The Legislature has had merit pay and “accountability” for Utah teachers on its radar for a while, now.  And this year, they were able to push the issue farther than they ever have. 

 The State Board of Education has adopted a new set of rules to implement merit-based pay raises for the current fiscal year to dole out the $20M the Legislature approved late in the session under pressure from Utah voters.  The Board has also created a task force (yes, another one of those!) to study creating state-wide criteria for merit-based pay.

 Meanwhile, back at the ranch…the Legislature has also created a task force (well…they are studying it in interim) to create “performance-based” criteria for teacher compensation. 

 So the story here is that the school districts are working up a plan, the Board has worked up a temporary set of criteria, and now the Legislature is setting about to create their own standards for teacher pay.  The Board and districts have asked the Education Interim Committee to let them participate in their discussions, but my guess is that the GOP members on the Hill have their own rigid ideas of how teacher pay should work to create “accountability.”

 Frankly, it sounds like a solution looking for a problem, and a ship with many captains but the deckmate is at the wheel.

I am pleased to announce that Jeffrey Mathis has signed on to serve as my Campaign Manager.  Jeff brings a wealth of campaign and political experience, having run campaigns for Jenny Wilson, Scott McCoy and the opposition to school vouchers. 

Jeff is a rising superstar in the party, and a good friend, and I am grateful to him for lending his talents, time and energy to my campaign.  Jeff can be reached for all campaign inquiries at (801) 557-0823.

Welcome and thanks Jeff!

I think I would have to agree with those who think David Brooks is on to something here.  It would be interesting to look at the Presidential Primary votes around Utah to see if the socioeconomic and educational correlations Brooks argues hold up here. 

 I talked to Jason Yocom at the County Clerk’s Office and he said the data for the county would be available following the canvas on Tuesday.  I’ll post the data for your perusal and anaylsis.  Comments relative to the Brooks article would be great and spark an interesting debate.

Ok…so the first draft of the title of this post was, “ding, dong romney is gone!”  However, after a quick second thought, it occured to me that the title was not really in harmony with the spirit of this blog.  But it was sure tempting to just write the title that was the initial impetus of this post! 

 With Romney out of the presidential race, that leaves McCain and Huckabee as the only two potentially viable candidates left to head the ticket for Republicans in November.  This likely bodes well for Utah Democrats because more Pubs will probably stay home.  General elections tend to bring out more voters, which will no doubt be true this year given the huge crowds of primary voters thus far.  But as a proportion of the voting electorate, I will predict that the Republican turnout will be far lower than it might have otherwise been if Romney topped the ticket.

 Now Democrats, we aren’t out of the woods just yet.  If Hillary Clinton tops the ticket for the Dems, I predict there will be a groundswell of Republicans (certainly the ones in my family) who will turnout in droves just to vote against her.  I am an ardent Hillary supporter and have endured the flack from my family and friends (even my dem friends who say Obama is the only choice for young people).  So I think that offers me the street cred to say that Hillary would be bad for Utah Democrats down the ticket.  She stirs the Republican ire in the same way that Rocky Anderson and Hillary’s husband before her did.  It gives the Utah GOP something to label as with that resonates with mainstream Utahns and diverts them away from Utah Dems on the ballot.

I, for one, was looking forward to the days of Becker and Corroon (and Matheson and other Utah Dems) putting a solid, credible, and honest face on the Utah Democratic Party, one that would satisfy the particular palate of mainstream Utahns. 

 So bring on McCain, and if it can’t be Hillary, then Barack will do just fine…and let’s take the Salt Lake County Council and break the supermajority in the Legislature…We can do it! (Rosie the riveter for Hillary)   Yes, we can! (for Barack).

Yesterday was a banner day for Democrats, and we didn’t even know it! 

A prominent Utah County Republican testified on Capitol Hill this week against HB239 which would revoke all driving privilege cards at the end of 2008, arguing that the practical effect of the law would be a significant increase in the number of drivers on Utah streets without auto insurance.  His arguments were not based on sympathy for undocumented immigrants, but rather a relatively dry analysis of uninsured motorists.  He was nonetheless accosted after his testimony by a man whom accused the Republican of being a “sympathizer” and called him an expletive in the process.  The GOP official told him that he was not interested in continuing a dialogue, but was again confronted by the man several minutes later and questioned about whether he belonged to a radical latin american terrorist group. 

