Here's an idea, let the parents decide!

Rep. Laura Black (D) of Sandy is sponsoring a bill (HB 242) that would change the date of the cutoff for Kindergarten from September to be in July. In a Salt Lake Tribune article (see here) about the bill, Rep. Black is quoted as saying, "It doesn't sound like very much when you're an adult, but two months in the life of a child can be huge in terms of what their development is."

I've got a better idea, let the parents of the child decide if their child is ready for Kindergarten. My wife and I have done this for everyone of our children. Our oldest child, whose birthday is in June, could have started Kindergarten the year he turned five. My wife and I decided he was not ready for Kindergarten that year and waited a year before enrolling him in Kindergarten. Do parents really need the government to tell them that their child is or isn't ready for Kindergarten?

Representative Roger Barrus wants our opinion

I received a mailer last week from my Representative, Roger Barrus. On the mailer he said that he wanted the opinion of his constituents. You can help give him your opinion by taking his survey at his website at http://www.rogerbarrus.com/involved.htm. The current survey will close next Monday, so go make your opinion known.

Robo-calls are annoying!

I want to preface this by saying that I'm a non-smoker. Nobody in my immediate family smokes. I would like to know if anybody else found the recent robo-call about additional taxes on cigarettes annoying? The robo-call has Dick Nourse saying that Utah residents, even non-smokers, pay a price for smoking. It then tries to get you to contact your legislator supporting a $2 per pack tax. I was glad when election day had come and gone because I thought it meant no more annoying political calls.

I may support higher taxes on cigarettes, however, a robo-call asking me to support it sours me on the idea.

A Meeting With Dan Liljenquist

Tonight I attended a "Meet the Candidate" event at Woods Cross City Hall for Dan Liljenquist who is one of the Republican candidates running for Utah State Senate District 23. I must admit that I was impressed with what he had to say. I didn't agree with his position on everything, however, I felt like his position on several items matched my feelings.

He was asked how the state can make sure the money that is given to education actually makes it to the classroom. He said that he would like to see a push for mandatory audits of money that is given to the school districts. He stated that it is possible that the money is being used for legitimate needs, but, the problem is that we just don't know where the money is going.

He also feels that campaign contributions should be used only for campaign purposes. I previously posted that I felt Mr. Liljenquist would not likely vote for ethics reform. I'd like to reverse that position at this time. I no longer feel like Dan Liljenquist is trying to buy a seat in the Utah State Senate. After hearing his thoughts on ethics in the State Senate, I feel that Mr. Liljenquist will be a positive influence for ethics changes. He stated that he feels the Senate should open their caucuses the same way that the Republicans in the Utah House of Representatives have.

Dan also said things about government being local first that really resonated with me. At the meeting tonight, I stated that Ron Mortensen's group, Citizens for Tax Fairness, was publicly opposed to the South Davis Recreation Center. I then asked Dan what his position is on cities coming together to spend tax dollars on things such as the South Davis Recreation Center. He said that he felt like his opinion on that doesn't matter because he doesn't feel that is a state issue. He feels like the state shouldn't be telling cities that they can or cannot come together on things like that. He said it's a city issue and the decision should be made by the city council. He likened the things that the state legislature, county commissions, and city councils, should be doing are like firing lanes. It's when the legislature starts crossing those firing lanes that it messes things up. He said that the sovereignty that states enjoy should be passed on to the cities as well.

All in all, I was very impressed with what Dan Liljenquist had to say. Based on that and the fact that I haven't heard any response at all from Ron Mortensen in regards to my e-mailed questions, I will be voting for Dan in the Republican Primary election.

Still No Answers

I still haven't received answers to my questions from the candidates for Senate District 23 race. I did hear back from both Dan Liljenquist and Richard Watson. They both said that they were (understandably) busy, but, that they would put answers together and get them to me.

They at least were responsive enough to get back with me and let me know that they had received the e-mail and were working on answers. For me, that goes a long way in saying what kind of a representative they would be in the Utah Senate.

Questions for State Senate District 23 Candidates

The Utah State Senate District 23 race has four candidates right now, two Republican candidates who will face off in a June 24th primary, a Democratic candidate and a Constitution Party candidate. I have compiled a list of 13 questions that I have e-mailed to these four candidates. I will post any responses that they permit me to post.

