33 Responses to “The Ethics Initiative…CZARS…and, SUPER CZARS”

1. jasonthe Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

   So the plan then is to create fear of this initiative (with the oh so creative use of the word “czar” to boot… sticking with the idiocy of the national dialog of course)?

   Why not just argue the merits of the proposed initiative itself?

   And why not address the issue that — if polling be an indicator — this initiative is closer to what Utahns want in ethics reform than the toothless efforts of the legislative body itself?

   And why not then just answer this simple question (rather than injecting such a stupid argument into the debate as you’ve done here): If not this initiative, what can we expect from the legislature to get us to where voters want us to be on the matter of ethics and oversight?

   Can we have a date, or a response that recognizes the legitimacy of what the public wants? Or is this ridiculous logically inept argument posted here all we can expect from the body at large?

2. Tom Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

   Put it into context—what does a signature mean?

   Enough signatures will put the issue on the ballot (in which year?), where it can be adopted or rejected by voters. A signature need not mean unilateral support of the initiative. Process-wise, it’s simply support of seeing the question brought before the public, which gives mindshare to the issue of ethics, and hopefully invites quality dialogue and the seeds of change.

3. Rep. Craig Frank Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

   Tom, as mentioned in the first paragraph the initiative will be on the November 2010 ballot. Rarely do the people who sign a petition not vote for the initiative. I don’t have statistics, but I’m sure I could get them. And, I believe the quality and quantity of dialogue has already begun. I attended the Initiative presentation in Provo and learned many new and important things about the issues. Now that those meetings are over, it’s up to us as citizens to keep the dialogue open and alive!!!

4. Anonymous Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

   jasonthe:

   “stupid argument”
   “ridiculous logically inept argument”

   Are you qualified to lecture another on ethics? Please be a little more civil, especially when communicating with an elected representative, whether you agree with his ideas or not. That way, you might find that he and others will actually choose to have a conversation with you.

   All the best.

5. Tazpayer Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

   Thanks Annon…..my feelings exactly.

6. David Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

   To jasonthe:

   What a hypocritical comment! You say Rep Frank is not arguing the merits of the initiative when he is addressing one important one. Then you call his comments names without arguing the merits of what he is saying!

   This initiative IS scary and we’ve got to show the public that it won’t improve ethics. It will merely drive unethical actions further under the table. It will also give a big stick to anyone who wants to beat up elected officials, particularly good ones. I would rather give officials enough rope (freedom) to hang themselves, because they surely will eventually.

   Those states with much stricter “ethics” laws have more ethical problems than Utah.

   Initiatives are NOT the way to govern!

7. John B Talcott Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

   By singling out the issue of the 5 commission members (who haven’t even been chosen yet) and giving them a negative label to discredit them AND by doing the same to the 5 members of the initiative movement who by default may on the off chance select one or more of the 20 names to go into the hat, Representative Craig Frank is showing his true colors.

   As jasonthe alluded to, this statement by Rep. Frank is nothing more than a smokescreen and an intellectually dishonest argument to sidestep addressing the core issue of the initiative which is the ethics rules proposed in the document.

   I challenge Rep. Frank to put this strawman argument he has constructed aside and to put in writing his opinions and concerns about the proposed ethics rules themselves. I would be most interested to hear which of those he and his conservative colleagues feel they should not be required to follow.

   I also challenge those defending Rep. Frank to not swallow hook line and sinker the views he has posted here, but to research the facts with an open mind and come to their own conclusions.

   The majority of Rep. Frank’s arguments here are constructed around assigning politically charged labels to the ethics committee and the five sponsors of the of the ethics initiative to attack and discredit them. He is attacking 5 people who haven’t even been selected yet. The rest of Rep. Frank’s arguments are made by taking portions of sentences from the initiative out of context and stringing them together in a way as to falsely paint a negative image in the minds of the readers.

   Here are the people that Rep. Frank is vilifying by labeling them Super Czars
   and attacking their character.

   Chase Peterson, Citizens’ Counsel, former president University of Utah, Park City

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_N._Peterson

   Carole E. Peterson, retired chief clerk, Utah House of Representatives

   http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005S2/bills/hbillint/hr2001.htm

   Karl Snow, professor emeritus Marriott School of Management,
   former Republican State Senate majority leader, Provo

   http://www.utahcitizenscounsel.org/?page_id=227

   Cassie Dippo, former lobbyist Common Cause, Salt Lake City

   Jordan Tanner, former Republican state legislator, Provo

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070809/ai_n19444526/

   Just the fact that Rep. Frank feels he needs to stoop to these types of tactics to make his case against Ethics Reform in the Legislature may be the strongest argument in favor of the Citizens Initiative yet.

8. Tom Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

   Yeah, I saw the “November 2010″ date after posting. Oh, the dangers of skimming text and posting while distracted.

   And, yes, I agree that quality debate has begun—but may I suggest that a) it wouldn’t have, without the initiative, and b) there is no guarantee good debate will continue should the initiative die from lack of signatures.

   Maybe we can agree that perceived legislative inaction on ethics issues for the past few years have given the movement some impetus. The legislature has a great opportunity in the upcoming session to render the issues the initiative attempts to address obsolete. Craft a sensible plan that the public approves of, and you’ll neuter support for the initiative in 2010. Use your interim committee meetings. Start now.

