Once again, the liberal media has reared its ugly head…howling for a fix to something that isn’t broken…accusing “politicians” of creating prejudiced public policy (i.e. gerrymandering) motivated by political self-interest.  Oh no!  Further, accusations have been made by some that political parties seek to strengthen their “power” within the political system by means of unscrupulously transforming the democratic process into something it was not intended to be.  It all sounds so underhanded.  Random hecklers, who often represent themselves as if they’re the solitary voice of reason, claim the “only way” to “rationally” and “responsibly” solve the “problem” is to create an independent, “unbiased” redistricting commission.

What IS Unbiased, Anyway?

Personally, I’m still struggling a bit over the fact that Washington DC was just turned over to the left side of the political isle.  And, I’m not anticipating the application of a whole lotta bi-partisan methodology related to public and fiscal policy making for the next two years in our nation’s Capital.  You see…that’s how things work around thum thar parts, and everywhere else in a Representative Republic, like ours, for that matter.  No one could rationally expect the DC Congressional Majority Democrats to do anything other than what they do best—partisan political policy making.  The reality is, majority political parties rule the bench while they hold the gavel—don’t like it?…make a run for the border…and, don’t let the barbed-wire hit you on the behind on the way out…

How do you choose an independent, “unbiased,” non-affiliated redistricting commission, anyhow?  Traditionally, anyone chosen to serve on such a commission would be appointed by someone with a personal and/or political agenda themselves.  Do we use a statewide lottery to avoid such a conflict?  Or, some equally “blind” selection mechanism?  Completely unrealistic.

Literally, such a commission would have to be formed from individuals outside of our state, individuals unfamiliar with local political parties and interests (all of them).  Persons unfamiliar with state and national politics–all this without compromising our state’s sovereignty.   A truly unbiased redistricting commission cannot exist.

To ask a “non-partisan, unbiased” commission to act completely independent of self-interest is unrealistic and ludicrous.  Everyone has an opinion.  Everyone is personally biased.  Everyone acts out of self-interest.  Impartiality does not exist.  And, we shouldn’t expect it not to exist.  People without opinions and biases are disengaged and ignorant—the picture of an ostrich with its head in the sand comes to mind.

A Lesson On Self-Interest

Her class was always way too early in the morning for most of us to be much more than catatonic as we shuffled through the auditorium door for the daily lecture portion of the compulsory BYU American Heritage class.  Our instructor, Cindy Ingersoll, was always so passionate about what she was teaching.  One morning, this petite blonde instructor, once again assessing the widespread apathy in her classroom, unmistakably and piercingly used the word “damn” to emphasize a point.  (Back then you’d probably be dismissed from The BYU for using such terminology.)  Nonetheless…

There were no less than 300 of us in that lecture hall that morning, but somehow she ended up singling me out to accentuate her argument–she looked directly into my eyes as she used that…well…time-suspending…expletive!  I remember her small frame quaking with conviction as she explained that the future of our nation—it’s liberty, ideals, and values—literally rested in our hands.  She shook her head as she turned away from me.  Although it was only a brief moment out of ALL my moments at The BYU—I remember that moment like it happened yesterday.  Thank you Cindy.

From our class text, Fox and Pope’s, AMERICAN HERITAGE, An Interdisciplinary Approach, Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co., pp. 32, 34 (Italics added), a brief discussion on Self-Interest:

The founders of the Enlightenment (Late 1600’s) tended to reject virtue in favor of a more predictable and reliable guide to human behavior.  It was a simple fact, said David Hume, one of the Enlightenment’s most influential figures, that most people, most of the time, acted not out of virtue but self-interest.  While Hume did not deny that virtue might exist in some individuals—“You and I are certainly virtuous,” he would say with a wink—he doubted that true virtue was widespread.  The human mind, apparently, learned most of its lessons from the senses—specifically from its experience with pleasure and pain—and thus was not well attuned to moral precepts.  Self-interest reflected the “natural man” that both Greek and Christian moralists had struggled against.  Stop struggling, said Hume, and accept man as he is.

It is important to understand that the Enlightenment thinkers did not regard self-interest as evil.  For one thing, it was responsible for many of the great achievements of mankind.  There was intense human energy behind desire for comfort, wealth, and prestige; and if self-interest was allowed to take its course, that energy would generate many blessings.  Works of art, technological improvements, risky enterprises—these were the products of self-interest, and they benefited everyone.

For another thing, self-interest led human beings into cooperative behavior.  Allow people to seek their own self-interest, said Adam Smith, and soon they would be dividing up tasks to make their labor more efficient, or exchanging goods in the marketplace for mutual benefit.  Far from whipping up wars and crusades, self-interest would calm prejudice, mollify suspicion, and reduce antagonism all around.

Best of all, self-interest stood to make human actions predictable—and therefore governable.  Where virtue was at work, the outcome was often difficult to predict.  With self-interest, by contrast, outcomes were mathematically certain.  (End)

Fair & Balanced—A Transparent Process

Further, the assertion has been made by some in the media that these redistricting proceedings were cloaked in secrecy—that the process was not transparent.  Hogwash.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Well-publicized public meetings held throughout the state gave the citizenry ample opportunity to voice their opinions and give recommendations to the redistricting committee.  All the public meetings were made available to the public in real-time over the internet and individuals could post instantaneous e-mail questions to the committee through a link provided by committee staff.