The Republican said yesterday that he finally knew what it was like to be a Democrat!  To which we responded, “welcome to the fight, brother!”

What was perhaps most striking to this GOP faithful, however, was that the only members of the House committee that voted the way he was advocating were Democrats.  His reaction was genuine disappointment tinged with real, registerable surprise.  It has always impressed me to see the look on a person’s face when reality sinks in, like a truth revealing itself from behind an opaque curtain for the first time.  But this time was a little more special, particularly sweet.

I think it is interesting to note that the coalition of proponents of this legislation include some pretty rabid folks.  You need only read the comments on the KSL webpage for the story about the LDS Church encouraging compassion in addressing illegal immigraton issues to understand my “rabid” point.  Take this comment, for example “Oh please, like the term ‘compassion for illegal immigrants’ is going to be interpreted like that - how stupid do you think the general public is? Everyone knows that ‘compassion’ simply equates to ‘leniency’ which equates to all of them staying right here and everything being just as screwed up as it is right now. GET REAL. “  And this comment, “Twenty years ago the First Presidency encouraged foreign born saints to ’stay home’ and strengthen the Church in their home countries…By default the LDS Church is fostering the need for HONEST taxpayers to fork out over $80 million a year for educating the children of these people in Utah alone. And though they are likely only thinking of the ‘GOOD’ people who come here, the ‘CRAP’ that comes along and commits 75% of all violent and drug crime in Utah is PART of what they are fostering with such positions. THAT is NOT Compassion, it is misguided and wrong.   The best compassion we can direct toward those who come here illegally is to help them get home and for the Church to work within the LAW, government and private agencies to assist these people in creating the BETTER LIFE they seek here, IN THEIR OWN LANDS!”

Mainstream Utahns generally exercise compassion and tolerance in their lives, and have demonstrated their preference for that brand of politics when the antithesis is clearly defined as the alternative.  The problem is that most Utahns are like the Republican I have been discussing, they just don’t know what is going on- they trust that their leaders are doing the right thing and representing their interests and wishes on Capitol Hill.  Unfortunately, time and again, the majority in the Legislature has demonstrated that it acts contrary to overwhelming public support on policy agendas (vouchers, guns in churches and schools, water fluoridation, and public education funding…to name a few), but their intolerance and shenaniginery (I think I just made that word up) somehow manages to fly under the rader and most Utahns are unaware that the majority is acting contrary to mainstream Utah values.

I wish with all my heart that everyday Utahns had the kind of experience that my Republican friend did, and remembered that experience come November when real choices need to be made.  Running latinos and other non-conforming Utahns out of the state is simply not acceptable.  The land of Zion is vast…and so is the Utah Democratic party…so welcome, Lee– you can always call us “home.”

Alright…so I have to admit that I absolutely LOVE the writers strike…for no other reason than politics and reality television have taken a front seat in primetime.  Well, actually, when I refer to reality TV I mean, political reality!  We are watching a true drama unfold daily as the presidential primary works the nominating process for each party.  Perhaps it was the perfect storm for the writers to strike and these candidates to step forward in a time when all of the world’s eyes are fixed on tossing America’s current President for someone (but not just anyone) better.  No, Americans want to be sure this time that they don’t elect another buffoon to the White House, and we have certainly learned a lesson or two about apathy.  Just look at the huge voter turnouts so far, particularly among Democrats (”never again,” they say!). 

But that’s not exactly what I want to talk about today, or what I would like to elicit a dialogue about in the coming days leading up to the Feb 5 primaries.  No, I want to talk about what I call a ‘marketplace of ideas.’  I got to thinking about this the other day when the Clinton team pounced on the Obama camp for his remarks about Ronald Reagan’s presidency. 