9. Rep. Craig Frank Says:
   October 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

   Tom:

   I’ve already started to address the substantive issues you are referring to. Ceratinly, legislative campaign finance reforms should be considered. I’ve openned two bill files to address several issues that can be addressed from the Government Operations side of the arguements. Many other “ethics” issues will be considered by the House Ethics Committee. I believe there is some merit to many of the proposals brought forward in the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Utah’s Democracy (of which I’m a member). Already in the works is a bi-partisan group to help me craft productive (and passable) legislation regarding: tightening reporting periods, treating the reporting of cash receipts the same as check drafts, separation of previously aggregated contributions, disclosure of contributors’ employment, standardizing Interim reporting dates, amended filing explanations, greater clarification on disclosure reports for payments such as “loan payments,” penalties for improper or fraudulant reporting, etc., etc., etc… I’ve opened a bill file short titled: “Campaign Finance and Reporting Revisions,” to address these and other appropriate issues.

   I believe what our governor said he’d like to see, when he said last week that, “Transparency IS the key.” I’ve opened a bill file prior to the Governor’s statement (because for many years I’ve felt the same way) short titled: “Campaign Finance Transparency.”

   I look forward to working with both sides of the isle throughout this deliberative and often cumbersome process to find something that works well for the legislature, all elected officials and candidates, and the State of Utah.

10. jasonthe Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    Anonymous, yes, I am qualified. And I have little interest in having a conversation with the “elected” official in this situation or many others I’ve been presented with by Frank. My only intent is exposing the ridiculousness of this argument, and my distaste with what the “elected” official is oft want to “contribute” to the debate.

    Unfortunately, some arguments are so vapid, the truth has to trump the civility.

    And David, initiatives are THE way to govern when citizens are faced with an unresponsive legislative body. In fact, that’s why we have the process.

11. John B Talcott Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    Rep. Frank with all due respect the ethics issues that concern many of Utah’s citizens is not just about campaign contributions and the “transparency” of reporting those contributions. The ethics issues are much broader than that and are spelled out in the proposed Government Ethics Reform bill in Section 36-27-301.

    You are to be commended for working toward improvements in the narrow area of ethics reform you mentioned, but there are also many other issues that the people in the state of Utah feel are important and “appropriate” as well. As an elected representative in the Legislature it is your duty to represent the will and ideology of the constituents in your district. However, in your capacity as a public servant you are accountable to every citizen in the state as well.

    In that regard Rep. Frank, I respectfully repeat my challenge to you to address those specific rules of ethical conduct as spelled out in section 36-27-301(2)(a) items (i) through (ix) and section 36-27-301(2)(b) items (i) through (ix). Specifically, I would ask you which of these proposed rules of ethical conduct that you disagree with, and to state why you feel that you and your fellow legislators should not be required to conduct yourselves within the ethical framework of those rules. Thank you in advance for your response to this appropriate request for some transparency in your opinions about the ethics rules themselves. As you said, “Transparency IS the key”.

12. craig41 Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am

    rep frank, how can you get information on what people voted for after they signed a petition? aren’t votes, like some comments here, anonymous?

    and it seems that a lot of members of the legislature are coming to these meetings, which is a good thing as they should at least once have to consider the possibility of ethics reform, but it seems that you guys have decided how you’ll argue against this vote me out if i’m not ethical or czars. it’s nice to see rep frank following step and presenting such an open dialogue.

    but now lets get right down to it, the reason polling leads one to believe that this initiative will pass if it on the ballot is that utah voters on both sides of the isle are tired of seeing the legislature do nothing when it comes to ethics reform. if rep frank et al had proposed and passed meaningful ethics reform then this initiative wouldn’t have been brought up. but the legislature as a body decided against such an action, and now they’re afraid that they’ll be held accountable, and hence act ethically. so they’re trying to defeat this initiative the best way they know how, buzz words, spin, misdirection, and as little dialogue about the actual initiative as possible. which is really how they’ve handled ethics reform from the start.

13. John B Talcott Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Rep. Frank wrote:

    “This initiative fundamentally alters the ‘Checks & Balance’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ principles found in the Utah State Constitution”

    My question to Rep. Frank is simply “How does the initiative alter the ‘Checks & Balance’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ principle found in the Utah State Constitution?

    My research has turned up the following sections of the constitution that in fact seem to support the ethics initiative, but I find can find nothing that the initiative might be in violation of. Perhaps Craig can help me with that part.

    Article I, Section 2. [All political power inherent in the people.]
    All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

    Article V, Section 1. [Three departments of government.]
    The powers of the government of the State of Utah shall be divided into three distinct departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.

    Article VI, Section 1. [Power vested in Senate, House, and People.]
    (1) The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in:
    (a) a Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
    (b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).
    (2) (a) (i) The legal voters of the State of Utah, in the numbers, under the conditions, in the manner, and within the time provided by statute, may:
    (A) initiate any desired legislation and cause it to be submitted to the people for adoption upon a majority vote of those voting on the legislation, as provided by statute; or
    (B) require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.

14. Aaron Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Former Legislator/current lobbyist David Irvine, one of the two founders of the ethics initiative was criticized in in 1996 by Deseret News Political Editor Bob Bernick Jr. wrote an article called “DOOR TO LOBBYING STILL REVOLVING” and David Irvine the “former GOP legislator” was the subject of an article regarding the revolving door for lawmakers to lobbyists in our state legislature.

