Welcome to Under The Dome’s first ever Podcast!

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN! 

Following a meeting with the Governor on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 (Yesterday), LaVar and I sat down for a few moments in the Dining Room at the Governor’s Mansion in Salt Lake City, Utah, and spoke about Amendment Three, Washington Issues, his Campaign, and Ronald Reagan. 

Tomorrow’s Podcast from the Governor’s Mansion:  Tax Reform…imagine that!

The clock on the wall said 11:15 pm on the last day of the 2006 Legislative General Session—you could just sense the drama!

It appeared, that at literally the eleventh hour, House Majority Leadership had no appetite, no intention of supporting the Second Substitute of Senate Bill 242–the Flatter Personal Income Tax Reform Bill.  (It had, and continues to have, many aliases.)

Rep. Ron Bigelow, House Appropriations Chair, instructing the body stated, “I just feel like we’re going very fast on a very major policy.  I would say, too, if you fully understand this bill and you fully agree with the provisions of it, I think you ought to vote for it, but if you don’t, then I think you shouldn’t—and, I’m not going to.”

Rep. Steve Urquhart, House Majority Whip, declared, “Here, we are contemplating completely redoing our tax structure, at the eleventh hour.  This was studied by some people, but, it was not brought before this body.  This is where we have the great debates.  This is where we have to have the debates.”

And with that…the clock struck twelve, the gavel fell, the lights dimmed…and…the bill was dead! (Or, rather, sent to Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee for “further study.”)

Political “Junk” Philosophy

Often complex and sometimes overwhelming issues are presented to the Legislature for immediate attention.  As a new Legislator, I was taught the political, philosophical adage, “When in doubt, vote no!”  Generally speaking, the application of this philosophy will hold current statute status quo, giving the body another chance to debate the policy another day.

Is there ever an excuse for a Legislator to vote affirmatively for a bill before he or she completely understands the policy change or budget impact?  (Remember Rep. Bigelow’s instructions to his colleagues?) After all, every time the Legislature implements a new policy or changes current statute…someone’s life is changed, someone is impacted.  And, we do that about 350 times in a six week period every year.  So we’d better darn well be sure.  But are we?  Do we ever vote YES when we’re…just not quite sure, when we “don’t fully understand” a bill and its intended or unintended consequences? (And, that’s another debate for a different day…see how well that worked?!)

So, here we are…another day.

So, Who’s The Big Guy On the Table?

There’s $70 million dollars (minimum) still sittin’ on the table.  You know…The 800 Pound Gorilla.  He’s big alright, but, we’ll just reach around him and pretend like he’s not there.

(Oh, and I won’t even mention the other five 800 pound gorillas that just entered the room.  What gorillas, you say?  OK…here we go…five gorillas [I just threw the 800 pounds in there to confuse this rather uncomplicated mathematical word problem; and, all you using Math Investigations can put away your graph paper now…because the problem will be over by the time you sharpen your pencil] times $70 million each equals $350 million new surplus.) 
 

The presence of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla is the direct result of the promise we made to the taxpayers of Utah, as a Legislature and the Governor, that we would return that surplus Personal Income Tax money back to the people who originally paid it—or, who over-paid it in this case.

Since the closing night of the 2006 General Session, there hasn’t been a topic more discussed among the Legislature, more debated at the water cooler, and more exploited in the Utah Media, than the $70 million waiting for legislative action.  (Maybe I’m a bit hypersensitive about the whole thing because I sit on the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee–you know the committee that SB242 was referred to for further study?!)

We Can’t Possibly Know Everything

I am convinced that no matter how much we debate, how much we learn, how many multi-colored charts and graphs we produce, it still won’t be enough for those who will still vote NO on tax reform because for some reason it’s not politically expedient before November’s Election; or, because we just don’t have ALL the facts.  Yet, if we don’t continue this debate in the Legislature NOW (before the next wave of 2007 General Session bills hits us like a tidal [thanks for the spell chek, Golden] wave—there’ll be about 800+ of them) we will, in fact, continue to over charge the taxpayers of the state and continue to accumulate large (Unconstitutional) buckets of surplus bucks, just sittin’ around collectin’…well…interest, I guess!

So, let’s study up on the issue (the best we can) and let’s get back to the floor for the Great Debate–where all great debates happen.

