily, support any particular oversight committees. However, I do strongly support the notion that elected public officials need to have a constant vigilance over their political actions.

Regardless of your political party affiliation, putting political oversight into place like this is a solid idea.

Glenn Mesa is a resident of St. George and a member of The Spectrum & Daily News Writers Group.

Will ethics initiative force out Senator Hillyard?

Alan L. Smith | Posted: Friday, December 18, 2009 (Salt Lake Tribune)

State Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, has threatened to resign from office if the ethics initiative sponsored by Utahns for Ethical Government becomes law.

The initiative, according to Hillyard, allows three complainants to charge him with an ethics violation, and then to subpoena any confidential record they want from his attorney-client files. Concerns for the privacy of his clients and the business of his firm apparently have overthrown his desire for continued service as a public official.

Hillyard’s concerns have no basis in fact, however. The initiative does not abolish the attorney-client privilege or any other safeguard to confidentiality. Nor does it give unlimited subpoena power to those who bring an ethics charge against a particular legislator.

Subpoenas “may” be issued by the executive director of the ethics commission, at the request of complainants, but only as the director may deem “necessary” to the disciplinary process. This determination of “necessity” is made independently by the commission through its executive director, and not by the complainants themselves.

The initiative’s procedure in this regard incorporates by reference the current statute which governs legislative subpoenas, Chapter 14 of Title 36 of the Utah Code, as well as Rule 45 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a statute and rule which have been on the books for decades. Both the statute and the rule provide for judicial protection where subpoenas may be issued in violation of an evidentiary privilege or the right to privacy.

Why, then, does Hillyard continue to distort the facts of our initiative and pretend that a subpoena will disrupt his law practice and force him from office? If he seriously feared subpoenas in furtherance of legislative investigations, he should have (but has not) asked for the abolition of the statute and rule in question long before now.

But Hillyard (who, as a lawyer, undoubtedly has quashed not a few subpoenas in his time) does not seriously fear subpoenas. He fears, instead, that subpoenas will be used seriously by a citizens commission to investigate allegations of ethical impropriety. He prefers, therefore, to keep the subpoena power with his friends in the Senate, friends who, because of their shared interest in dodging scrutiny, will never issue a subpoena that might lead to meaningful disclosures.

Indeed, if there has ever been real accountability through an ethics investigation in the Senate (notwithstanding recent reports of misconduct which clearly warrant an inquiry), it escapes memory.

The real question is who shall decide what information, in the event of an ethics complaint, is discoverable, by subpoena or otherwise. Shall we continue to allow the senators and representatives to be judges in their own causes, telling us what they will or won’t reveal about their involvement in a controversy over ethics? Or shall we have an independent decision-maker who, after listening to the arguments of those who seek discovery and the legislators opposing it, serves as a disinterested arbiter of that dispute?

Far from revealing a problem with our initiative, Hillyard’s “subpoena issue” underscores the need for an independent ethics commission.

Hillyard can’t deny the utility of subpoenas as a tool for transparency, since they commonly are used for the gathering of information. By legislative edict, every other officer and employee of state government is subject to investigation when accused of malfeasance in office. But these public officials aren’t making headlines by threatening to quit because of the contingency of a subpoena. Moreover, the Legislature has passed laws which require disclosures from ordinary citizens in numerous contexts. Hillyard and his colleagues, however, apparently believe that this type of law — which they have made for others — shouldn’t apply to legislators themselves.
This attitude — that legislators somehow are “special” and that their private needs should take precedence over the public interest — must be smashed. Legislators are elected to serve, and personal interests, accordingly, must bend to the common good as our first priority.

If they don’t keep these priorities straight, if they are not endowed with that spirit of selfless service which traditionally has filled those who view public office as a sacred trust, then by all means they should resign. Our state does not want for men and women of principle who will stand in their place.

Alan L. Smith is an attorney and a member of the executive committee of Utahns for Ethical Government.

Weiler has faulty argument on UEG

Kim Burningham | Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2009

As volunteers go door-to-door asking neighbors to sign the ethics initiative petition, the response is overwhelmingly positive. Most are eager to see ethical improvement in our Legislature.

On the other hand, some currently-serving legislators and entrenched politicians are opposed. Recently, the Clipper published a column by Todd Weiler which illustrates faulty arguments used to discourage passage of the ethics initiative.

Some politicians, including Weiler, say recently passed legislation on ethics reform is “sweeping.” Hardly! The Salt Lake Tribune called it “baby steps.” The Ogden Standard Examiner described the legislators as “experts at excusing bad ethics” and graded them with a “D.” The Deseret News called legislative actions “modest steps” and promises of ethics reform “unfulfilled.”

For whatever good they did, I applaud our Legislature. But the “baby steps” are insufficient.

For instance, as Weiler says the legislators did pass SB 162; some claim it will limit legislators using campaign funds for personal use (an unfortunately frequently occurring practice). The complete picture, however, is SB 162 does nothing about current legislators and impacts only legislators who are no longer in office. Sitting legislators can continue to spend their campaign funds precisely as they desire.

In another case, many were delighted the Legislature passed HB 345. The public was led to believe legislators could no longer walk out the door and start lobbying. Within weeks after the session, we discovered the loophole: it does not apply to former legislators lobbying for any business not primarily engaged in lobbying. In other words, they can lobby for special interests as long as they don’t join a lobbying firm. The public again had been hoodwinked.

Entrenched politicians may have passed a few bills, but it was primarily cosmetic. We need genuine ethics reform.