    … Read More
    …Former Utah House members who are registered lobbyists include Orval Harrison; David Irvine, who is leaving the lobbying profession to be chief of staff to Congressman-elect Merrill Cook; Paula Julander; Ted Lewis; Nancy Lyon; Georgia Peterson; Allan Rushton; Lloyd Selleneit; and Doug Sonntag.

15. John Cheshire Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Jasonthe,

    I keep seeing you on blogs everywhere now and one thing is certain. You have nothing of use to say.

    As you claim;

    “My only intent is exposing the ridiculousness of this argument”

    You failed. Miserably.

    “Why not just argue the merits of the proposed initiative itself?”

    He did you didn’t. You did throw in some remarkably uncreative ad hominem attacks though.

    “And why not address the issue that — if polling be an indicator — this initiative is closer to what Utahns want in ethics reform than the toothless efforts of the legislative body itself?”

    Which polls? How many of the people that support the initiative in these alleged polls have read it? Further more was the poll question about this specific initiative or ethics in general.

    Details matter.

    Now let the grown ups speak and next time use your big boy voice.

16. John B Talcott Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 8:28 am

    With all due respect John Cheshire, Rep. Frank DID NOT argue the merits of the proposed initiative itself. The provisions of the proposed ethics bill that the initiative represents are summarized here. The GOVERNMENT ETHICS REFORM BILL:

    – provides definitions and rules of construction;

    – establishes an independent ethics commission, setting forth the criteria for eligibility for members of the commission, the manner of selecting those members, and the powers, duties, and functions of the commission;

    – enacts a code of ethical conduct for legislators;

    – sets forth procedures which will govern the work of the commission and its staff, including procedures for handling complaints against legislators who are accused of misconduct;

    – enacts miscellaneous provisions which regulate the application of open meetings laws, judicial review, administrative procedures, government records access and management, etc.

    Rep. Frank’s argument centers around giving the ethics committee and the primary sponsors of the initiative the negative labels of “Czars” and “Super Czars”. He insinuates that those sponsors are not conservative enough and therefore cannot be trusted to carry out their responsibilities in an honest, fair, and impartial manner.

    Rep. Frank makes the following outlandish claims:

    “The sponsors of the Initiative attempt to give themselves lifetime privileges unavailable to other citizens, in violation of the Utah Constitution”.

    “This initiative fundamentally alters the ‘Checks & Balance’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ principles found in the Utah State Constitution.”

    These two statements have no basis either in law or in fact and are therefore false. I do agree with Mr. Cheshire on one point. That is: DETAILS MATTER. If only he would hold Rep. Frank to that standard as well, then a “grown up” discussion of the merits of the citizens initiative for government ethics reform could begin.

17. John Cheshire Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 8:36 am

    “By singling out the issue of the 5 commission members (who haven’t even been chosen yet)”

    I think what concerns me Mr. Talcott is how the 5 person panel gets selected. I aslo do not like lifetime appointments for anything. Additionally, I don’t like public servants who are not accountable to ANYONE. I am all for ethics reform but this aint it….and in my opinion will actually add to the problem as the 5 commision members will be bought and payed for by special interests….because they are not accountable to anyone.

    Also lets look at who is driving this as well. I certainly have questions about thier motivation and believe that they are simply trying to set up a system that they can game with little or no consequense.

    Regards

18. John Cheshire Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Mr. Talcott,

    you summerized the bill quite nicely. Almost like memorized talking points. Nice!

    Like I said, a lifetime appointment with no accountability is a big problem. and opens the door for special interests to game the system. NO? who will stop them? If you can answer that you have gone a long way to changing my mind.

    Who oversees the commision and holds them accountable? Power with no accountability is a problem in any organization. Disagree?

    I also disagree with how the panel gets selected and basically rigs it so that the drafters of the initiative get to be the 5 commisioners. The name of the initiative would infere that they are just normal citizens intead of former and failed politicians, teachers union lackeys and former lobbyists.

    You also seem to be taking great issue with the use of the word czar. Why? Our president has many of them and HE called them that…they did not get that label placed on them by the VRWC. Did you take issue with the word then? In addition his usage of the word conforms quite nicely with the definition of the word;

    Czar: any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.

    Details matter.

    Just to cut you off at the pass. IF your next argument is that they dont excercise great power and so the czar label is misplaced then I would argue this; What the hell are we argueing about then? If they dont have great power then what is the point. They will never be able to address unethical behaviour if they don’t have the power to do something about it. Agian those with great power need to be held accountable and this initiative does not provide for that as far as I can see.

19. John Cheshire Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Mr. Talcott “The sponsors of the Initiative attempt to give themselves lifetime privileges unavailable to other citizens, in violation of the Utah Constitution”.

    How is this untrue?

    “This initiative fundamentally alters the ‘Checks & Balance’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ principles found in the Utah State Constitution.”

    How is this untrue? It is a lifetime appointment with no accountabilty. Now you might be naive enough to believe that someone with a lifetime appointment and no accountability will be able to stay uncurrupted but I am not. These czars would have to be some kind of uncurruptable super human with a strong distast for personal enrichment and $$$. This type of person does not exist. This is why the initiative is inherently flawed.

20. John B Talcott Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Mr. Cheshire, with all due respect read the initiative carefully and see exactly what “powers” the five primary sponsors of the initiative actually have that you seem to be so afraid of.

    Your other points are impressive sounding platitudes with no substance or rationale given to support.