Special Sessions are always deviations from the normal legislative process adhered to during a regular General Session (Constitutionally beginning the third Monday in January and running for 45 continuous days thereafter).  Senator Stephenson expresses his opinion on the Senate Blog about the potential carelessness that can often accompany Special Sessions.  I believe to a large degree he is correct.  Depending on the issues being presented during a Special Session, this can be a dangerous time–unless the question at hand has been beaten to death as has been the Flatter-Tax Proposal (Dual Tax System or Electable Personal Income Tax or…whatever it is called today).  I’ve personally attended a dozen, or so, meetings discussing numerous iterations of the Electable Personal Income Tax proposal and I’ve come to the conclusion that now is the time to address this important tax policy.

From all indications, the Governor’s Special Session Call will only include one or two items.  Contrary to what the good senator has concluded, I think now is the time to look at a single issue (or two) before we get into General Session in January when we’re forced, as a legislature, to drink from the proverbial fire hose (afterall, we only consider about 700+ bills in a short six week period).

[I have retracted the prior version of the remainder of this Blog, as the substance and intent of my message was getting mixed up--according to some--with what I actually posted.  My apologies.]

My firm conviction remains to lobby the Governor’s office to call a Special Session to consider the $70 million dollars remaining on the table for Personal Income Tax Relief/Cuts [reflected in the Electable Personal Income Tax plan]–and to return that money [also, a big ol' chunk of the new surplus dollars] back to the taxpayers where it belongs.

The Leadership of the House Conservative Caucus has submitted a plan for addressing the critical and continuing transportation needs of our rapidly growing state.  Our transportation needs will not go away if we ignore them.  As the Vice-Chair of the House Conservative Caucus (and co-founder), I have placed my stamp of approval on this plan along with Rep. Greg Hughes, Chair (and co-founder), Rep. Aaron Tilton, Assistant Vice-Chair, and Rep. Mike Noel, Treasurer.  You will find a copy of this plan on the Utah State House Blog.

Well, representative government worked last night—or didn’t.  Depending on which side of the Orem City Council Chambers you stood on last evening, the events culminated in a tremendous victory or horrible defeat.  Either way, the citizens of Orem were represented by their elected officials in a 4-3 dissenting vote.  (A similar scenario played out at the Pleasant Grove City Council meeting.)

Those who claimed government is best which is closest to the people (a quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson and quoted by Councilman Steve Sandstrom, Republican candidate for Utah State House District 58, who was quoted by one of the advocates for division as he anticipated Sandstrom’s NO vote) voiced their opinions from the right of the Council seats.  Those in opposition to the placement of the measure on the November ballot stood to the left.  The opposition rallied together with the cry that the new statute was ill-crafted and lacked definition by the State Legislature.  The dissenters argument included the belief there were “just too many holes.”  After the dust settled—the battle weary wounded were defeated and went home.

Explosive population growth rates in some regions of our state have made it nearly impossible for some local school boards to properly administer the education of our children.  And, according to Alpine School District, serving and educating OUR children is THEIR primary responsibility (or, is it the responsibility of the parents?  I digress…).  Has the Alpine School District become so administratively cumbersome that we are disadvantaging our children’s education?  Some have voiced their concern that the “well being of our children” is no longer a part of vitriolic bureaucratic arguments and propositions.  Boys and their toys…

Sure, as a co-sponsor of HB77 (Rep. David Cox) I would liked to have seen the ballot measure pass.  Let’s step back for a moment and look at what the new statute does.  By passing HB77 the Legislature gave municipalities, qualifying under the statutory requirements, the option to look at the feasibility of creating new, smaller school districts.  Once the city council has determined the feasibility of creating a new district, they are given the authority to request that the question of whether a new district should be formed be placed on the ballot for consideration by the voters.

Reasonable Solutions For Unintended Consequences

Are there holes in the current law?  Perhaps. Any piece of Legislation, no matter how intelligently written has unintended consequences.  After passing new statute, rule making authority is exercised by sub-divisions of state government, and if the intent of the legislation is not followed by the political subdivision with rule-making authority, the legislature has a statutory process to make sure what the Legislature passed, and what our wildly-popular Governor signs into law, is being followed according to the intent of the body.

Included in the legislative process is the ability to pass additional statute clarifying the intent of the original, intentionally broad-based legislation.  (Seems everybody wants to be micromanaged—even if their lips say they don’t.)  Rep. Brad Daw (R-Orem) presented a viable solution to the valid concerns expressed regarding the initial leeway problems.  His idea…a relatively simple one…hold harmless, or grandfathers in, the leeway for the new district for 24 months…simple…problem solved…next!  Rep. David Cox (R-Lehi) currently conducts a committee to study the implications of his bill (the un-asked and un-answered questions of the new law). 