Now, I should admit two things: first, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and second, I am a moderate democrat, so I don’t demonize Reagan with quite the same fervor as many of my colleagues have.  And one final thing to add, that I think Barack Obama should admit, is that he was not just stating that Reagan had ideas, he was making the point that Reagan inspired people with his ideas and changed the course of government/politics in much the same way that Obama hopes to serve as President (but with ‘other’ ideas).

That said, I think the Clinton campaign went too far in their assertion that Obama was endorsing Reaganomics or Republican policies of the 80’s.  Moreover, I think its a sad, sad day in politics when we lambaste a party member for endorsing or supporting the ideas of another party for the sole reason that they were the ideas of the other party.  That truly is partisan politics.  In Obama’s Reagan snippet, he did not discuss or detail which Republican ideas he was referring to, and the Clinton campaign chose to pull out those ideas that they know will rally the Democratic base, not because they were bad ideas, but because Democrats think they were bad ideas.  And that is a distinction with a big difference. 

I am not arguing that trickle-down economics is good public policy, or that it was good public policy at the time.   What I am arguing is that, as an idea, it exists in the marketplace of ideas about how government should be run.  And because it resides in the marketplace, it is not owned (or should not be owned) by any one party as a monopoly.  For some reason, the marketplace notion seems to be passe; or maybe even too futuristic, like we’re not there yet– we’re not yet at a point where we can evaluate an idea on its merit rather than its motives or ownership. 

The fact is, economic policy is incredibly complex and nuanced.  It changes substantially based on incremental differences and minute changes in the economic environment.  So in the 80’s trickle-down may be a bad idea, but in 2020 it may be the goose that lays the golden egg. 

Bogging ideas down in a partisan mire does not serve electorate who are trying to make a presidential decision, and only distracts real debate amongst the candidate on the issues.  This partisan bickering would almost be stomachable if it only happened during campaigns where it has little paractical effect, but it doesn’t. 

Often, our elected officials fail to stroll in the milleau of ideas, and rather choose to stay close to home and brainstorm/analyze the ideas of their party and coalition colleagues.  These conversations go something like this:

Democrat:  “Uh-oh, the Republicans are running another voucher bill.”

Other democrat:  “Oh no, how do we defeat it this time.”

**********

Republican: “Ugh, not another GLBT bill…don’t the Democrats get it? We’re not passing those!”

Other republican: “Well, we’ll just have to kill this one in committee, too.”

Instead of actually addressing the specifics of the antidiscrimination bill or targeted tax credits, each plays her/his part in the group think and condemns it as bad because of where the idea came from.  It is not uncommon for a bill to be defeated one session, only to be revived in the exact same form the next session, sponsored by the other party and passed. 

This is a dysfunctional way to run a government, and I was a bit disappointed to see Hillary engage in undercutting the marketplace for a cheap campaign play.  Afterall, wasn’t it President Clinton who embraced NAFTA and welfare reform (Republican ideas)?

Gordon B.; President Hinckley; and, our prophet.  Gordon B. Hinckley has been called by many names since being called as the President and prophet of the LDS church.  But true to his endearing character, I think we all felt like we knew him a little, and so “President” wasn’t used quite as it had been in the past.

President Hinckley, or Gordon B. as many of my friends refer, had an ability to make you feel like he knew you, that he was joking around with you when he added a quip during general conference.  He was disarming and forthright, and so a wonderful spokesperson and example for the LDS church. 

Much has already been written about his many works and his enduring legacy, and there will no doubt be endless volumes about his life and the impact of his legacy on the church and the world.  His humanitarian leadership is well documented, and transcends religious, cultural, and ethnic divides. 

Serving as the head of an international organization of the magnitude of the LDS church is no paltry or trifling task.  It is my belief that other Presidents and presidential hopefuls can take a page from the Gordon B. book (literally, if you read Stand for Something) and demonstrate what true leadership can be.  That’s how you heal a nation.

Between jail and prison overcrowding, justice courts acting as revenue centers for cities, and , its no wonder that our Utah’s justice system is failing victims, those in trouble, and our community in general. A good community justice system is responsive to the various shareholders in the system; victims receive swift justice and protection, criminals receive appropriate sentences and treatment, and the society in general receives public safety at an efficient cost.