Yesterday, May 23 2008, I e-mailed these 13 questions to:

Constitution - Jorgina Hancock - jorginah@wwdb.org
Republican - Dan Liljenquist - danliljenquist@yahoo.com
Republican - Ronald Mortensen - protectfamilies@gmail.com
Democratic - Richard Watson - rjwatson@xmission.com

These e-mail addresses were taken from the Lieutenant Governor's website at:
http://www.elections.utah.gov/2008Candidates.htm

1) Do you support or oppose cities coming together to create certain entities such as the South Davis Recreation District, South Davis Metro Fire District, United Fire Authority, etc.? Why?

2) As a state senator, would you vote to make it more or less difficult for cities to create such entities as those listed above?

3) What are your feelings about the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency, better known as UTOPIA? What about other similar entities?

4) In the 2008 legislative session, Representative Brad Daw sponsored a bill (HB139, http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/hbillint/hb0139.htm) that would have placed certain restrictions on anyone providing wireless internet access. Pete Ashdown, owner of Xmission, has publicly opposed this type of legislation and has said that he will shut down the free wireless provided by Xmission in downtown Salt Lake City if such legislation passes. (see http://peteashdown.org/journal/2008/01/24/the-end-of-free-xmission-wireless/) Would you support or oppose this type of legislation? Why?

5) In the 2008 legislative session, Senator Dan Eastman sponsored a bill (SB46 http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillenr/sb0046.htm) that limits the decisions that the government of a municipality in Utah can make in regards to it's municipal waste. Do you feel such decisions are rightly made by the Utah Legislature, or the government of the municipality? Why?

6) What are your feelings about "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB)?

7) What are your feelings about the federal government mandating states to follow certain criteria, such as they did with NCLB? What about the Utah Legislature mandating cities to follow certain criteria such as has been done with entities like UTOPIA?

8) What are your feelings about charter schools?

9) Are there any changes that you would like to see made in relation to charter schools?

10) Do you support school vouchers?

11) What are your reasons for running for State Senate?

12) What do you see as the biggest issue facing our state? What would you, as a state senator, do about it?

13) What makes you the best candidate? In other words, why should someone vote for you over one of the other candidates for this seat?

Urquhart, Quit Taking From Cities

Representative Steve Urquhart says in a recent post, (see here) "I want to go on record now, to state that Utah should not bail out cities for the huge indebtedness they will incur because of their involvement with UTOPIA."

I personally find this offensive because when I was on the Woods Cross City Council, it seemed that Utah always tried to reduce the amount of money that cities received from the state. The amount of Class C road funds that went to cities was reduced while the state attempted to turn over maintenance of many state roads to the cities.

Almost every legislative session during my term as a City Council member, it appeared that the state legislature attempted to balance their budgets on the backs of the cities and towns of this state.

So my message to Representative Urquhart is while it is fine to say that the state shouldn't bail out cities for what you perceive as bad judgment, take a look in the mirror and make sure that you are not looking to be bailed out by the cities for what they may perceive as your bad judgment.

Representative Urquhart is flat out wrong in his post when he says that UTOPIAs "product is inferior to the competition." This says to me that he obviously hasn't done his homework on the issue. If he hasn't studied it enough to know that the product is not inferior to the competition, what else is he missing about the issue? As for many other comments in Representative Urquhart's post, I find a response by Jesse Harris (see here) addresses those much better than I can.

Disconnect

In the past I've had thoughts about a disconnect that may exist between upper management and the techies in the trenches. I have seen signs of this disconnect in my current employment as well as in previous places of employment. Let me give an example that may show how this disconnect exhibits itself.

Let's say that a company pays for several managers and techies in the trenches to attend training on Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ITIL is a set of concepts and techniques for managing information technology infrastructure. (See more about ITIL at this link.) I could see upper management attending this training and focusing on all the things that their company is doing right. I could also see the techies in the trenches attending this training and focusing on all the things that their company is doing wrong. Now the managers come away from the training thinking that their company is doing well. The techies in the trenches come away from the training thinking that things would be so much better at their company if they changed the way they did things. This is one of the signs of a disconnect between upper management and the techies in the trenches.

I'm convinced there is also a similar disconnect between the majority of citizens and their elected officials. Time and time again, you hear about how ethics reform is needed in our Utah State Legislature. (See this editorial from Monday's Deseret News.) Previous studies have shown that a majority of Utah citizens favor such legislation, but, the legislation never sees the light of day in the legislative session. There are other issues where there seems to be a disconnect between citizens and the state legislature.

This type of disconnect is extremely difficult to overcome in the corporate world. It appears to me it's even more difficult if not impossible to overcome in the political world.