Within current statute, the dividing entities work out most of the “problems” amongst themselves.  And, if there is an impasse…back to the Legislature for more statute.  (By the way, this is the very process by which we give away our freedom.)

Is The Union Preserved?

Now that the Union has been preserved, and the “South” (or Orem, Vinyard, Lindon, and Pleasant Grove in this case) will not be seceding, we can go on to consider our next major skirmish – whether or not to approve a $230,000,000 bond and $4,000,000 voted leeway increase in November (that one will be on the ballot) – remember, Alpine School District Board claims, its for the children! 

Recent newspaper reports say Orem residents will pay the lion’s share of the cash outlay for the $230,000,000 bond (plus $4,000,000 leeway) and receive a relatively insignificant benefit from its passage.  One of the articles concludes Orem will receive money for only 26% of the bond’s projects; however, Orem property owners will be responsible for paying back 47% of the bond.  Also, important to note is the fact that with declining student enrollment numbers in Orem, property owners will pay an even greater portion (per capita) for the bond over time.  Explosive ASD student population growth isn’t in Orem, its in Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain–far, far away from Orem residents and Orem concerns. 

So, although the dissenting Orem City Council votes (Sandstrom, Seastrand, Campbell, and Thurston) appeared to be allies with Alpine School District officials in the defeat of the proposed ballot measure last night, I wouldn’t anticipate the voters in Orem running to the aid of ASD to provide tax dollars for projects “the south” may not benefit from civically.

Separatist or not, Orem’s significant voter base in the Alpine School District will most likely determine whether the bond passes in November—deuce!

Last Saturday evening, my wife and I went to dinner with the mayor of Cedar Hills, Mike McGee and his wonderful wife Audrey.  (House District 57 encompasses all of the City of Cedar Hills.)  Mike was appointed by the Cedar Hills City Council to replace Brad Sears as Mayor, June 29, 2004, and then handily won re-election when his final opponent dropped out of the race a few weeks prior to the November 2005 election.  Mayor McGee and the Cedar Hills City Council have done a remarkable job balancing the ever-increasing needs and wants of one of our state’s fastest growing bedroom communities.  And, a more politically engaged community you won’t find anywhere!

A major dinner topic was the state’s $355.5 million new budget surplus projections.  Fascinating, I know!  I have a tendency to talk “hard” numbers during this kind of social conversation, and, I mistakenly misquoted (slightly) a couple of numbers to the Mayor and wanted to set the record straight.

In an effort to clarify what the Legislature and the Governor did last General Session (2006) with our state budget dollars, I have included a link to the State Budget Overview document (.pdf format).  This comprehensive eleven-page overview produced by the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst clearly illustrates where every dollar of the revenues collected by the state (or will be collected) is being expended departmentally during the coming year.

Happy reading!

Note: The figures provided in the State Budget Overview also include the $1,170,000,000 surplus numbers discussed exhaustively throughout the 2006 General Session (which we spent or will spend) minus the $70 million dollars still sitting on the table, earmarked by the Legislature and the Governor for Personal Income Tax reform/cuts.

IT’S OFFICIAL…President George W. Bush (43) will spend the night in Utah on August 30.

Well it’s about darn time-Mr. President!

Last time I checked, Dubblya’s biggest constituent fan club is right here in the Beehive State.  Yet, repeatedly since the Commander-in-Chief took the helm, Air Force One has only made minor Salt Lake layovers and hasty fly-bys.  Now that he’s finally spendin’ the night, I just hafta’ ask the question, why would our Republican President spend more than thirty seconds with an entrenched, better-darn-well-beat the pants off Pete, $2.5M war chest bulgin’, twenty-nine year incumbent Senator, instead of workin’ the floor for the pachyderm party’s Second Congressional District candidate–LaVAR CHRISTENSEN?  Sounds like W’s priorities might be a tad bit mislaid.  Check the polls…Orrin’s in, Mr. President!

[Please take note: I should probably declare a conflict of interest, or something, since that’s what politicians seem to do…I know LaVar.]

Now don’t get me wrong, I like Jim Matheson, talked to him on a number of occasions—swell guy.  He’s got it all, in my opinion…nice family…big home…fancy car…high profile job…hair…well…everything but the BIG “R” after his name.

I know Jim Matheson…Mr. President…and Jim Matheson (D-UT) is no LaVar Christensen (R-UT).