The fact is, the recent ad-hoc redistricting committee did a fabulous job integrating minority positions into the four-district plan.  It came to my attention early on in this process, during a number of phone conversations with individuals working within the ad-hoc committee, that the final map would have certain republicanly-slanted “balancing” criteria.  However, the final map chosen and voted on by the redistricting committee (10-1 vote, with one nay vote by a Republican, and a unanimous affirmative position from the D’s) and eventually presented to the Legislature during the last Special Session was a BI-PARTISAN endorsed map.

During his closing remarks, Rep. David Litvack, Minority Caucus Manager-Elect, and member of the bi-partisan ad-hoc committee declared, “I speak in support of the motion and of Plan L, and I joke about being beaten down over the last three days, I think we all were, the travel and the time that all of us had to take away from our families and our jobs…and from the Minority perspective and the Minority Party, I want to let my colleagues on this committee know that we’ve appreciated the opportunity to work with you and the Bi-Partisan nature under which this committee operated, and really commend the Chairs in leading us that way…I wanted to thank you for that.”

[Click HERE for link to Audio of Redistricting Committee proceedings.]

It Ain’t Broke

Now is not the time to create an independent, “unbiased” redistricting commission—as if that were even possible in the first place.  Those who would endorse such action are those who are speaking from a very small media-driven faction within the minority of our citizenry.   The statutory system currently mandated in the Utah Code and carried out judiciously, with transparency, and proper decorum by the recent Bi-Partisan Redistricting Committee, works well for our state  (unless, of course, you’re a factionist).  As unilaterally unattractive as this process could have been, I agree with my colleague, Rep. Litvack, I believe the Chairs and the members of the Redistricting Committee should be congratulated for their professionalism—on both sides of the isle.  

I HATE TO KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE…But this horse ain’t dead yet…still kickin’ a bit.  Proponents of Utah receiving a fourth Congressional seat are happy as…well…pigs in the mud…for right now.  Despite Congress’ recent announcement that Utah’s 4th seat would not be considered during the lame-duck session, the-powers-that-be-back-in-Washington-DC are asking House and Senate leadership to reconsider…the consideration.

Some things should be left well enough alone…some things shouldn’t.

When the Utah Taxpayers Association—Your Tax Watchdog–devotes the Front Page in their December 2006 “The Utah Taxpayer” newsletter to an article on the publicly (tax) subsidized Convention Center and Hotel project in Pleasant Grove, something deserves our momentary attention.   (Click HERE for link and then click on the button to the left labeled “CURRENT NEWSLETTER”)  The article is titled, “2006 RDA Reform Fails First Major Test.”

As part of your investigative reading on this issue, it may be worthwhile to first peruse Laura Hancock’s, Deseret Morning News article, titled “Development Plan to Benefit District.”  This should give you some useful background information before you read UTA’s newsletter article.

Having personally met with Alpine School District board members following their acceptance of this “deal,” it appears they didn’t have all the information necessary to make an educated and informed decision.  And, if they did have “all the facts” in front of them, a number of them didn’t fully comprehend what they were signing up for—that’s for sure.

Question

Do ASD parents (taxpayers) know (or even care) that through the Convention Center “deal,” John Q’s property tax burden was shifted to them (the taxpayer)?

Recently, I attended the annual Alpine School District PTA District 9 luncheon held in the UVSC ballroom.  Following the lunch portion of this event we “broke up” into smaller legislative district groups to have a little “one-on-one” time with PTA representatives from District 57 (Pleasant Grove, Cedar Hills, and American Fork). “What are you doing about reducing class sizes?” was one of the questions asked.  The implication was that the Legislature should fund class-size reduction through additional appropriations.  Also, implied was that charter school class sizes are much smaller than those of their non-charter-public-district-school counterparts.  I gave an answer I thought appropriate for the situation and moved onto the next question.

Now that I’ve had time to look into it…I need to tweak my answer a bit.  The fact is, regardless of what you’re hearing out there about Alpine School District’s increasing classroom sizes, ASD’s administration has been able to hold their classroom student population to a constant or even REDUCED student count for the past 10 years.  NO KIDDING!  It’s all right there in the Alpine School District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ended June 30, 2005, page 107.  (Click  ASD_CAFR2005.pdf  for a .pdf copy of page 107)

The chart on page 107 (Click ASD_CAFR2005.pdf  for a .pdf copy of page 107) shows the “Number of Students Per Teacher, Last Ten School Years.”  The matrix reveals that in all grades Kindergarten through 12th, between 1996 and 2005, budgeted class sizes have stayed the same or have been reduced by, in some cases, up to 3.6 students (First and Second Grades).  Wow!   So, ASD has managed to reduce class sizes over the past ten years, without additional appropriations from the legislature for this specific purpose.  Congratulations to ASD!  We ought to take this one on the road and share ASD’s strategy with other districts throughout the state who haven’t been able to decrease student populations “in-house.” (Click ASD_CAFR2005.pdf  for a .pdf copy of page 107)

Day 76.  Elliptical Trainer:  45:00 minutes, 4.6 miles, 735 calories.  0 crunches.  Weight: 190.4 pounds.