Like Weiler, politicians point to an Ethics Committee established by the Legislature and say they have met all year and have made suggestions. Note this committee recently ended their 2009 service with only one recommendation: an ethics commission. Sound good? Perhaps, until we learn this commission can only act by a 4-1 vote. (What happened to majority rule?) Or that the Commission meets in secret? Or that no regular citizens are to be members of the commission? Or most importantly, their recommendation did not address campaign fund use, lobbying restrictions, conflict of interest disclosure, etc. More baby steps.

Weiler claims our proposed ethics initiative commission treats a legislator guilty until proven innocent. Not true. The proposed commission does not determine guilt; it only makes recommendations to the Legislature which must deal with them openly. The commission is not a judicial body.

Weiler complains that the proposed commission would allow three citizens to bring a complaint. And what is the harm? One person can already bring a complaint against any city or county official. One person can bring a complaint against members of the judiciary. One citizen can bring a complaint against you! What is so special about the Legislature only allowing sitting legislators to bring complaints (the current practice)?

Entrenched politicians are using specious and invalid arguments to stop the ethics initiative — arguments like the above that are superficial.

Amazingly, Weiler claims our ethics initiative “removes responsibility for ethics from the people.” Exactly the opposite is true. Currently, only the Legislature itself can bring a charge against its peers; this seldom happens. Legislators are understandably reticent to criticize peers whose vote they will later need.

In the proposed ethics initiative an independent citizens commission will add an impartial eye to the process and bring greater objectivity and ethical conduct to the Legislature.

Some entrenched politicians read the initiative and are nervous. I wonder why?

Kim Burningham
Bountiful

Utah needs real ethics reform

David R. Irvine | Posted: Monday, December 7, 2009

The Daily Herald stands alone among major Utah media in its editorial opposition to the ethics reform initiative now in circulation for signatures. The paper’s latest salvo attacks the initiative for being unfair to legislators. Fairness, we agree, is a fundamental American value. But the editorial is wrong to claim that the initiative is unfair to anyone.

Three parties are affected in any complaint about legislative ethics: the accused legislator, the complainant, and the public at large. The Herald is wrong about unfairness to legislators and completely ignored the matter of fairness to anyone else. Let’s look at an infamous example — from Utah County: the legislators who got a college administrator to use state resources to build a Republican Party parade float. Only legislators can file an ethics complaint. No legislator officially even questioned the propriety of this unethical scam. Where’s any fairness to the public in that?

The ethics initiative would give any three citizens the opportunity to file such a complaint, but unless they have personal knowledge of what actually transpired or who was involved, any complaint is likely to be factually incomplete. That’s why, in fairness, complainants are given the opportunity to flesh out additional facts in the initial investigation period. They have the burden of carrying the complaint forward and must establish that all of the component elements of an ethics violation occurred. The evidence must be sufficient to be persuasive and believable.

That is a heavy burden for the complainants to bear. It cannot rest on rumor and hearsay. As the ethics hearings last year demonstrated, there are many disincentives for witnesses to step forward and spill the beans — the biggest being the fear of legislative retribution. Subpoenas are the only means of getting unwilling witnesses to testify, and can only be enforced by a district court. If a subpoena is inappropriate in its subject-matter or scope, the court will quash it. This is nothing new. It is the same subpoena authority that the legislative ethics committees already possess.

The initiative’s complaint process has two stages, one preliminary and one formal. The preliminary stage is solely investigative, informal, and involves no hearings. The initiative reads: “In furtherance of the investigation contemplated under this section … the executive director may issue subpoenas for the production of documents and to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses by deposition or otherwise.” No language precludes subpoenas being issued at the request of either side; the executive director is neutral. The accused legislator “may participate informally, but shall have no formal rights of participation during this stage of the proceeding.”

This is the phrase that prompted the editorial’s claim that, maybe, “the accused is allowed to stand in the hallway outside the meeting room and yell through the door.” This is nonsense.

This newspaper was not present for last year’s ethics hearings where the complainants were neither allowed to be in the room nor yell through the door. Only the accused legislator and his lawyer were at the table with the committee. Since no one else was allowed to observe, the press was dependent on that non-neutral lawyer for briefing on each witness’s testimony. The initiative is drafted to correct that fairness deficiency. In the event the complaint moves to the formal stage where hearings are required, both sides have full rights of formal participation, including cross-examination of witnesses by attorneys for the parties. This is hardly the stuff of a Star Chamber, as this newspaper erroneously characterized the process.

• David R. Irvine is a Salt Lake City lawyer, a former Republican legislator and a drafter of the initiative.

Ethics reform fair for legislators, Utah

By Kim R. Burningham | Published: Monday, Sept. 21, 2009

Judging from quotations attributed to them in a recent Bob Bernick column, Sen. Howard Stephenson (R-Draper) and Rep. Kevin Garn (R-Layton) do not like the ethics reform initiative we drafted. Nobody likes an “outsider” (if Utah voters can be called outsiders to the people’s business) to come in and clean house for them. But after years of missed opportunities by the Legislature, it’s up to the voters to enact ethics reforms that really mean something.

These two legislators appear mainly to be worried about two things: First, that the ethics initiative will keep legislators from getting jobs they want, and second, that it offends “due process” and will result in complaints that will ruin legislative reputations. We respectfully disagree. Legislators who would turn the chambers of the House or Senate into a “job fair” are putting the integrity of the lawmaking process at great risk. But for their status as legislators would they be getting the job offer in question? Is the job being offered to ensure voting support for an employer’s interests?

“Due process” means adequate notice and a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. The initiative more than satisfies these standards. In particular circumstances, legislators could obtain a “safe harbor” opinion that immunizes them from charges of misconduct.

While state officials in the executive branch, county and municipal employees and judges may be charged with ethical improprieties by a single complainant, the initiative takes three to file a complaint against a legislator and those three will have to bear the burden of financing their own case. Complaints are screened confidentially by an independent commission so that frivolous filings can be dismissed before they become known to the general public. If the charges are substantial, the legislator is entitled to a hearing before an impartial tribunal, with full rights of participation and legal counsel of his or her choosing at public expense.