So, before you get here on the last day of August, let’s drop the Orrin signs for just one minute (I’ll put one in my yard if you’re lookin’ for a place to plant one) and take those cool LaVar Christensen signs (ya know the ones with the soothing cream color background) and hang ‘em up high and spend your valuable Utah endorsement time where it would best be spent…that’s shakin’ hands and kissin’ babies for LaVar Christensen…Our Next Congressman from the Great State of Utah!

Rumors are flying around about whether the Legislature will hold a Special Session to discuss what will happen to the “extra” $355.5 million the Tax Commission announced the state will take-in as new on-going revenues.  (Just a quick note.  By statute, the Governor is the only individual within the State with the authority to “call” a Special Session.)  Also, up for potential discussion would be the $70 million in Tax Reform money left on the table from last General Session already earmarked by the Governor’s office and the House and Senate for some kind of personal income tax reform/cut.  As of this moment I’ve heard nothing about a Special Session (I usually find out from the newspaper the same time you do, anyway).

I’ve already shared with you my F4 Plan (see below).  As I’ve discussed this plan with a number of my colleagues there seems to be a general interest in the concept; however, there may be a small hole in a bit of my fiscal thinking.  However…I’m not blogging today to chat about my hole.  I’ll be the first to admit when I see a large chunk of surplus dollars I want to give it back to the people who generated those dollars—the Utah Taxpayer.  However, if you’ve studied my F4 Plan you’ll see even I (the fierce tax-cutting advocate that I am) have conceded, I’ve come to the realization it’s time to step back and take a serious look at our critical transportation needs.

Wrong Way – Do Not Enter

The Salt Lake County Council recently approved a ballot measure to add nearly $900,000,000 on the November ballot for hypothetical regional transit needs.  The strategy is to have the voters choose which direction they want perceived public transportation needs to move.  The cost of this ballot measure per homeowner for a house valued at $200,000 will be approximately $108.00.  (Now, you know as well as I do, the average value of a home in Salt Lake County is nowhere near $200,000—who’re they kiddin’?)  So, if this ballot measure passes, the average homeowner can expect a sizable increase on their next Property Valuation Notice.  Most property owners in Salt Lake County won’t even know what hit ‘em—WHAM!  PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.  When did that happen?! 

That’s how it often happens–the few (voters, non-homeowners) deciding the fiscal long-term fate of the many (non-voters, property owners).  I’m not saying this is how it happens all the time—you vote…right?!  A “yes” vote means over the next umpteen years, property owners agree to support a government subsidized transit system. How many well-intentioned, yet uninformed, property owners in Salt Lake County ride TRAX, anyhow?  (This is not a mind-set exclusive to Salt Lake County Residents, by the way.)  As I understand it, you don’t have to own property in Salt Lake County to vote in Salt Lake County (just proof of county residency—you just have to reside, not own). 

The Math

When we build freeways moving 150,000+ cars per day (some with multiple passengers) at a cost of $100M/mile and Salt Lake County Council is proposing to build four new TRAX lines at $35M-$55M/mile to move about 5,000 passengers per day—the numbers just don’t make sense.  The lion’s share of the costs for building such transit systems will be borne by those who will potentially never step foot on a TRAX train.

With a plethora of other transportation needs it doesn’t make sense (see also, UTA, August Newsletter) to dedicate $900,000,000 for a light rail system with an extremely limited ridership when there are so many other critical transportation needs throughout Salt Lake County and the State (i.e. choke-point relief, corridor preservation and construction, new state and county road construction in highly populated areas with little black-top access, etc.)  This approach by the Salt Lake County Council seems reckless and ill-timed.  Our state has a menu of high-priority transportation projects deserving far greater immediate attention than the limited transportation needs of a few.  We as policy makers need to be careful about how we “encourage” taxpayers to “choose” to spend their limited, strained tax dollar resources on transportation needs. Perhaps there is a better way to finance these four TRAX lines. 

Any thoughts?

CSG-West (The Council of State Governments-Western Region) is holding its annual conference in Breckenridge, Colorado at the Beaver Run Resort and Conference Center.  Speaker Greg Curtis assigned Rep. Neil Hansen and me to represent the Utah State House on the Fiscal Affairs Committee (2005-2006).  Most of my time today was spent in a relatively small conference room in professional development seminars.  I did, however, get a chance to venture out onto the charming downtown street of Breckenridge for a few minutes.  What a wonderfully picturesque little town (kind of a nicer Park City feel).