    -Lifetime appointments
    -No accountability
    -Bought and paid for by special interests
    -Game the system

    You also make ad hominem attacks that reveal your prejudice:

    -former and failed politicians,
    -teachers union lackeys
    -former lobbyists
    -uncurruptable(sic)super human

    Unfortunately none of these rise to a level of reasonable discourse to even merit a response. On the “Constitutionality” of the initiative and whether the “Checks and Balances” or the “Balance of Powers” principles are violated by this initiative, the ONUS is upon you and Rep. Frank to show this is true since it is you and he who are making that claim.

    Mr. Cheshire, until you have actually read and studied the initiative and can intelligently discuss the “powers” given to its five primary sponsors, there will be no further comments from me on your “opinions” posted here as I have better things to do with my time.

21. John Cheshire Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    John,

    I mistakenly referred to the 5 sponsers as the 5 commision members. The 5 sponsers are not listed in the act by name but are given the authority to pick the 20 members of which the 5 commisioners will be selected by randon drawing per 36-27-201.

    Who are the 5 sponsers? What is their motivation? Havn’t some of the 5 “sponsers” changed recently? What’s to protect us from future changes? Who takes over when one of those folks passes away? What keeps any of those folks from being currupted? How many of those folks have had ethical voilations of their own? How many of them have worked as a lobbyist? Or for a labor union?

    Lets be honest here, the “leadership”, defined in 36-27-102 of the act, as the house and senate leadership will NEVER unanimously agree to anything let alone 20 people who are willing and able to serve under the guidlines spelled out in 36-27-201 by the required date. I doubt that any of the sponsers could meet those requirements.

    Like I said, Inherently flawed because it gives power to unnamed and unaccountable people who would have the power to select who sits on the commision. With no accountability thrust upon those folks they are easy targets for special interests and have already shown us that.

    BTW I know who the original and current “sponsers” are because I pay attention and read legislation regardless of your unfounded accusations. But the people who are being asked to sign it under the guise of “ethics” will not which is the point.

    In addition, are any of the 5 “sponsers” not Failed or former politicians? By failed I mean they lost an election. Did one of the “original sponsers” not work for a Union as a lawyer? Isn’t one of them a former lobbyist?

    They are not personal attacks it’s just the way things are. I could have skipped using the word lackey but it is difficult for me to view anyone who works for a union as anything but.

    Although, I used to be in a union so I am biased.

    Basically you have deployed the same weak minded tactic that Jasonthe has. You are much better at it though and I believe in giving credit when due. Plus, you have really good grammer but your last comment does not address the argument but instead was an attempt to discredit me by infering that I have not read the act.

    Shorter John T – He called them czars! Oh the HUMANITY! READ THE BILL!

    Curious – do you hold your the legislators in Washington to the same standards when it comes to reading the bill? The healthcare bill for example? Many of them have openly admitted that they will not. I would LOVE to hear your position on that?

    I suppose you have better things to do with your time.

22. John B Talcott Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

    Let’s be clear John Cheshire. You are saying that ALL the elected legislators in both the house and the senate could not among them come up with the names of 20 of Utah’s most honest and honorable citizens to suggest to their legislative leaders that those 4 members could agree upon to put in the hat to draw 5 names for the ethics committee.

    I’m sorry, but I just can’t be that negative, suspicious, and cynical when it comes to our legislative leaders or qualities of the citizens of Utah. You must really have a terribly low opinion of them to think they could not accomplish this task of agreeing upon 20 of Utah’s best to make up the candidates chosen randomly for the committee.

    Is it perhaps true that you, Mr. Cheshire, are projecting some of your own extreme partisan feelings and attitudes onto others that causes you to be so suspicious of their motives and ability to be fair and impartial? As long as the leaders of the legislature, the sponsors of the initiative, and the pool of candidates for the ethics committee aren’t like you—I don’t feel we have anything to worry about. It should work just fine, the way it was intended.

23. JJL9 Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    @jasonthe- Craig doesn’t have to do anything to “create” fear of this initiative. The premise of holding legislators to a more ethical standard is great, but this proposal is completely wrong.

    It smacks of “foxes guarding the hen-house.” And before you tell me that the 5 super-czars will be chosen by the legislators and that they have requirements to have proven themselves as worthy and ethical through their careers, etc… blah blah blah, let me clarify. The system of government determines the ultimate behavior of those at the top. The people already choose their legislators and have the opportunity to replace them on a regular basis, but you still have grave concerns that they are not ethical. Are the people that bad at finding good candidates to vote for? Not according to those making the proposal. According to those making the proposal, once people are in a position of power they find it very hard to separate self-interest from their legislative responsibilities. If this is the case, why would it not also be the case for the 5 commissioners?

    A communist government, whether bred by honest intent or not, will lead to corruption and misery. You could choose the brightest, most honest and ethical people in the world to run it, and the system would inevitably lead to corruption.

    Why would the five-member commission not be corrupt? You don’t want us to assume that they will, but why would you assume that they won’t? With our legislators, at least they answer to the people (and the courts in some circumstances). Your all-star team wouldn’t answer to anyone. We can replace our legislators. We can’t do anything about the super-five. What if they were corrupt? What if? Let me guess. Then we create a panel with authority to investigate them? Where would it end?

24. John B Talcott Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Some points for JJL9 to consider.

    1. At the present time the Legislators handle their own “ethics complaints” themselves behind closed doors. The process is not open to the public, only their findings.