If the complainants offer enough evidence of misconduct to be believable unless rebutted, then (and only then) the legislator must show that his conduct did not violate any ethical rule. This allocation of the burden of proof is appropriate because ethics hearings are not criminal proceedings; they are similar to the treatment of corporate officers and directors under existing law. A business partner or corporate director may argue that his conflicts and self-dealing have not injured his company or shareholders, but how is this argument to be disproved? In these instances, most, if not all, of the evidence resides with the fiduciary, and hence it is currently required that he disprove the harm. Many candidates for office argue that government should be run more like a business. We believe there is truth to that, and therefore we apply to legislators the same standards of proof by which the ethical conduct of business fiduciaries has been judged from time immemorial.

Under current rules, only legislators may file ethics complaints. Because there are enormous incentives against legislators challenging the conduct of their colleagues, and because the existing process virtually guarantees that peer review of such complaints will go nowhere, legislators who want to get chalk on their shoes from pushing the boundary lines have every reason to try.

The number of ethics investigations in 30 years can be counted on one hand. Unless a legislator admits misconduct, nothing happens. The most blatant abuses of office go unchallenged, such as: A legislator pressures the governor to fire the director of a state agency investigating fraud claims against the legislator’s friend; another legislator pressures university officials to build a political party’s parade float with public funds; another legislator pressures a judge who has decided a case against the legislator’s friend; or a legislator pressures a staff fiscal analyst to give a competing financial analysis on a public referendum issue to suit that legislator’s personal viewpoint.

Finally, it is suggested that this initiative will encourage current legislators to leave office and discourage good people from running. If current legislators are not willing to serve with an eye single to the interest of the people, we are confident that there are many good citizens willing to selflessly serve in their place. Most people who seek public office do so because they want to make a constructive difference in what goes on. Gresham’s Law in economics holds that bad money drives out good money. There is a similar principle in politics, and the ethics reform initiative is carefully designed to keep honest people honest at our state Capitol.

Kim R. Burningham, chairman, Utahns for Ethical Government

Utahns should back ballot measures

Don Jarvis and Craig Dennis | Posted: Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Utahns are preparing two initiatives for the 2010 ballot. Both can improve freedom and democracy in our state, but in order to pass, they will require a lot of signatures and then votes.

Before explaining these two projects, we should note that the term “democracy” is used lately with considerable looseness. Even the most shameless dictators now claim that their countries are democracies. Russia’s Putin, Venezuela’s Chavez and Iran’s Ahmadinejad come to mind. They were once elected democratically but then gradually reduced their opponents’ freedoms to the point that the term “democracy” is now questionable at best.

Ethical behavior is absolutely crucial to democracy, and unfairness towards opponents can destroy it. How? Quiet changes in election practices, minor conflicts of interest, some financial advantage in campaigns and secret use of political muscle on opponents. Little by little, the freedom to choose leaders is crushed.

None of our Utah legislators are in the same league as Putin, Chavez or Ahmadinejad, but some of those strong-men’s tactics seem distressingly familiar.

Quiet changes in election practices? The Wall Street Journal called our legislators’ 1991 gerrymandering of Utah election districts one of the worst and most blatant power grabs by one political party in history.

Conflicts of interest? At least one current, influential senator is a registered lobbyist for one of Utah’s most powerful interest groups.

Financial advantage in campaigns? Over 81 percent of campaign finance for Utah legislators comes from corporations and special interests — not voters — and objective observers regularly give Utah failing grades for its loose campaign finance laws.

Use of political muscle on opponents? Think about the Senate Judiciary chairman’s threatening letter to the judge who dared to rule against his developer friend in Mapleton. Perhaps most telling was the Utah County legislators’ demand that a prominent candidate for president of Utah Valley University have his wife apologize for having campaigned last year for ethics reform.

Anytime our politicians use unethical means, they are chipping away at freedom and democracy, at government of the people, by the people and for the people.

So how are the two citizen groups proposing to repair Utah’s damaged democracy with ballot initiatives for 2010?

“Fair Boundaries” proposes an independent commission for redrawing election districts every decade (http://www.fairboundaries.org).

“Utahns for Ethical Government” (http://www.utahethics.org) proposes clear standards on legislative ethics and an independent commission to hear complaints involving them. Both commissions will be limited by the Utah Constitution to an advisory role but will have powerful influence on public opinion and thus on the Legislature.

Voters and legislators should study both petitions carefully. Ideally, our legislators should themselves pass the proposed initiative bills or stronger ones during the next session.

If they do not or instead pass weaker legislation in an attempt to defeat these petitions, Utahns will have the chance to repair our democracy by signing these petitions and then voting for them in November 2010.

We clearly understand that ethics are crucial in interpersonal relations, so it’s high time that we demand high standards of ethical behavior in Utah politics. Our freedom ultimately depends on it.

• Don Jarvis, of Provo, is a retired BYU administrator and professor of Russian. Craig Dennis, also of Provo, is former publisher of the Daily Herald and is now a certified business coach and business broker.

Rolly: Ethics reform: The ultimate sin

Paul Rolly, Friday, November 27, 2009

When most Utahns look at Olene Walker they see Utah’s only woman governor, who governed with a moderate, no-nonsense approach and had an 85 percent approval rating while in office.

When Utah Eagle Forum devotees look at Olene Walker, all they can see is Hester Prynne.

“These constitutional thieves should never hold office again. They should be branded with a scarlet A for seeking to adulterate the constitution and constitutional principles,” says a Utah Eagle Forum e-mail that seems a bit hysterical, even for that group.

