“What’s Utah Thinking”

by Senator Patricia Jones
Assistant Senate Minority Whip, Utah State Senate
Co-Owner/Focus Group Moderator, Dan Jones and Associates

Uncertainty about today’s shaky economy and unsure political future has crept into our living rooms – leaving many Utah residents wary of what the future holds for the nation, as well as their families.

Quarterly economic forecasts from Zions Bank show that the list of questions and uncertainties is growing for most Americans; the confidence level across the board is dropping.

As a public opinion researcher and professional focus group moderator, I listen to people for a living. As I meet men and women around the nation and here at home, the questions are the same: How will the recession affect me? How can I afford skyrocketing health care costs? Will my children and grandchildren be able to afford a home? Will my loved ones be safe and secure?

The upcoming generation is also facing their own dilemmas: Will there be jobs for me after graduation? Should I get a degree or learn a skill? Unsure economic forecasts and understaffed school guidance counselors are only leaving our sons and daughters in more of a quandary.

And many Americans are facing literal storms as well. Wild weather across the nation has left many feeling isolated and helpless both physically and emotionally. In the Midwest, many residents are left asking themselves whether it’s more important to go inside to escape a tornado or climb a mountain to escape the flood.

Understandably, a blanket of uncertainty and fear has settled everywhere we turn, and I meet people every day looking for a leader to give them answers. People are losing faith in once trusted institutions like government and business. Unfortunately, today’s heated political environment has both sides pitted against each other in a constant struggle to undermine one another. That’s one more institution that has robbed you and me of our faith, and sadly, left many disengaged from and dissatisfied with the community.

I have dubbed these men and women “Citizens Against Virtually Everything” (C.A.V.E.). Approximately 25 percent of the population belongs to this cynical group who complain about everything rather than contributing.

Some local groups such as the United Way and the Salt Lake Chamber are offering solutions. The real solution starts with the individual. We must again be willing to contribute and invest time in each other and in the community. If you know your neighbors, you’re going to feel more secure and less alone. It’s just that simple.

The cure for our fears is within our own communities, our neighborhoods and our homes. Perhaps it’s time to renew a sense of community that has been lost with families scattered across the globe and neighbors who don’t even know each other’s names.

I have four siblings who live in Florida, Texas, Washington and Hawaii. However, that distance hasn’t deteriorated our family network, but it takes effort to maintain.

Creating a security network to help weather tough times requires us to collectively reach out to neighbors and family we don’t see often enough, and make it a priority to spend time with those physically and emotionally close to us. That’s hard in today’s world when we are all so strapped for time and resources.

When you have strong communities that take care of their children, their parents and their seniors, strong, prosperous societies follow. When those social networks break down, when people have no connection to one another, trouble starts.

More political, economic, and even literal storms will surely come. Take out your umbrella, pull together, and put more faith in us.

Zach’s Whereabouts

After finishing his legislative internship with Senator Ross Romero and Senator Scott McCoy this past session, Zachery Fountain secured his first “real world” job. He was hired as the Deputy for Legislation and Communication for the Murray City Mayor’s Office. In particular, he is excited about the opportunity to continue the work he relished during the session. Zach is appreciative of the opportunities the Hinckley Institute of Politics and the Senate Democrats have afforded him.

Zach’s new job at Murray City means the Senate Ds still have the chance to work with him. He was a terrific intern, and we wish him the best of luck going forward.

End-of-session Traditions

Stateline.org Reporter Dan Petty wrote an entertaining article entitled “When sessions end, gavels and hankies fall.” The article features end-of-session traditions (some serious, some hilarious) observed in various legislatures around the country, including the UTAH STATE SENATE. It’s clever. Enjoy!

Of Gay Marriage and Vouchers

by Senator Scott McCoy
District Two

As I read Rep. Urquhart’s response to my blog post on gay marriage in California, it became clear to me that he really has not read it very closely. Rather, he tries to scare Utahns for political gain.

Here is what he asserts: “Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage.”

What? I, nor any elected Democrat in the state of Utah, has ever tried to “force” Utahns to accept or recognize gay marriage.

In fact, in my blog, I specifically say that I won’t try, and I caution other gay and lesbian Utahns not to try to “force” gay marriage on Utah through lawsuits. I suggested rather than ram gay marriage down Utahns’ throats, we should understand Utah law and we should lead by example and live honestly. That’s not forcing anything on anyone.

This demonstrates a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Democrats don’t try and force their values on other people. Republicans with a super majority do. Rep. Urquhart raises the classic example: vouchers. He and his colleagues forced vouchers and their values on the Utah public even though Utahns overwhelmingly opposed and ultimately rejected vouchers and the anti-public education values that underlie them.

So who really is forcing things on whom?