    2. If a legislator is soliciting or accepting money and gifts from lobbyists to “buy” his vote, his colleagues are reluctant to issue a complaint against one of their own, let alone censure one of their friends—especially if they are engaged in the same type of behavior themselves. So “who” is guarding the hen house in this scenario?

    3. To wait two years till the next election to try remedy an ethics problem at the ballot box does little to encourage legislators to be honest—especially since the ballot box often does not take care of the problem as in the case of Chris Buttars.

    4. The role of the “Ethics Commission” is to:

    a. receive, process, and investigate complaints against legislators
    b. issue advisory opinions concerning the code of ethics
    c. provide a training program in ethics for legislators
    d. oversee legislator disclosure statements
    e. make recommendations to the legislature concerning ethics

    To insinuate that this commission would somehow act in its own self interest or be corrupt shows a lack of understanding of the role and purpose of the committee. Every action taken by the 5 member ethics committee who in all probability will be chosen by the legislators themselves will be open to the public with the exception of the initial investigation of an ethics complaint. Because the work of the citizens ethics committee is totally open to the public (unlike the Legislature), the committee in effect answers to the public for the manner in which it conducts its day to day business.

    5. Initially the first two ethics commission members drawn from the hat will serve 3 year terms and the remaining three will serve 5 year terms. At the end of a committee member’s term, a replacement will be chosen in the same manner as the original committee. In other words, the legislators themselves have the opportunity to replace the committee members on a regular basis with people of their own choosing.

    6. The committee’s power extends only so far as to making a recommendation to the Legislature of the findings of the formal ethics hearings that are held. At that time the Legislature is free to do as it sees fit.
    That hardly provides a motive or an opportunity for the committee to act in its own self interest or in a “corrupt” fashion. To think otherwise is nonsense, in my opinion.

    Every argument I have heard and read so far that has come from the right has been based on fear, suspicion, paranoia, and mistrust having to do with public servants and their roles in government. I thank God that I don’t have to live in some of those people’s heads since “fear” is most often the root cause of anger and hate. Just look at the name calling and attempts to install fear that has taken place on this topic alone.

    I’m still waiting for someone on the right to mention and discuss even one of the 18 ethics rules in the proposed ethics legislation. This “Red Herring” of the Czars and Super Czars is beginning to stink and needs to be thrown out.

25. John Cheshire Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 8:57 am

    John Talcott,

    You said;

    “You are saying that ALL the elected legislators in both the house and the senate could not among them come up with the names of 20 of Utah’s most honest and honorable citizens to suggest to their legislative leaders that those 4 members could agree upon to put in the hat to draw 5 names for the ethics committee.”

    That is not what I said but it’s a nice strawman.

    To be more clear – and also to stress how this is a bi-partisan issue – IF one party felt like they could get a more politically friendly group of 20 by letting the 5 “sponsors select them then all they would need to do is stall and not agree on one of the 20.

    “I’m sorry, but I just can’t be that negative, suspicious, and cynical when it comes to our legislative leaders or qualities of the citizens of Utah. You must really have a terribly low opinion of them to think they could not accomplish this task of agreeing upon 20 of Utah’s best to make up the candidates chosen randomly for the committee. ”

    Then why are you pushing ethics reform? IF you believe that our legislative leaders would not try and game the system then why would they need this act which is allegedly to keep legislators from gaming the system. You have twisted yourself into a pretzel here John.

    In addition, I was only commenting on the political leaders and not the citizens of Utah, but again, nice strawman.

    “Is it perhaps true that you, Mr. Cheshire, are projecting some of your own extreme partisan feelings and attitudes onto others that causes you to be so suspicious of their motives and ability to be fair and impartial? As long as the leaders of the legislature, the sponsors of the initiative, and the pool of candidates for the ethics committee aren’t like you—I don’t feel we have anything to worry about. It should work just fine, the way it was intended.”

    Another weak attempt to discredit me by attacking me personally. Nice, but I don’t think it rises to a level of reasonable discourse to even merit a response. You seem to have created a caricature in your mind of who I am and started arguing with that. Hey John! I’m over here!

    I will give you another chance to address my arguments and answer any of the below questions;

    Who are the 5 sponsors? What is their motivation? Haven’t some of the 5 “sponsors” changed recently? What’s to protect us from future changes? Who takes over when one of those folks passes away? What keeps any of those folks from being corrupted? How many of those folks have had ethical violations of their own? How many of them have worked as a lobbyist? Or for a labor union?

    These are questions where the answers should concern anyone from EITHER party. IF they are being honest in their intentions. In addition these are the questions that the good citizens of Utah deserve answers to and the ONUS is on those that are pushing, supported and defending the act to provide those answers…..So get to work.

    Regards,
    John

26. John Cheshire Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    John Talcott,

    You also said;

    “Every argument I have heard and read so far that has come from the right has been based on fear, suspicion, paranoia, and mistrust having to do with public servants and their roles in government. I thank God that I don’t have to live in some of those people’s heads since “fear” is most often the root cause of anger and hate. Just look at the name calling and attempts to install fear that has taken place on this topic alone.”

    Again, if this is your belief that there is no reason to mistrust our public servants then what are we arguing about. There is no need to have this legislation then right?

    By pushing ethics reform you are saying that our legislators can’t be trusted and need to be monitored by this “ethics commission” but turn around in the same breath and accuse those of not trusting our appointed and unelected “sponsors” as fear mongering.