The e-mail, sent to rally the troops to defeat an ethics reform initiative that advocates are attempting to get on the 2010 ballot, basically says that if ethics reform passes, it will destroy the state of Utah as we know it.

Walker served for nearly 11 years as Gov. Mike Leavitt’s lieutenant governor, then for 14 months as one of the state’s most popular chief executives before being ousted by her own Republican Party. She was the leading voice at a press conference last week that promoted the petition drive to get ethics reform on next year’s ballot.

So, she must be one of the main targets of the frenzied e-mail with the Eagle Forum logo branding as sinners and adulterers those who are pushing the initiative. The e-mail puts the Eagle Forum morals crusaders in the same camp as the Legislature’s conservative bloc, which has pushed back with such extreme vigor it almost borders on paranoia.

Besides Walker, 35 former legislators have endorsed the ethics reform initiative, while the State Republican Central Committee voted almost unanimously to oppose it.

The Eagle Forum’s missive paints the petition sponsors as monarchists who use their unprecedented power to intimidate and destroy the honest, hard-working folks in the Legislature.

But the e-mail betrays a less-than-honorable agenda with several out-of-context, misleading interpretations of the initiative itself. For example, it warns that if the Republican and Democratic leaders in the Legislature can’t agree on 20 people to be considered for the five-member commission that would be created to hear ethics complaints against legislators, “the sponsors [those unelected people who wrote the bill] unanimously shall select the 20 candidates.”

The problem with that alarum is that it doesn’t explain why the provision is in the initiative. It was put there so that spiteful legislative leaders couldn’t defeat the spirit of the proposed law by agreeing to disagree on 20 names, from which five would be selected randomly to serve on the commission.

That way, they could thwart it by their studied inability to come to a consensus. The commission then, by default, would select 20 names, which would be drawn randomly, in order to achieve the goal of seating a commission.

The e-mail also erroneously states that the ethics commission could investigate not just sitting legislators, but all those who served in the past. In fact, the commission would only have authority to investigate current legislators.

The e-mail creators also took out of context language to insure that a legislator accused of ethics violations couldn’t claim immunity because the alleged violation took place before the initiative took effect.

The e-mail also warns of unlimited power given to members of the commission, with no checks and balances. It fails to mention the fail-safe check and balance that the commission is only advisory. It has no authority to sanction a legislator. It would make recommendations to the Legislature, which would then decide whether to act on them.

But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good scare?

McEntee: Wise advice on ethics reform

Peg McEntee, Wednesday, November 25, 2009

By ones and twos, the former Utah lawmakers — some with gray hair, some with white — came to the Utah Capitol to stand together in support of a citizen’s initiative that would establish a nonpartisan ethics commission and code of conduct for the Legislature.

Olene Walker was the first to speak. It’s time, she said, for sitting lawmakers to recognize that absent specific, binding standards and rules, the Legislature will remain all but rudderless when it comes to binding ethics reform.

Walker is a former Republican governor and representative. Most importantly, in this case, she was lieutenant governor charged with overseeing elections and financial disclosure from officer holders, candidates, political action and interest committees and lobbyists, among others.

For nearly three decades, she has watched ethics reform efforts die in the Rules Committees and seen legislators enjoy gifts, though limited, from lobbyists who now far outnumber the lawmakers themselves.

Utah is often said to be the best-managed state in the union, she said, so why does it earn a failing grade from the Center for Public Integrity? (The nonprofit organization bills itself as a producer of investigative journalism on issues of public concern.)

“Utah should have the highest integrity rating in the nation” and the laws to get us there, her voice resonating in the domed ceiling high above.

Walker is one of 35 former legislators who back Utahns for Ethical Government’s petition drive to get an ethics initiative on the ballot in 2010. They are Democrats and Republicans whose service spanned nearly 40 years. About 15 of them were there in the Rotunda to back Walker and former state Sens. Karen Shepherd and Karl Snow, who also spoke. Shepherd also served one term as Utah’s 2nd District congresswoman.

Now the Legislature’s Ethics Study Committee has endorsed a bill that would set up an independent commission to screen complaints against legislators. The five-member commission, made up of retired judges and lawmakers, would investigate complaints. Those found frivolous or politically motivated would be weeded out; those deemed to have merit would go to the Senate or House ethics committee for a public airing.

It’s a step toward progress for the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature, which has strained for years against ethics reform. Today, Utah is one of only 10 states without an independent ethics commission and one of only five with no limits on campaign contributions.

Speaking of which, Gov. Gary Herbert last month hauled in about $1 million in his first annual campaign gala. More than half came from Realtors, developers, construction firms and energy companies.

Both UEG and Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove, have proposals to contain political contributions

Back on the hill, many sitting legislators remain hostile to the initiative, and last weekend, the state Republican Party’s central committee voted 103 to 1 for a resolution opposing the ballot initiative.

There’s no doubt that getting 95,000 signatures on the proposal by April 15 will be a long, hard slog. Even some of the former lawmakers at the Capitol could be heard wondering if they’ll make it.

Kim Burningham, a former GOP lawmaker and one of the leaders of UEG, said Wednesday it’s too early to even begin to count signatures.

The petitions now are all over the state, he said, “but there are weak pockets and strong pockets. Winter’s a hard time.”

But maybe you, like me, were taught to listen to the wisdom of the elders. It’s clear to me that Thursday’s bipartisan show of support for the initiative deserves the careful consideration of every voter in Utah.

As Shepherd said, reform is just a matter of common sense.

People should rid Capitol Hill of political ‘roaches’

John Florez, Monday, November 16, 2009

“Roaches check in but they don’t check out.” That old commercial about roach traps evokes the present-day image of our Utah legislators. Once in office, it’s almost impossible to get rid of them. They keep building more barriers and finding more excuses to remain as permanent residents of the people’s house.

