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.

“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?

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.