    You can’t have it both ways. At least the legislators have to answer to the public at the ballot box. What Happens when we decide that we don’t like the 5 sponsors or the 20 they select? The act as written does not say does it?

    You also said;

    “To insinuate that this commission would somehow act in its own self interest or be corrupt shows a lack of understanding of the role and purpose of the committee. Every action taken by the 5 member ethics committee who in all probability will be chosen by the legislators themselves will be open to the public with the exception of the initial investigation of an ethics complaint.”

    So explain to me how a legislator can be corrupted but somehow these commissioners or the sponsors could not?

    In all probability will be chosen by the legislators? You are either very naive or disingenuous to think that the leadership of the house and senate will agree on anything let alone 20 people who are willing and able to serve. This will go to the five sponsors every time because all it takes is for one side to believe that they will get a better deal by letting the “sponsors” decide. This is a danger to both sides…just depending on the political lean of the current sponsors which could change over time. AS a matter of fact the 5 sponsors has changed recently…Has it not?

    Every argument that I have heard from the left is devoid of facts but heavy on the personal attacks which is both performative and instructive. Thanks for serving as that example. While you might be better spoken then jasonthe and craig41, you are the same. Your tactic goes something like this;

    1. declare the opponents argument as ridiculous with out addressing specifically why
    2. make it personal in an attampt to discredit the person making the argument which you somehow believe absolves you from having to counter the argument
    3. declare victory

    The bottom line is that until you can explain how these 5 sponsers or the 5 commisioners are accountable to the people in clear and specific terms we will wary of this act.

    Again, the ONUS is on those who are pushing and defending the act to explain this.

    We have questions and want some answers….isn’t that what this ethics bill is all about…transparency. That is all I ask.

    So again I ask;

    Who are the 5 sponsors? What is their motivation? Haven’t some of the 5 “sponsors” changed recently? What’s to protect us from future changes? Who takes over when one of those folks passes away? What keeps any of those folks from being corrupted? How many of those folks have had ethical violations of their own? How many of them have worked as a lobbyist? Or for a labor union?

    Regards,
    John

27. John Cheshire Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am

    John Talcott,

    You argue;

    3. To wait two years till the next election to try remedy an ethics problem at the ballot box does little to encourage legislators to be honest—especially since the ballot box often does not take care of the problem as in the case of Chris Buttars.

    But then you argue;

    5. Initially the first two ethics commission members drawn from the hat will serve 3 year terms and the remaining three will serve 5 year terms. At the end of a committee member’s term, a replacement will be chosen in the same manner as the original committee. In other words, the legislators themselves have the opportunity to replace the committee members on a regular basis with people of their own choosing.

    So it’s too long to wait two years but instead you are asking us to wait 3 and five years respectively. In addition, after the first two have served 3 years the next two will serve for five years to achieve the staggering of the 5 commissioners.

    So which is it? 2 years is to long for legislators but 5 years is just right for the commisioners? Is that what you are saying?

    You also argue;

    “That hardly provides a motive or an opportunity for the committee to act in its own self interest or in a “corrupt” fashion. To think otherwise is nonsense, in my opinion.”

    In what way? Just declaring the argument as nonsense and declaring vicory does not really make the argument less or more true. Be specific please.

    Let’s just assume for a moment that the 5 sponsors had an agenda and the Leaders in the house or the senate of one party were sympathetic to that agenda. All they would have to do is not agree on the 20. Then the sponsors could select 20 folks who were also sympathetic to the agenda. Now if the opposition party tried to pass some legislation that ran counter to that agenda then the commission could wield great power to FREEZE the opposition and create an environment that would make them appear to be unethical. After all, it is the accusation, founded or unfounded, that will do the damage. All the while the sympathetic side could get away with whatever they wanted because they have their political allies on the commission.

    Similar things have already happened in Utah recently and this act would allow more of them same but this time with teeth to really do some damage.

    So yes, I am skeptical that legislators will try and game this system as well in order to damage to political foes just like they have done in the past. In fact some of the original sponsors of this act engaged in that behavior recently which adds to my skepticism.

    Why would folks who cynically used unfounded ethics complaints to smear politicians who were on the opposite of an issue all of the sudden grow morals and ethics of their own.

    In reality, what they realized was that it was a powerful tool to freeze and smear politicians for political gain and went about setting up a system with teeth and a built in advantage for one side. That is why the 5 sponsors issue is core for Utah citizens. I think we can all agree that Utah government needs some transparency and I agree with you first and second point;

    “1. At the present time the Legislators handle their own “ethics complaints” themselves behind closed doors. The process is not open to the public, only their findings.

    2. If a legislator is soliciting or accepting money and gifts from lobbyists to “buy” his vote, his colleagues are reluctant to issue a complaint against one of their own, let alone censure one of their friends—especially if they are engaged in the same type of behavior themselves. So “who” is guarding the hen house in this scenario?”

    I only ask that the same level of scrutiny be placed on those who will wield power in the area of ethics.

    Regards,
    John

28. John B Talcott Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Misanthropy at it finest. You have outdone your self this time Mr. Cheshire. You should be proud.

    Please study the initiative! The only “power” the 5 member committee has over the legislature when an ethics complaint hearing is held IS TO MAKE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION to the Legislature of its findings. The Legislature is then free to do with that report as it wishes. The whole process is open to the public. It is hard for me to fathom that some folks find that so hard to grasp?