While a bit facetious, it’s a sad day when citizens have to fight their elected officials to carry out requests for ethics reform to have a government they can trust. But like roaches, the elected leaders keep building up their immunity in order to resist any suggestions to change. Over the years, they have come up with some creative tacks — ignoring constituent concerns, becoming offended, assuming they “know best,” “killing the messenger” and making token changes while doing the same.

Before leaving office, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. created the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy to recommend ways to “have an impact on citizens’ ability and desire to vote,” with a focus on elections, lobbying and campaign financing. Legislators resisted the governor establishing such a commission. The commission completed its work this month after its chairman met privately with several legislative leaders to work out a compromise on its recommendations (http://www.strengthendemocracy.org).

It appears that legislators were quick to compromise on the issue of campaign contributions ?— $10,000 over four years for the Senate, and $5,000 over two years for the House. According to Senate President Michael Waddoups, those limits were so high it “really is not a big thing” (quoted in Wednesday’s Deseret News). The commission compromised one of the key things Huntsman wanted to review in order to give voters a “desire to vote.” It appears the commission’s work may go the way all commissions go.

Some legislators still seem set on establishing a commission to handle complaints of ethics violations as a way of diffusing public criticism. Why wait for members to fail? They would do well to let their ethics study committee upgrade its code of ethical conduct to provide clear guidelines for members to follow. It would go far in preventing violations and reduce public criticism. How will they police themselves?

Lawmakers seem consumed with keeping their seat by fighting the majority of citizens who want ethics reform. If they responded to citizens’ interests, legislators may find that they would not have to depend on lobbyists for their survival. They should keep an open mind instead of playing the bully or victim role. Legislators who resist having retired judges sitting on an ethics panel because they have different standards than legislators might think twice. Judges follow the law. Those who say they may have to resign their office if the rules change may find their sense of importance misplaced.

Rather than finding fault with the people’s initiative referendum, legislators should try to understand the intent behind the citizens’ concerns and take the best ideas for improving their conduct. After all, it’s their conduct that has led to the complaints voters have in trusting their government. Citizens keep calling for ethics reform including limiting campaign spending and accepting gifts — which have gotten out of control and are the reason for the public’s mistrust in their government.

We should not have to fight with political leaders to have our voices heard. Legislators should welcome the spirit of the intent of the recommendations of the commission and those of the people’s petition initiative. It’s time lawmakers worked for the public good, rather than focused on keeping their seats. They may be surprised at the breath of fresh air they would bring to the people’s house.

It just may take citizens to remind lawmakers that the state Capitol is not a roach motel.

Ethics-reform initiative would bring needed change

Lois M. Collins, Thursday, November 5, 2009

It doesn’t matter whether the debate is taking place online in the comments accompanying a news story or in a debate at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics.

When the topic under discussion is an initiative that would reform ethics rules for the Utah Legislature, both sides throw off heat and passion.

The initiative, a 21-page handbook of behavior being put forth by a group called Utahns for Ethical Government — which includes some former lawmakers among its ranks — has opponents saying that it goes too far and pries too deeply into lawmakers’ business.

The group, which hopes to gather enough signatures to put the measure to voters in the 2010 election cycle, counters most of the criticisms at Utahethics.org, where you can also read the proposal for yourself. I hope people will do precisely that.

The crux of the initiative is establishing an independent commission that would look at allegations of ethical impropriety by lawmakers and make recommendations to the Legislature as to what action should be taken against a lawmaker who seems to have committed an ethical breach. Its membership would be five people chosen at random from a pool of 20 candidates who are acceptable to both political parties, in order to make the commission a nonpartisan entity. It’s an advisory body, so it won’t mete out actual punishment.

The initiative also establishes rules regarding political contributions and from whom and how much a lawmaker can accept, as well as how that money can be spent. Corporations would not be allowed to donate to campaigns. Disclosure would be a must. And campaign cash would have to be used for actual campaigns or given to charity after a certain amount of time, rather than letting the candidate treat it like a personal piggy bank.

The proposal says lawmakers must wait for two years to become lobbyists once they leave office, and it beefs up disclosure of anything that might turn into a conflict of interest. Further, legislators could not serve on corporate boards if the only qualification they had for it was the fact that they are lawmakers and have clout the corporation might desire.

Some of the measure’s critics have had harsh things to say about citizen initiatives in general. Critics say that once a citizen initiative is passed, it’s hard to change or improve, even when doing so is important, because it can be portrayed as going against the public’s will.

There may be some truth to it, but I find that argument ironic as all get out, given that the public has clamored for some time for meaningful ethics reform, and the Utah Legislature, with years and years to deliver up something meaningful, has pretty much said, “Nope.” The Legislature has passed up many opportunities to forge its own real reform. Even as the demands have increased, efforts have been mostly token.

I’m betting this next legislative session will be different. Just maybe, if they get serious, they can look their constituents in the eyes and say honestly that the initiative isn’t needed. They did it themselves.

I think one thing is clear: The public wants real ethics reform, whether in this form or another. Too often, lawmakers have seemed to hold themselves above us, rather than accountable to us. One positive that I think may have come from the trials of the past year and its economic upheaval has been a willingness on the part of John Q. Public to finally say “enough” with conviction.

Next, I hope someone goes after carve-outs that allow lawmakers, especially Congress, to inflict laws upon us while excusing themselves from living by them.

Behind the Iron Curtain

Paul Rolly, November 6, 2009

Republican legislators opposed to the proposed ethics reform initiative have told constituents that the initiative would be disastrous and they should read the entire 21-page bill before signing a petition to get it on the ballot.