Utah’s justice system has lost sight of those ideals and goals. It is easy pickings to cite recent obvious examples of system failure, like the release of dangerous criminals Luis Perez and Robert Preece when the DA failed to file charges timely, the 95% conviction rate in justice courts, and, remember Richard Ricci who died in jail after being mistakenly accused of kidnapping a Utah child? The most recent page written in the book of provocative examples of a failing justice system was posted on You-Tube and picked up by local and national news, sensationalizing the story.

The video, posted below, shows a Utah man and his wife at a traffic stop by a Utah Highway Patrol officer. The driver was disputing the officer’s assertion that he was speeding and was subsequently hit with a Taser jolt by the officer when the driver failed to follow the officer’s direction. The problems the video shows are many, including violations of the man’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and an unlawful use of force. More importantly, the video shows obvious poor judgment by the officer, particularly when he leaves the tased and handcuffed driver laying very near the traffic lane on the highway. See for yourself:

In the next few weeks, I will post and hope to start a dialogue about the problems I mentioned earlier in this post and some ideas for solutions. I will do my best to include data, studies and quality information in these posts to strive for a robust dialogue that is on topic and does not succumb to sensationalism and criticism of the hard working women and men who have spent their lives trying to make Utah a safer, better place to live. Topics will include: Municipal justice courts, the Salt Lake County community justice master plan, the Utah Family Justice Center, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s proposal to amend the Utah Constitution to loosen search and seizure requirements, and other topics participants would like to discuss.

Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving full of good food, good friends and family, and great memories! See you soon, and thanks for stopping by!

Salt Lake City Mayor
The Mayor’s race was stale by the time November rolled around given that all the fireworks happened in September.  That isn’t to say that Ralph Becker’s victory was anything less than a great change for Salt Lake City!  However, in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, Mr. Buhler didn’t stand much of a chance.  (I am a bit surprised that Dave gave up his seat on the City Council to run an obviously uphill race.) 

No, the real race was between Ralph and Jenny Wilson.  Conventional money, and mine!, was on Jenny to win it.

But something happened along the way that took the front runner down to a third place finish after the primary votes were counted, propelling Ralph and Dave into the general election.  Most folks would tell you that Ralph came from behind to win the race sometime late in the primary, but I think that the polls tell a different story.  Jenny started the race with around 23% of the vote, with the rest of the vote largely undecided amongst the other 3 major candidates, Ralph, Dave, and Keith Christensen.  Jenny was the natural front runner from the beginning because she had major name recognition and a compelling story to tell.  But the truth is that she never really moved from the 23% she had at the beginning of the race and was not able to parlay her early support into anything more than a base.

Now, I work with Jenny at the County, and she is an excellent public servant—considered, thoughtful, intelligent, and unafraid to ask hard questions.  She would, no doubt, have been an excellent mayor.  Ralph and Dave ran good campaigns that seemed to each carry a theme that had something for voters to sink their teeth into when they went into the booth to vote.  They set themselves apart as “the Blueprint Man” and “It’s Dave! (goofy as he may be)” and communicated something of a personal message to the electorate.

Perhaps even more importantly, Ralph and Dave both had substantial bases of voters that were densely clustered in tight geographic regions that were easy to walk and work for votes.  Ralph’s natural base in the Avenues not only got worked, but got worked over, and over, and his campaign probably mined every last Democratic vote out of that area!  (someone should get a copy of that voter file!)  He also worked the west side and focused a solid GOTV campaign in that area.  On the other hand, Dave worked the voters in his moderate eastside, Salt Lake Country-club neighborhood, which he once represented as Senator before losing his seat to Karen Hale in 1998.  The Primary vote statistics indicated that Dave had won handily, but maxed out his turnout in the Country Club area, while Becker still had room to gain if he could turn up the relatively low turnout in the avenues and Westside.

What the data suggests, then, is that the moderate Republican base of Salt Lake City, even with a high voter turnout, isn’t enough to beat a Democrat with a modest GOTV plan when head-to-head.  Republicans in Salt Lake City now understand what it is like for Democrats to campaign almost anywhere else in Utah—you can’t wage an “air war” with flyers, billboards, and ads to pick up independents and moderate voters.  They have to see you, look you in the eye and get the sense that you are worth overriding the default button to vote for a Democrat (or Republican in Salt Lake City).