29. John Cheshire Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    John Talcott,

    Ah yes performative and instructive but lacks substance as per usual.

    So now it’s that I need to study it. First it was you saying that I didn’t read it but know it’s that I need to study it. Your smug replies and intellectual dishonesty are really starting to reflect poorly on someone.

    I understand that the role of the commission IS TO MAKE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION to the Legislature of its findings.

    What’s to stop the commission from acting in a partisan way? Making favorable recommendations for politicians that are of the same political strip while making harsh recommendations for those of the other? Will those recommendations be public? Can’t they decide not to pursue investigations arbitrarily? Couldn’t those “recommendations” then be used as a weapon by the other side or the media. Even if the legislature disagrees and decides not to act on the recommendations the damage is done. Even if the complaint is founded or unfounded because the commission will be able to frame it however they want as they make the recommendation.

    My issue is in the way the panel gets selected and your refusal to address this flaw in the legislation is very telling.

    So to sum up your position;

    Legislators = Evil crooks
    Sponsors = Good and ethical citizens who are above corruption
    2 years = too long to wait for the PEOPLE to decide if they want a change in representation
    5 years = just right for the unelected and unaccountable commissioners
    lifetime appointment for sponsors = if you don’t like the sponsors or the 20 they will ultimately select, too bad citizens. WE ARE THE DECIDERS!

    Additionally, your obfuscatory replies indicate that you are desperately trying to draw people’s attention away from the inherent flaw that Rep Frank addresses in 36-27-201 of the bill.

    Rep. Frank, myself and others have made valid points that you seem content in sidestepping in order to try and argue the 18 ethics rules which sound nice and harmless until they are used as a bludgeon by partisan hacks. Utah has plenty of those on both sides but I am sure in your mind they only exist on the right. This is obvious in your faith-based belief that these 5 sponsors are not corrupted and are acting in good faith.

    Even though you have shown little interest in debating in good faith I will again ask these questions that are left unanswered in the proposed legislation.

    Who are the 5 sponsors?

    What is their motivation?

    Haven’t some of the 5 “sponsors” changed recently?

    What’s to protect us from future changes?

    Who takes over when one of those folks passes away?

    What keeps any of those folks from being corrupted?

    How many of those folks have had ethical violations of their own?

    How many of them have worked as a lobbyist?

    Or for a labor union?

    What recourse do the people of Utah have if any of the sponsors or commissioners are found to have acted unethically?

    Why would the proposed legislation make the 5 sponsors and commissioners immune to prosecution by either the legislature or the courts if there is no way for them to act unethically which you seem to believe as an act of faith. Why would they need that immunity then?

    What happens when the citizens decide that they don’t like the 5 sponsors or the 20 they select?

    These are not little gee-whiz questions. They go to the core issue and the legitimacy of this legislation.

    We can get into debating the merits of the 18 ethics rules but I have no interest in doing so until I am certain that this initiative is not yet another attempt by local politicians and operatives to game the system in their favor and to use ethics complaints as a weapon as opposed to eliminating unethical behavior in our local government. What would be the point?

    Regards,
    John

30. John Cheshire Says:
    October 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    “Misanthropy at it finest.”

    My , my you are full of yourself arn’t you?

    If this is serious legislation then lets debate it.

    You have ripped a page right out of the lefties playbook. I can remember a time (that ended roughly in January) when asking questions and debate was patriotic. According to you it’s hateful of all humankind. You have to be kidding. Approval ratings of our legislators in Washington is in the teens would you then accuse the roughly 80% of those who do not trust congress of “misanthropy at it’s finest”?

    Give me a break.

    Read some of the writing of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of all things government and for good reason. Would you accuse them of misanthropy as you have me? Is it not that same distrust that motivates people towards ethics reform?

    John, you know big words. We get it. You just need to use them more precisely and accurately.

    My points and those of Rep. Frank are valid regardless of your rhetorical floundering to the contrary. So step up and address the fundamental flaws that have been presented to you and which you repeatedly ignore in lieu of insults with big words. I mean, great, so you can read a dictionary and have mastered the thesaurus. Do you think that provides cover for your apparent inability to address the argument at hand?

    Again, the onus is on you and the supporters of this act to do so.

    Regards,
    John

31. John B Talcott Says:
    October 13th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    Again “debating” is not about answering loaded, baiting, specious questions. It is putting forth facts and opinions supported by research, experience, and citing authoritarian sources.

    I would be more than happy to discuss/debate the core ideas of the Government Ethics Reform initiative which are found in the Code of Conduct session with Rep. Frank or anyone else “opposed” to the initiative. This circular conversation about the repeated suspicions and mistrust of the sponsors of the initiative, and accusations toward the honesty and integrity of the 5 commission members who have not even been chosen yet is truly an exercise in futility and a waste of time in my opinion.

    The descriptive term, “misanthrope” was chosen with care. In my opinion it aptly applies to anyone who demonstrates the effrontery to question the motives and integrity of an individual of Karl Snow’s caliber and reputation.

    If anyone reading this thread has not previously done so, I invite them to go to this link to read about the initial sponsor of the initiative who has been one of the main objects of the initiative’s opponents derision and suspicion.

    http://www.utahcitizenscounsel.org/?page_id=227

    If anyone who finds fault with a human being of his stature does not deserve the label “misanthrope”, then I don’t know who does.