It’s too bad the leaders of the Utah County Republican Party don’t heed the advice of their esteemed lawmakers.

The Utah County GOP Central Committee recently passed a resolution opposing the ethics reform initiative. When some committee members complained that they had not had a chance to read the bill before voting to oppose it, they were summarily dismissed and members were told to voice their opposition whether they knew what the bill contained or not.

Before the issue was proposed to the Central Committee, it was vetted in the Utah County Republican executive committee, where Sen. Curt Bramble and Rep. Becky Lockhart appeared on behalf of the resolution, even though they are not members of the executive committee.

When some members of the committee tried to speak against the resolution, they were shouted down, town-hall-meeting style.

McEntee: Legislative ethics — just do it

By Peg McEntee | Posted Sunday, October 4, 2009

There’s certainly a lot of legislative handwringing over a ballot initiative to establish a nonpartisan ethics commission and a code of conduct for Utah’s state senators and representatives.

If signed by 95,000 Utahns who cast gubernatorial votes last year, the initiative would go on the 2010 general election ballot. If approved, it would probably send a lot of lawmakers into a nose dive of despair.

Already, leaders are claiming that no good, honest person would run for office if he or she might face a complaint that he’d violated legislative ethics.

It could be worse — it’s possible that good, honest voters would assert their rights and values in opposition to the wishes of the Republican leadership in the Legislature and the Governor’s Office.

The fundamental problem is that ethics on the hill are not as pristine as leadership would have us believe. Remember Greg Hughes, who slipped out of allegations that he tried to bribe a fellow representative to change her vote on vouchers last year?

Hughes ultimately was given a “conduct unbecoming” slap by his colleagues, if getting hit in the face with a feather can be construed as a slap.

Or Chris Buttars, whose Senate brothers refused to sanction him for the racist, homophobic bile he spewed last year.

Here are some basics of the initiative: It would establish a nonpartisan, five-member advisory board to hear complaints; bar departing lawmakers from becoming lobbyists for two years; ban virtually all gifts and cap campaign contributions; and prohibit trading favors or influence for votes. It also would prohibit a lawmaker from giving funds from his or her campaign to another legislator.

Do I hear distant howls?

Thing is, 30 other states have independent ethics commissions, so the need and value has been established. And Utah is one of only five states without contribution caps. And after last year, even Utah legislative leaders acknowledge that their ethics system is broken.

Now, under the best of circumstances lawmakers should conduct the state’s business competently, thoughtfully and fairly, because in reality, they are in the business of governing. They are paid, have great insurance and, most importantly, are responsible to all Utahns, not just their constituents.

Doctors, lawyers, certified public accountants, teachers, law enforcement officials, even journalists: all have codes of conduct and ethics that, if breached, likely will cost them their jobs. Businessmen and tradespeople who don’t deal ethically while providing goods and services won’t get far.

Which is why the claim that good, smart, dedicated people would shy away from running for the Legislature is self-serving bunk. People always have and always will find ways to serve others; being a lawmaker who adheres to clear ethical standards probably is a lot safer than those who lack — and fear — such clarity.

It will be up to the voters to say yay or nay on the ballot initiative. Those voters, by the way, are you and me.

And if the initiative doesn’t make it, then, again, it’s up to us to hold legislative leadership to its announced intention to do the job themselves.

OUR VIEW: Hear petition appeal quickly

Standard-Examiner Editorial, Feb. 15, 2010

A legal resolution to the dispute between organizers of an ethics initiative and Republican state office holders over whether online petition signatures are legal needs to be resolved quickly. If the Utah Supreme Court needs to make the final call, the procedure must be hurried in order to allow those who have signed online petitions adequate time to sign paper petitions.

In our opinion, online petition gathering should be legal. The method has been used for a decade in state government business and it is easy to check the online signatures with voting records. In January, several groups seeking to put various initiatives on the ballot started gathering online signatures. One of those groups was Utahns for Ethical Government, which is seeking 95,000 signatures to enact ethical reforms on the behavior of Utah lawmakers. The Republican leadership in the Legislature strongly opposes these ethics reforms, which include a ban on gifts and an independent ethics commission that has some teeth.

This year there have been several ethics-related measures moving through the Legislature sponsored by Republicans. While they are a small improvement on past years’ efforts, they are essentially cosmetic measures. For example, there is no blanket ban on gifts, a proposed independent ethics commission is essentially toothless, and a proposed ban on pricy meals has a loophole that would allow groups of legislators free meals. The UEG initiative would end these abuses. It would restore ethics to a Legislature that for too long has tolerated standards that most would shun in their personal or professional lives.

Last week, Utah Lt. Gov. Greg Bell, acting on the advice of Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, rejected the online petitions. Both Bell and Shurtleff are Republicans. The state Republican Party has already officially opposed the UEG ethics initiative. This has become a battle between the status quo and a grassroots effort to bring reform to our state’s political system. Those currently in power will fight it every step of the way. In fact, if the initiative gets on the ballot and passes, we expect a court challenge.

The Utah Supreme Court is the right venue to decide whether online signatures are allowable. We hope the justices will make a quick decision.

Initiative Petitions

Let people sign online

Tribune Editorial, Feb. 14, 2010

According to Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Utah law does not allow people to sign initiative petitions electronically. While only a court can determine whether Shurtleff is correct, his analysis of the letter of the law is solid. What is missing from his opinion, however, is the spirit of the Utah Constitution, which enshrines the people’s ability to make law through initiatives as a constitutional right.

We believe that because the state allows people to use electronic signatures to complete legal transactions with government agencies, the state also should allow registered voters to sign initiative petitions the same way.