The bread and butter of Utah Democratic campaigns is the door-to-door “ground war,” which is precisely the kind of campaign Ralph ran—classic and well executed, with a bit of sass added with the Blueprint Man.  Jenny’s campaign for her County Council seat was run in this tradition with Jeff Mathis at the helm, putting up lawnsigns at the wee hours of the morning in a 13 point come-from-behind victory over then Council Chair Steve Harmsen in her first election.  I think Jenny’s team tried the Jim Matheson, the Later Years, campaign approach that is focused more on maintain than gain.  In the end, Jenny maintained the 23-24% she started the race wit.  Jenny’s team had the difficult task of collecting votes spread over the entire city district, and no natural geographic base she could concentrate her resources on.  While she raised a whole ton of money, she wasn’t able to get the same bang for her buck Ralph and Dave were in focusing on specific areas and precincts to mine for votes.  As an aside, Keith faced much of the same problem, but with obvious other larger problems. 

So to those who would say that the 2007 Salt Lake City Mayoral race seemed like a hum-drum election this year, I would respond, “there is gold in them thar hills,” go mine the data for 2008 and see if we learned anything beyond Bob Bernick’s incredibly insightful newspaper selling statement, “Salt Lake City is a tough place for a Republican to win an election.”  Duh.

The Public Safety Bond
I chock this one up to a victory for common sense.  I have to admit I was just incredulous when I saw all those polls that showed a majority of city voters supported the bond.   The name “Christmas Wish List” took life in the final days before the election and became the nail in the coffin on this one.  I have opposed the Public Safety bond from the beginning, just as I have opposed the Hogle Zoo bond proposal, because the cost-benefit analysis did not merit out a justification for raising my (and your!) property taxes some $300 a year. 

I support updating critical infrastructure needs, and that should be taken care of first and foremost. However, the City refused to play ball with the County and look at joint venture opportunities.  Those opportunities would have saved taxpayers millions, but would have come at the expense of the long-standing turf battles between police chiefs and fire captains.  I admit I am relatively uneducated as to the details of the relationship, but I take Mayor Corroon and Sheriff Winder at their word when they say they tried to reach out to the City players and work out a partnership.  They say their partnership offer was rebuffed despite the existence of a large County fire training facility just 12 blocks outside the city limits.  It smells like turf spirit to me, and I’m not gonna pay for it. 

The County is putting together a public safety master plan, which includes several of the same projects contemplated by the bond.  This kind of thoughtful approach is the kind of blueprint the City needs, and Mayor Becker has already pledged to participate.  Long-term planning for public safety needs will provide the foundation for fiscal prudence and inclusive community justice.  I am looking forward to seeing what Mayors Corroon and Becker come up with—stay tuned! 

Others ballot issues: 

Yay Luke Garrott!  Having a professor on the Council should be fun to watch!

Boo Jordan School District.  Having grown up in Cottonwood Heights I think I have a little license to say the following:  those people are crazy!  Mayor Cullimore and his ilk have succeeded in creating their own little fiefdom over there.  When they proposed incorporation to their residents, they promised that it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a lot of money because they vowed not to create their own fire department, police force, or large municipal government.  All of which has, of course, proven not to be true.  The temptation to increased your sphere of power was just too great for the local elected officials out there, and now their State Senator has pushed the break away of the already-built-out Eastside from the burgeoning Westside, and left them to fend for themselves after subsidizing the Eastside for all those years.  Again, I understand the desire to have smaller school districts, but at the end of the day, in lieu of more local control, what you get is another redundant bureaucracy managing fewer schools.  For resource programs alone, they will have to duplicate services and hire twice as many teachers and resource education professionals to accommodate the same number of students as before.  It just doesn’t seem to square with conservative principles, so I am, again, confused why Republican leaders are pushing this one. 

Yay Eagle Mountain.  Elected, yet another, new mayor.  Lets hope they can keep this one a full term!