32. John Cheshire Says:
    October 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    John Talcott says;

    “Again “debating” is not about answering loaded, baiting, specious questions. It is putting forth facts and opinions supported by research, experience, and citing authoritarian sources.”

    They are questions about how the sponsors will function within the framework of the initiative. For example;

    Who takes over when one of the sponsors passes away? Where is that addressed in the initiative?

    Is that a baiting question? Need a hint?

    Just because you don’t know the answer does not make it a baiting question…it just means that you don’t know. OR you realize that it is not in the initiative and thus underscores and validates my concern about the flaw in the initiative.

    John Talcott said;

    “I would be more than happy to discuss/debate the core ideas of the Government Ethics Reform initiative which are found in the Code of Conduct session with Rep. Frank or anyone else “opposed” to the initiative.”

    Your insistence that we only debate the part of the bill that YOU want to debate underscores and validates my concerns as does your repeated attempts to personally discredit me to avoid my argument all together.

    Furthermore, you point to their own website and offer that up as proof that the 5 sponsors are not corrupt. This argument amounts to; ” they are not corrupt because they say so”. Save faith for religious beliefs where it belongs.

    John, I have avoided naming the sponsors and their various misdeeds because it is not needed for me to make my point. Which is;

    I am not comfortable giving these 5 or any other 5 this much power with no accountability. Period.

    However since you brought him up I guess I can oblige you with some facts and opinions supported by research.

    Is this the same Karl Snow who was allegedly involved with penny stock swindler Michael Strand in which his colleagues in the legislature refused to create a panel to investigate? Is this not the exact behavior that you decry now?

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/129772/SNELGROVE-WONaposT-ASK-PANEL-TO-PROBE-ALLEGATIONS-AGAINST-SNOW.html

    Is this the same Karl Snow that publically referred to Utahans for Ethical Government as a group of ” convicted felons, known criminals, polygamists and other corrupt lawbreakers.”?

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/129765/UTAH-ETHICS-GROUP-DEMANDS-SNOW-RETRACT-DAMAGINGapos-WORDS.html

    Here is an excerpt from a 1990 Deseret News article regarding Snows comments regarding the Ethics group;

    “Snow campaign spokesman Clark Caras labeled Norton’s demand a “cheap ploy” and said Snow did not make the comment in question.

    “One thing Mr. Norton needs to realize is as the pseudo head of this so-called group of Utahns . . . Mr. Norton has made himself a public person,” Caras said. As a public person, Norton is open to comment about the group he is associating with, Caras said.”

    You appear to disagree with Snow in that you do not believe they deserve scrutiny now. Very curious.

    This is an excerpt from another 1990 Deseret News article;

    “Utahns for Ethical Government reiterated charges Wednesday that 3rd District congressional candidate Karl Snow is not telling the truth about the depth of his involvement with two penny stock companies and convicted stock swindler Michael Strand.

    Members of the group said during a press conference at the State Capitol that Snow was closely associated with Global Oil, one of the penny stock companies Strand promoted, and also represented himself as being closely associated with the firm. However, a spokesman for the group said it is not alleging Snow broke any laws or acted criminally; rather, it is questioning his integrity.”

    “Our issue today is not breaking the law,” said Scott Norton, chairman of the group. “Our issue today is breaking the confidence of the public.”

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/128986/UTAH-GROUP-STILL-QUESTIONS-SNOWaposS-ETHICS-TIES-TO-STRAND.html

    In my opinion this sounds like a bunch of partisan mudslinging to me and I in no way am inferring that Snow is guilty of anything. Transversely, I am not saying that “Utahns for Ethical Government” was lying about Snow. The truth is we will never know because his colleagues in the legislature refused to investigate.

    The point I am making is that humans, regardless of background are flawed and will always fall victim to the human condition. This is why it is important to have accountability. Furthermore it underscores and validates our concerns about the 5 sponsors who will have a great deal of responsibility and power if this initiative becomes law.

    I question the wisdom of handing this much power to any 5 people regardless of who they are.

    So I ask again;

    Where in the initiative does it name the 5 sponsors?

    If they are not named in the initiative what protects the citizens of Utah from Changes?

    Who takes Snow’s place when he passes away?

    What ethical standards are required of the sponsors in the initiative?

    Based on what we have learned about Snow can it still be legitimate to infer that I have a hatred or mistrust of all human kind because I question the integrity of an ethics initiative sponsored by a man who was possibly involved in a penny stock scam? A man who, it could be argued, used his own ethics complaints years later to smear another politician.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/447101/

    Slanderous? Yes. Legitimate? Not so much.

    One of the things that I find troubling in reading these articles is how petty they were. Not really the behavior one would expect from statesmen. That goes for Snow and Orton.

    I also wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted on their little pissing match?

33. John B Talcott Says:
    October 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Usually one’s hands get dirty digging up that much dirt? Obviously I’ve touched a nerve.

    Anyone who reads those linked articles with an open mind can clearly see what they really say about Karl Snow. I’m sure those gossip pieces helped to sell a lot of newspapers at the time.

    Having to stoop to dredging up National Enquirer type articles from the Deseret News from 19 years ago in an attempt to discredit one of the finest men in Utah who was assistant Vice President at BYU is beyond the pale.

    The horse is dead. The beating can stop. The opponent of the initiative “may” be right. I’m done with this exercise in futility.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.