This is much more than a hypothetical question. It goes to the heart of our democracy. It is critical to the citizens groups that currently are circulating separate petitions to reform legislative ethics, redistricting and taxes. They are faced with the monumental task of collecting 95,000 signatures of registered voters statewide in 26 of 29 senate districts by April 15. The legality of signatures collected on secure Web sites could make or break their efforts to place proposals for new laws before the voters in November.
That’s what’s at stake here.

The attorney general is correct that the state constitution allows the Legislature to set the conditions in which citizens may exercise the initiative power, and the laws governing initiative petitions are all about collecting conventional signatures on paper. They do not anticipate or address electronic signatures.

However, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act allows state agencies to set up the means and rules to allow electronic signatures for transactions between two parties. Shurtleff argues that the act does not apply to initiative petitions because the state has made no effort to extend its provisions to initiatives and to make rules that would govern such a process. He’s right about that. A court would have to rule very broadly in defense of the constitutional right of the people to make law through initiatives for the current petitioners to carry the day.

That said, there is no technological reason why secure Web sites cannot provide protections against fraudulent signatures on petitions, and electronic databases could be easier for election officials to verify than reams of paper.

The Legislature traditionally has been hostile to initiative petitions. But in this Internet age, if the courts will not provide for the circulation and signing of petitions electronically, the Legislature should. To do otherwise unjustifiably hobbles an important constitutional right.

OUR VIEW: Ethical fantasies

Standard-Examiner Editorial, Jan. 29, 2010

Watching Republicans in the Utah Legislature try to enact ethics reform is a little like trying to get the family dog to stop chewing the cable wires in the backyard. They just don’t understand what we’re trying to tell them.

Watching these pathetic efforts to try to police themselves, we sincerely hope the citizen ethics proposals get enough signatures to get on the ballot this fall.

Senate Joint Resolution 3, sponsored by State Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, is allegedly an effort at ethics reform by Republicans in the Legislature. It’s really a fantasy by a party so comfortable with its perks, legislative intimidation tactics and cozy relationships with lobbyists that too many of its members have ceased to understand that unethical behavior is repugnant to the rest of us.

Depending on your mood — laugh or cry at SJR3. It forbids the public from reporting that an ethics complaint has been filed against a lawmaker unless four of five appointees to a planned weak ethics commission decide a violation has occurred.

The ethics commission would have no disciplinary power. It could only forward the complaint on to a legislative committee. That committee would then make a recommendation for a full — Republican dominated — House or Senate vote.

All the ethics commission hearings and documents would be closed to the public unless the required 80 percent vote of members occurred. If word of a complaint was provided to the public, the complaint would instantly be dismissed by the ethics commission.

There’s more mirth: Only registered voters can file complaints, and at least two have to unite to file a complaint. Lawmakers who file complaints don’t need to provide knowledge of wrongdoing. If a complaint gets a legislative hearing, the media can inform the public, but no cameras or recorders are allowed.

And finally, here’s one more cover-your-rear provision: No ethics complaints would be allowed 60 days prior to a primary or election vote. In other words, that’s four months out of the year a corrupt lawmaker can escape responsibility.

Valentine’s ethics rule is a fantasy, and lawmakers in the Legislature should be ashamed to support it. Hopefully, proposals such as SJR3 are last-gasp enabling tactics by a legislative leadership sorely in need of ethics reform.

OUR VIEW: Ethics = open government

Standard-Examiner Editorial, Feb. 10, 2010

The Utah Legislature is trying to be a little bit more ethical. It’s a welcome shift from years past, when legislators have claimed that keeping or swapping campaign cash or accepting $49.99 gifts was as ethical as they were going to get.

Nevertheless, there has been some improvement, initiated by legislators’ real fears that a citizens ethics initiative — if it gets on the ballot and is passed this fall — will impose a level of ethics they don’t feel comfortable with. Such levels include a complete ban on gifts and an ethics investigation procedure that does not hinder public access to the investigation.

That brings us to Senate bills 136 and 138, sponsored by Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem. Valentine is the sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 3. SJR3 establishes an ethics commission and details how complaints can proceed. Not surprisingly, SJR3 is a very weak measure crafted, in our opinion, more to protect lawmakers rather than uncovering ethical violations. Our concern today is with Valentine’s companion measures, SB136 and SB138. Both are deliberate efforts to make sure the media, and the public, are hindered in their access to ethics investigations.

SB136, if passed, amends the state open-meetings law so that the ethics commission investigates complaints behind locked doors. SB138, conversely, makes sure that any documents related to an investigation that fails to get four votes in the commission are forever banned from public scrutiny. Unless four out of five ethics committee members agree that an ethics complaint moves forward, the matter dies a very silent death.

Although the legislative majority doesn’t realize this, you cannot have strong ethics in government without an open government. Exempting a legislative ethics commission from the Utah open-meetings statute is by itself unethical. We agree with Linda Petersen, president of the Utah Foundation for Open Government, who says that at the very least, legislators should release ethics investigation findings after a commission is finished.

Valentine’s trio, SJR3, SB136 and SB138, are feeble half-measures. We wouldn’t even be getting this ethical gruel from lawmakers if there wasn’t the possibility of stronger ethics initiatives in the future. We urge readers to sign the Utahns for Ethical Government petition to get the citizens ethics reform initiative on the ballot. Voters can sign the petition online at http://ueg.utahpetitions.org/

Not the Holy Grail

Lawmakers’ ethics plan falls short

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial, Jan. 24, 2010

If it were the only proposal on the table, proponents of good government would probably be pleased with the ethics reform package unveiled by Utah House Republicans this week. Of course, if there weren’t other proposals on the table, GOP leaders would never have suggested such expansive change.