Gay Marriages Commence in California

by Senator Scott McCoy
District Two

As of 6:01 p.m. MST yesterday, same-sex couples in California began marrying, legally, for the first time. WOO! HOO!

So what does this mean for same-sex couples in Utah? Well, when we strip away all the political rhetoric and demagoguery, really not much in the short term. Yes, some couples, including my partner Mark and I, may in the next few months head off to California to be legally married. If and when we do, we will be husband and husband under the law and in the eyes of the community in California. Of course, when we return home, opponents of marriage equality here in Utah will be quick to remind us that our marriage is only worth the paper upon which our marriage license is printed. And they will be right; for now.

We won’t sue, and frankly neither should any other Utah couple. Utah courts are not likely to lead out on marriage equality for Utah. (Nor arguably should they.) Those first legal recognition battles will be fought elsewhere in more favorable venues. But that does not mean we will sit idly by here in Utah. What we will do here in Utah is live openly and honestly as spouses. Married spouses. Yes, we will lead and convince by example. Even if the law will not formally recognize our unions, they will still be unions of the same intrinsic value as all of our opposite-sex married friends and neighbors. Our marriages will not reduce the value of all of the existing marriages in Utah. Nor will straight couples who marry in Utah after we marry in California reduce the value of our marriages. After all, this isn’t a zero-sum game with only a limited supply of marriage goodness to go around. We will love each other, care for each other, and sustain each other. I will call Mark my husband because that is precisely what he will be. He will do the same for me. At our workplaces, in our communities, in social settings, at the Legislature, in church, at the PTA meetings, at soccer practice, and at the grocery store, we will all live our lives here in Utah as married spouses. Our fellow Utahns will see that we are just like them and our marriages, when it really comes down to it, are just like theirs. Familiarity will breed acceptance.

What we will do is make change, not through lawsuits, but by being ourselves and living our lives genuinely, just as we have been doing, only now as spouses. It may take time, but we’ll get to marriage equality in Utah. I have no doubt because of two things I know to be true: No. 1, Equal is right; and No. 2, Utahns are good and fair people who understand No. 1.

The Real Story about the SB2 Lawsuit

by Senator Scott McCoy
District Two

Speaker Curtis, President Valentine, and Senator Stephenson (the “Three Amigos”) recently wrote op-ed articles or appeared on the radio criticizing a citizens’ lawsuit of which I am a participant as a plaintiff and which argues that SB 2, an omnibus bill, is unlawful in light of Article VI, Section 22, of the Utah Constitution. But their grounds for criticism are either irrelevant or miss the mark.

The Three Amigos accuse plaintiffs of “political grandstanding” in an election year. This accusation ignores the facts. The lawsuit itself is about constitutional principles, not political personalities. In any event, there are 38 plaintiffs, equally divided among Republicans, Democrats, and non-partisans. Twenty-two of these 38, well over half, are not even running for office, and another 8 are in state or local school board races which by definition are non-partisan in character. Another plaintiff, Republican Sheryl Allen, is running unopposed and, therefore, doesn’t have a political motive. Other incumbent legislators may be up for re-election, but certainly don’t need to rely on a lawsuit to get re-elected. A good example is Rep. Christine Johnson who won her election last year with more than 70 percent of the vote. As for me, I am not even up for re-election until 2010. As for their rather pathetic attempt to taint my motive with their broad accusation of “political grandstanding” based on reports that I am running for a leadership position in my caucus, filing the lawsuit is the last thing on the minds of my colleagues and will have no bearing on our leadership contest. Sadly, they know this to be true, but having no other way to accuse me of being politically motivated, would rather try and mislead the public by leaving a false impression.  Not to mention essentially accusing me as an attorney of violating professional ethics and the rules of civil procedure by arguing that I allowed a frivolous lawsuit to be filed not for valid legal reasons but purely to score a “cheap political victory.”  I do not file lawsuits for political reasons.  I may be a politician and have a political role to play, but I still abide by my ethical obligations and duties as a member of the Bar.

If the Three Amigos are threatened politically by this constitutional challenge, I respectfully submit that this is a projection of their own guilty consciences and insecurities over their chosen methods, and not a reflection of the plaintiffs’ motives. What exactly are they afraid of anyway? From where does their anxiety spring? Could it be from a fear that their management techniques and methods will be found to be suspect and improper? Their public relations attack on my and the plaintiffs’ motives reveals that perhaps the lawsuit isn’t “frivolous” as they blithely assert.