During my meanderings through town I noticed the drivers around Breckenridge yielding for pedestrians.  NO REALLY!  They stopped…for people…in crosswalks.  This is something completely foreign to me since I moved to Utah a decade and a half ago– people…drivers…yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians.  I don’t recall (generally) seeing drivers in Utah yield for pedestrians in crosswalks unless there was a signal…and perhaps the driver was from out of state.  Maybe Utah pedestrians are supposed to yield to Utah drivers–after all, that seems to be the collective standard.   But, you know me–I had to find out for myself.  And, what I found out will shake you to the very core!

The Utah Code  
 
(Dum, duh, dum, dum…dum, duh, dum, dum, dah…It’s the end of Dragnet, remember?  When the sentence was read and the criminal went to the big house!)
 
41-6a-1002.   Pedestrians’ right-of-way — Duty of pedestrian.

     (1) (a) Except as provided under Subsection (2), when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if necessary:
     (i) to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling; or
     (ii) when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
     (b) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply under conditions of Subsection 41-6a-1003(2).
     (c) A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
     (2) The operator of a vehicle approaching a school crosswalk shall come to a complete stop at the school crosswalk if:
     (a) a school speed limit sign has the warning lights operating; and
     (b) the crosswalk is occupied by a person.
     (3) If a vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the operator of any other vehicle approaching from the rear may not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
 
So, there it is.  According to current Utah statute, drivers must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk; however, pedestrians also have a responsibility not to inadvertently dart out in front of a car so as not “to constitute an immediate hazard.”

A Challenge

Let’s try a little experiment.  Next time we see a pedestrian safely enter a crosswalk– yield the right-of-way—please!  Don’t step on the gas (similar reaction to what happens when we see a yellow light turning red).  This isn’t a game of chicken.  This is reintroducing a component of civility back into our communities.

The Federal Trade Commission has released the 2005 statistics for the Top 10 Consumer Fraud Complaints.  Topping the list is Identity Theft, accounting for 37.2% of all complaints received last year.

Despite advanced high-technology security measures and strenuous efforts by many government and private entities, individuals still find their private and protected information accessed from public databases without proper authorization.  Breaches in protected data registries are a common occurrence.                 

Utah’s GRAMA (Government Records Access and Management Act) laws are designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy while allowing the public to access unprotected data collected by the state using a GRAMA request (i.e. name, home address, real property, etc.).  Often, statutorally, a fine line exists between a person’s right to privacy and the public’s right to know.  An individual’s Social Security number is considered a Protected Record. 

During the 2005 Legislative Interim, I served as a member of the GRAMA Task Force.  The Task Force was charged with the responsibility to comprehensively review our state’s GRAMA laws and provide recommendations to the Legislature for 2006 General Session consideration.  Access to and protection of an individual’s Social Security number was, without a doubt, the most impassioned point of debate in those committee meetings.

Social Security #’s for Sale

The impetus behind an inquiry I sent to Francine Giani, the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce, was an e-mail I received from a constituent regarding an internet company claiming to sell individuals’ Social Security numbers. Ms. Giani immediately referred my inquiry to an investigator in her department, Mr. Michael Pitts.

I’d like to thank Mr. Pitts for his timely follow-up to my initial inquiry.  His rapid response is included below:

Dear Rep. Frank, 

I have conducted an investigation into the information that one can  obtain from www.zabasearch.com, per your inquiry, and have discovered  the following: This email was first disseminated about a year and a half ago and caused quite a stir.  It was discovered at that time that Zabasearch was  not selling social security numbers; however, they were acting as a repository for public information. The personal information that one can obtain from Zabasearch appears to be public information that anyone can obtain from the appropriate agency.  Zabasearch provides a “One-Stop Shopping” location for multiple agencies that retain public information.

I contacted Zabasearch on Friday, 4 Aug 06 and tried to obtain my brother’s social security number.  I was informed that they do not sell  information that is not public, such as social security numbers. I went to the link on their website – Intelius.com, which is a service that one pays for to obtain background checks, and other personal information.  when one goes to their website one can read the “Terms and Conditions” and “FAQs” for details concerning the personal information that one can purchase. 

I called Intelius and attempted to obtain a social security number.  I was informed that they do not provide social security numbers, as to do so is illegal.  If you have questions, please feel free to send me an email or you can call me at 801-xxx-xxxx, which rings at my desk. 

Sincerely, Michael Pitts – Investigator, Utah Division of Consumer Protection[Sorry, the letter didn't format correctly; however, all the content is included]The selling and unauthorized access to a person’s Social Security number is clearly illegal.  The Federal Trade Commission has a webpage resource if you find that your identity has been stolen. Also, if you find that your identity has been comprised (on a legal level), please contact the Utah Department of Commerce, Consumer Protection Division.