Knowing Me May be a Disadvantage

The two people that I know personally who were running for the State Senate District 23 position, Lamont Peterson and Kent Parry, were eliminated at the Republican nominating convention held Saturday. The two Republican candidates who will face off in the primary are Ron Mortensen and Dan Liljenquist. I've mentioned in a previous post why it will be hard for me to support Dan Liljenquist. I'm fairly sure I don't want Ron Mortensen as my representative in the State Senate. Maybe it's time for me to investigate where Richard Watson, the Democrat, stands on the issues that are important to me. I hope we would all do that, find a candidate that matches your position on the issues that are most important to you and then vote for that candidate. Unfortunately, in Davis County, it appears that most people find a candidate that matches their political party and then vote for them regardless of where they stand on the issues.

Mayor Parry Files for State Senate Seat

Woods Cross Mayor, Kent Parry, has filed to run for the Utah State Senate representing my district, District 23. You can see a list of all those who have filed at http://www.elections.utah.gov/2008Candidates.htm.

Interestingly enough, I personally know one of the other Republican candidates for State Senate District 23. Lamont Peterson and I used to work together at Guru Labs. Lamont, as far as I know, has never run for public office before.

As of the time of this posting, there are six Republican candidates for this seat and Dan Eastman has not filed to run for re-election.

Update: Eight Republican candidates filed to run for the State Senate District 23 seat. Dan Eastman did not file for re-election.

Times Up!

The Utah Legislative Session ended at midnight last night. Our state legislators passed about 400 bills and a bunch of resolutions. (see here) This session, as with most sessions, was a lot like a roller coaster ride. Lots of twists and turns, up and downs, and an abrupt stop at the end.

Adoptees Lose Again

The Utah House of Representatives voted down HB289 today. I have posted some of my feelings on this bill before. I want to make it clear that this bill will not affect me at all as I have already found out identifying information regarding my birth parents. I listened to the floor debate regarding this bill. The vote was close with 35 representatives voting for the bill and 36 representatives voting against the bill. During the floor debate, Representative McGee noted that the position of LDS Family Services was against this bill. I found it very interesting that Representative McGee would point this out and I'm sure that this had an affect on this bill failing. Representative Janice Fisher spoke in opposition to the bill saying it would be devastating to have someone knock on the door 30 years after making "the terrible decision" to "give up" a child. This speaks volumes to me as it shows that Representative Fisher has not been involved in a adoption case because if she had, she would not have used the terms that she did. Several representatives spoke in favor of the bill pointing out that adoptees have the innate desire to know what the circumstances are surrounding their birth. I would like to publicly thank my representative, Representative Barrus, for voting for this bill.

I'd like to express some additional feelings about adoption and about this bill. There are many reasons why adoptees want to know who their birth-parents are. Some of them are for health history. Others are just wanting to know what the circumstances were surrounding their birth. I love my parents. They are the ones who raised me. They are the ones who taught me the things that I know today. Nothing could change the way I feel about them. Having said that, there were still some questions that they couldn't answer. They couldn't tell me if certain health issues were in my genes. They couldn't tell me why I was placed for adoption. These are questions that I wanted answers to. The only way these questions could be answered was by contacting my birth-family. I believe that any adoptee would have told their state representative to vote for this bill.

Where's the backlash?

It's President's Day, and I haven't read a single article about how the Utah State Legislature should not be meeting today. When the legislative session began on 21 Jan 2008, there were several articles about people saying that the legislature shouldn't meet on Martin Luther King Day. So where is the same clamor for not meeting on President's Day? Was MLK really better than George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and others?

Here comes 80 MPH?

HB406 is making it's way through the legislative process. This bill would allow the Utah Department of Transportation to increase speed limits above 75 MPH in certain circumstances. I can think of some great candidate areas on the interstates in Utah. The drive on I-80 west of Tooele would be a great place to increase the speed limit. I think this bill has some well thought out scenarios which would make raising the speed limit acceptable.

Trasparency in Government Finance Passes Senate

The Utah State Senate passed SB038, Transparency in Government Finance, today. The bill now moves on to the House for consideration. Interestingly enough, my senator, Dan Eastman, voted against this bill. I previously sent him an e-mail asking him to support this bill. Is Senator Eastman against transparency in Government Finance or does he have some great insight as to why this bill is a bad idea? I've sent him an e-mail to ask why he voted against it. If he actually does reply to a constituent, I'll post his reply here.

Update: Be sure to read Senator Eastman's comment posted to this blog.

There's still hope

There is a bill that has been introduced in the Senate, SB38, that would require cities to post financial information to their website. If you've read my previous posts, you'll know that I'm a big proponent of Woods Cross posting the annual budget on the website. This would be a huge benefit for the citizens and would require very little on the part of Woods Cross City. This seems like a no-brainer to me. The bill is titled "Transparency in Government Finance" and it would seem to me that cities that don't post their budget information on their website, don't want that transparency.