After decades of inaction followed by a few years of creeping ethics reform in the Legislature, a healthy dose of skepticism is justified. The knee-jerk reaction would be to label the Legislature’s bills as a way for lawmakers to cut their losses, and make it less likely that more restrictive measures contained in a pair of citizens’ ballot initiatives are approved. And that may well be the motive.
The Legislature’s ethics package would create an ethics commission, limit campaign contributions, broaden gift disclosure requirements, increase the frequency of filing campaign finance reports and require more information to be revealed on lawmakers’ conflict of interest forms. Majority House Republicans, meeting in a closed-door caucus session, agreed to back the bills. The GOP Senate caucus discussed the measures but took no position.

To say the package is a step in the right direction would be an understatement. These are solid measures that would bring Utah law more in line with other states, and should be approved. But to say it’s the giant leap that’s needed to restore the public’s faith in the Legislature, and hold lawmakers accountable, would be an exaggeration.

The measures fall far short of “far-reaching reform,” a phrase that better describes the citizen initiatives. Organizers are attempting to gather 95,000 signatures of registered voters by April 15 to place the proposals on the November ballot.
While we can’t yet speak to the particulars — House Republicans only released a summary of their ethics package — it’s safe to say that the scope of the citizen initiatives far exceeds the reach of the legislative proposal. There’s no ban on gifts from lobbyists or campaign donations from corporations. The contributions cap for individual donations is way too high. There are no restrictions on personal use of campaign donations by sitting lawmakers, and the votes of four of the five ethics commission members would be required to forward a complaint to the Legislature for disposition.

Worse, lawmakers will attempt to place their ethics commission plan on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, which means that if the initiatives and the amendment are all approved, the lawmakers’ weaker ethics commission proposal would become the law of the land. Lawmakers should simply enact the commission into law, then step back and let voters have their say in November.

House for sale

Senate and state offices, too

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial, Jan. 17, 2010

The good news: At least somebody made money in Utah last year. The bad news: The people raking it in are state politicians.
Utah officeholders, candidates and political action committees collected nearly $4 million in campaign contributions in 2009. It’s a tidy sum for a poor economy in a nonelection year.

State lawmakers, who could cap campaign contributions but won’t, collected a combined $1 million. Senate President Michael Waddoups led the pack with $79,000, much of it unsolicited. It shows how ingrained the giving has become.

The Utah Association of Realtors was the biggest contributor with donations of about $148,000, and was joined on the podium by NuSkin ($120,000) and EnergySolutions ($96,550). Big corporations and special interest groups try to capture the ear and influence the votes of lawmakers by greasing their palms. And, as one of just five states with no limits on campaign contributions, Utah makes it easy.
That could change. As officeholders and candidates began filing their campaign finance reports earlier this month, The Peoples Right, LLC, was holding public hearings, part of the process to place a pair of voter initiatives on the November ballot.
The group’s timing couldn’t have been better. Its aptly named “anti-bribery” initiative would ban corporate and union donations, and cap individual contributions at $1,000 per calendar year. And its “anti-corruption” initiative would rightly prohibit candidates from converting campaign funds to their personal use. Supporters now must gather 95,000 signatures of registered voters by April 15.
It brings to three the number of groups filing ethics-related initiatives, including Utahns for Ethical Government, which is pushing a comprehensive legislative-ethics and campaign-finance reform package. The UEG proposal includes caps on contributions, a gift ban, a legislative code of conduct and an independent legislative ethics commission.

Rep. John Dougall, R-American Fork, said initiative applications have been filed “willy nilly,” and criticized ethics initiative organizers for not first discussing their concerns with the interim ethics committee that he chairs. “Government by initiative,” Dougall said, “is typically not the best way to go about things.”

But in this case, it’s the only way.

Despite numerous public opinion polls proving Utahns favor far-reaching campaign finance and ethics reforms, the Legislature has done far too little to address those legitimate concerns. Now, the people are taking matters into their own hands, as the state constitution allows, and the situation demands.

OUR VIEW: Gun supporters gone wild

Standard-Examiner Editorial, Dec. 23, 2009

This Christmas season, we wonder if some of the leaders of Gun Owners of Utah have enjoyed one eggnog too many.

How else to explain the interest group’s utterly bizarre fear that a grassroots proposal designed to make Utah’s lawmakers behave ethically could lead to a gun registry.

We understand readers may be confused at this point. One wonders: what in the blazes does a gun registry have to do with ending the unhealthy relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.

Here’s the “reasoning” of Gun Owners of Utah. Because the citizens initiative would require lawmakers to disclose any property that might be subject to regulation, Gun Owners of Utah thinks that would lead to a gun registry. The organization has blasted out an e-mail to its members urging them not to sign a petition to get the ethics initiative on the ballot next year.

We await Guns Owners of Utah’s next e-mail warning that getting the ethics reform initiative on the ballot next year might result in an influx of black helicopters in Utah skies.

Seriously though, we understand that despite its title, Gun Owners of Utah does not represent the vast majority of Utah gun owners. Most Utah gun owners understand that the ethics initiative is only concerned with a lawmaker’s property that may result in a financial conflict of interest. Can we make this any clearer: If you own a gun, the ethics initiative next year is no threat to you. Unfortunately, because of the idiotic e-mail, a substantial number of residents are receiving hysterical false information from a silly organization.

Unfortunately, the Gun Owners of Utah hysteria impressed one Top of Utah legislator. Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, believes that there might be merit to Gun Owners of Utah’s claim. We’d like to think that Oda is just engaging in some political cynicism, that he is using the hysteria as an excuse to pile on the citizens initiative that most Republicans in our Legislature — for personal reasons — oppose. The alternative — that Oda actually believes the Gun Owners of Utah nonsense — is far more disturbing.

It’s long past the time necessary for Oda’s constituents to give him a reality check. And, Gun Owners of Utah could use one, too.