The ultimate antidote for their anxiety, really, is to read the Utah Constitution which, among other sound principles, provides that the people are masters who elect representatives and senators as servants, and that, when those representatives and senators exceed the scope of their constitutionally delegated agency or otherwise misbehave, then, like all servants, they may be brought to account under our system of checks and balances via judicial review of their actions in light of the Utah Constitution. Legislative leaders who have lost their way and forgotten their place may call this “grandstanding,” but the plaintiffs, as garden variety Americans and ordinary citizens, affirm that it is nothing more than holding their duly elected servants constitutionally accountable through constitutionally prescribed means. This lawsuit will be played out in the courts and ultimately decided by the judiciary, not the court of public opinion. As such, the Three Amigos should concentrate more on the legal arguments and justifications for their legislative tactics and a little less on election-year hand-wringing.

Putting aside their irrelevant ad hominen attack on the motives of plaintiffs, the Three Amigos argue that SB 2 was passed by a majority of both houses of the state legislature, that plaintiffs’ sour grapes to the contrary notwithstanding, the majority rules, and that, although passage of the omnibus bill was a bit messy, the end product was good for public education. And, moreover, since SB 2 was all about education, how can it offend the “single subject” language of Article VI, Section 22, of Utah’s Constitution?

Here, again, however, the Three Amigos miss the mark while at the same time demonstrating their unfamiliarity with fundamental constitutional principles. Article VI, Section 22, of Utah’s constitution, the so-called “single subject” and “clear title” provision, is one of several limitations on legislative power which was designed as a prophylactic against well-known parliamentary vices. One of those vices occurs when two bills, neither of which, standing alone, can obtain majority approval on individual merit, are bundled so that two minorities collude illicitly to obtain majority passage of the combined bills. When bills are combined in this fashion, legislators fear that, unless they vote for the “bad bill,” there will be no reciprocity and they might lose the fight for a “good bill.” This fear breeds artificial majorities, and legislation that is the product of maneuver and extortion, rather than sound policy-making. This is exactly what happened with SB 2. Almost all of the 14 bills that ultimately became SB 2 were introduced, reviewed, debated, and voted upon as single subjects. The bills were related loosely to the “subject” of “education,” but, as “single subject” measures in their own right, they bore little or no relationship to each other. Several of the bills actually were defeated by majority vote in the House or failed to obtain committee approval in the House or Senate. All ultimately were rolled into one bill, SB 2, together with vital appropriations measures, raising concern that, but for the combination of popular bills and money measures, these previously defeated bills would not have passed. This is precisely the process that Article VI, Section 22, was designed to prevent. And it is deeply disturbing that elected officials, especially those who call themselves leaders, have no understanding (let alone reverence) for these basic constitutional principles.

But why all this fuss about constitutional procedure? Wasn’t the end-product good after all? The Three Amigos give us a long tally of dollars and cents in salary raises and budget increases. But we should pause in the midst of their self-congratulation. Good laws are the product of good lawmaking, and that translates, in large measure, to constitutionally prescribed lawmaking. Most of us know from painful experience that ends do not justify means, and, indeed, that means often are integral to the merit of any given outcome.  For example, if you ran a bill that had an abortion provision and a tax provision and I tried to amend out the abortion provision and we debated the bill for hours on end in the first week of the session and my amendment failed and the bill then passed both houses and the governor signed it, according to your argument, the bill would not be unconstitutional. Wrong. It would still violate the single subject rule of the Utah Constitution. Presumably the Three Amigos would think a suit challenging its constitutionality would be “political” when in fact it would be an easy win under the single subject rule even under their limited understanding and narrow interpretation of the constitutional provision.  It is not whether you get a majority to vote for a bill, therefore, but whether that majority is obtained fairly, openly, and honestly – and, most important, within constitutionally prescribed bounds – that matters. And while the Three Amigos are quantifying their “achievements” — for real estate developers or pre-school software vendors — in dollars and cents – would they take equal care in counting the costs of infidelity to constitutional principle?

Finally, I offer the untold story on the question of resolving this dispute.  The Three Amigos chide the plaintiffs for declining to meet for the purpose of seeking a compromise. This is eyewash.

Representatives of plaintiff, not only met with Curtis and majority leader Clark, but met more than once, and even offered to meet a third time, but were rebuffed by the Speaker who couldn’t find room on his calendar that week to do it. On the two occasions when meetings were held, the Speaker gave no hint that he would yield in order to talk about a compromise.  Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs once again may be forgiven for doubting the sincerity of the Speaker’s invitation to “reason together,” and this doubt, not unnaturally, has grown after reading his misleading accusation in his op-ed about the plaintiffs’ so-called refusal to meet and talk with him before filing the complaint.

If the Three Amigos want to find a compromise, and if they believe they have any influence in achieving that goal, then the filing of a lawsuit is no impediment in this regard.  Normal, competent people settle lawsuits all the time. Our door is open; all they has to do is walk through it.