Contact your State Senator and urge them to vote for Senate Bill 38.

HB289 won't increase abortions

Utah State Representative Kenneth Sumsion is sponsoring a bill, HB289, (see here) this legislative session that deals with allowing adoptees to be able to legally find their birth parents after the adoptee is 30 years old. There are those who claim this would lead to more abortions. I disagree. Statistics show that access to original birth information does not cause higher abortion rates, nor does it lower adoption rates. The states with access to open adoption records, Alaska and Kansas, have lower abortion rates (14.6/1000; 18.9/1000 respectively for women age 15-44) compared to the national rate of 22.9 (source: Alan Guttmacher Institute). HB289 also includes several safe guards, including, the adoptee must petition a court to begin the process; the court, after making several findings, apoints a confidential intermediary; the adoptee must pay the costs for the intermediary; and the birth parent can say no to the request.

I think it is interesting that in most cases of adoption, people lobby for "do what is best for the child" until the "child" is an adult. Then it quickly turns to "we must protect the privacy of the birth parent."

I believe that those who are against this bill fall into one of the following categories. They are a birth parent who hasn't been honest with their spouse about what happened in the past, they are somebody who has not been involved with a adoption case at all, or they are a adoptive parent that hasn't told their child that they were adopted.

I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an adoptee (like me). How many times have you gone to the doctor for some ailment and he asks, "Does (fill in ailment) run in your family?" To which you must respond, "I don't know, I'm adopted." Maybe you take your child to the doctor for some ailment, and they same thing happens. These are situations that adult adoptees deal with on a regular basis. Do you know your full health history? I don't. Do you know what your mother was doing when she went into labor? I don't. Do you know why you like certain foods? I don't. Do you know if twins are in your genes? I don't.

Passing HB289 makes sense.

Do traffic ticket quotas exist?

I just read a Salt Lake Tribune article (see here) about HB264 (see here) that would ban quotas for traffic citations. If you've read my previous post, you may think that this is a perfect example of the state legislature meddling in local affairs. This is different, however, because the state already limits the power that local police chiefs have.

Why all the fuss over the "Prohibition of Citation Quotas?" I believe the biggest reason for the fuss is that cities don't want to lose out on the ability to increase their funding through quotas. Anyone who has been on a City Council will tell you that fines and forfeitures is a part of the General Fund budget. Is it a big portion? Not relative to sales tax, however, it is a portion that would have to be made up elsewhere if it declined drastically. I saw this happen on a couple of occasions when I was on the Woods Cross City Council. We would see in our budget reports that fines and forfeitures were not keeping up with previous years. Invariably our Budget Officer would point this out and make a comment similar to "I've talked with the Chief about this." So what is a police chief to do when this happens? I suspect he puts pressure on the officers to write more tickets. How does he put pressure on the officers? That is a good question, but, I would guess that it involves a quota in some fashion. Do official quotas exist in all Utah cities? I'd bet not. Do un-official quotas exist in most Utah cities? I'll bet they do.

And they're off...

The Utah State Legislature is in session now. This causes me to reflect on a few things. I've posted previously about the Legislature's reluctance to pass bills that concern their ethics. (see here, here, and here.) It looks like this year will be no different in that regard.

Another thing that I've been thinking about has to do with UTOPIA in particular, but, in the way the Legislature acts in general. Our state legislators constantly complain when the Federal Government forces them to do things in a certain way. They don't seem to have a problem, however, doing the same thing to local City Councils. This is just as frustrating for the City Councils as it is for the State Legislature when they get it from the Federal Government. Two bills that currently strike me as acting this way are HB75 (here) and HB76 (here). It will be interesting to watch not only these two bills, but, also other bills that limit the control that our State Legislators allow local elected officials to have.

Force lawmakers to write a report

I just read through HB322 which would force High School students to write a report about a teen who was killed in a car accident before they could get their drivers license. I think it would be a good idea to force all lawmakers to write a ten page report about why so-called "message bills" are bad, before they are allowed to submit a bill.
Now I have had loved ones die in car accidents. I've even had a loved one who was a teenager die in a car accident. I still don't think that making a law that forces a student to write a report is a good idea. Scaring a child into the proper behavior is not a good way to encourage proper behavior. Maybe in Rep. Tilton's mind, scaring someone into acting the way they should is the right way to do it. I don't believe it is.
So who wants to put forth a bill for me that makes lawmakers write a report?