Finally, prior to filing the complaint, representatives of plaintiffs did meet with Governor Huntsman about their intentions in order to search for solutions. The Governor immediately found time on his calendar to meet and talked frankly and intelligently about the pros and cons of a special session to remedy the problems created by SB 2. Plaintiffs sought the meeting with the Governor, of course, because he is empowered under the Utah State Constitution to call a special session, the one obvious solution (for those who sincerely want to talk about a solution) to treat this issue. Why then did the Three Amigos chide plaintiffs for failing to meet with them about a solution and fail to mention plaintiffs’ meeting with the Governor on this score? Perhaps they forgot about the other two co-equal branches of government set up by the constitution.

As for other specific “arguments,” the number of pages doesn’t necessarily have an impact on whether a bill violates the constitution, so the Three Amigos’ reference to page numbers is simply silly. As to their argument that I and others tried to amend the bill and failed, again this is not the key to determining constitutionality as discussed above.  As to the argument that fiscal note bills are held until the end of the session, while some may be held, they don’t have to be, and certain of the education bills weren’t nor was the voucher bill.  Even if the rule/practice says that fiscal note bills should be held, the Three Amigos know well that the rules are suspended all the time.  Their reliance on this argument is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst.

What to do with those “extra” tickets this summer…

by Senator Ross Romero
District 7

During the last Legislative Session, I and Senator Hickman were asked to speak to a gathering of Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Utah (BBBSU) who were enjoying a field trip at the Utah State Capitol. Senator Hickman and I shared with the group how we became involved in public service, some of our goals, and why we thought service was important. During this brief interaction with the group, I was impressed with how committed the Bigs were to their Littles and the bonds that were developed through these relationships. I saw first hand how important this mentoring relationship is in helping the youth in our community have a role model to look up to. Some important information about the Littles includes:

82% of children served in Utah are from families without two parents (single, parent, grandparent, or other guardian-led homes).

82% are from low-income homes.

52% are minorities.

BBBSU will provide Bigs to almost 1,700 children in need throughout the state of Utah.

A recent study conducted by a national research firm Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) examined the impact of the BBBSU program on youth and found that when compared to their peers, Little Brothers and Little Sisters who met with their Big Brothers or Sisters for at least one year were:

46% less likely to start using drugs.

27% less likely to start drinking.

33% less likely to act violently.

52% less likely to skip a day of school, and earned higher grades.

Recently I learned I was the highest bidder of four 10th-row tickets to the sold out Stadium of Fire 4th of July Concert with Miley Cyrus. As much as I like the idea of going to the show to heckle Glenn Beck (the host of the event), I thought some Littles might appreciate the concert opportunity more than myself. I therefore contacted BBBSU and have donated the four tickets so some Littles might see their “superstar” peer. I hope this donation idea might catch on with others who have tickets this summer which conflict with travel plans and which might therefore be donated to BBBSU.

If you have any interest in learning more about BBBSU, please review their website at: www.bbbsu.org. If you have “extra” tickets of your own you would like to donate this summer, please contact Kim Sharples at 801-313-0303, Ext. 135, or if you’d like to make another kind of donation, please contact Merridith Ferne at 801-313-0303 Ext. 124 or email her at merridith.ferne@bbbs.org.

A Deserving Father of the Year

by Senator Ross Romero
District 7

Tonight the American Diabetes Association, through its Utah Chapter, will recognize and honor Senator Ed Mayne as a 2008 Father of the Year. While I did not know Senator Mayne as well as many (having served only 2 years with him in the Senate), I was deeply touched by his family’s openness and love which was evident during the funeral services. It was during these services I came to learn more about Senator Mayne, the husband and father. My respect and admiration for Senator Mayne, the father, grew as I heard from his children during the services as I saw how much they cared for him as a father and how well he had helped guide them to where they are. Similarly, having had the opportunity to serve with Senator Karen Mayne, I have come to see and hear in her the strength and support laid by the foundation and service of the late Senator Mayne. It is therefore truly befitting that the American Diabetes Association is recognizing Senator Mayne as a Father of the Year.

As we approach Father’s Day in a little over a week, it is my hope that we will not only honor our fathers but encourage their good health and exercise. The American Diabetes Association’s website www.diabetes.org offers a lot of important information about diabetes prevention and nutritional recommendations. Some of the recommendations include eating fish 2-3 times a week, drinking water and diet drinks, moderating portion sizes, taking the stairs and not the elevator, taking brisk walks, and reading food labels so you can measure what you are eating. Encouraging our father’s to think about their health through exercise and good health may be the best gift you can give and one that will ultimately be more appreciated than the tie that is returned because it was not the “correct size.”

Again, congratulations to the Mayne family for Ed’s recognition, and thank you for supporting him as he served to benefit all of Utah’s families. I would also like to thank the American Diabetes Association not only for its excellent award selection but for reminding us about the importance of good health.