The city council approved the change Tuesday night. The fee went up from $3.05, which was imposed in August 2008 when the service was first authorized, to $3.25.

That means the majority are forced to pay $39/year for a pet project on top of all the other special interest tax increases imposed over that last several years (RAP tax, power tax (for the city slush fund), recreation center tax, etc).  Further, the “fee” is better characterized as  a tax – fees are traditionally assessed on service users (indicating a voluntary action),  all are forced to pay for curbside recycling whether they use it or not.

I assume the increase was for increasing gas costs for bin pickup but the article gives no clues (rather than report that, the article editorializes on why it’s a small increase and not worthy of any attention).  I believe that is the only allowable increase in the contract.  If so, any other reason could be a breach by the company or the city has found a new way to garner another $35,162*/year from residents for itself (on top of the $2+ Million/year power rate overcharge).

*Based on census of 14,651 households

The unvetted legislation formulated by a narrow special interest group was found to have a litany of  major flaws as well as being indisputably unconstitutional.  It was so toxic that opposite sides of the illegal immigration debate called for its repeal (including the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board and Bishop Wester).  Subsequently, Utah Republican State (and several counties) Delegate conventions passed resolutions calling for the repeal/replacement of the bill.

Right now, the rumored latest tactic of proponents (most notably Senator Bramble and the SL Chamber) is that they are going to “tweak” the bill a bit.  That sort of spin doesn’t fly for me.  The bill is so horribly flawed that it needs to be dissolved and replaced by constitutional legislation which also respects victims and the rule of law rather than the current attempt at a captive worker program which casts victims, taxpayers, and legal and illegal immigrants by the wayside.

Please contact your Senator and Representative and politely, but firmly, request that they fully repeal HB116 and commit to a new, open debate to fully vet legislation this time.

Currently, your name and date of birth are a public record if you are a registered voter.  Those two bits of information give an identity thief the majority of the information they need to begin to steal your identity and apply for credit in your name, make medical visits (thereby corrupting your medical record), obtaining employment under your name (deadbeats avoid wage garnishment, fugitives avoid capture, illegal immigrants use it all of which can have the IRS asking for back taxes on that “second job”) among other destructive implications.

Senator Dayton has put forward SB18 (Government Records Access and Management Act – Voter Registration Records) which will protect your email address on your voter registration from public records.  That’s a good step but it misses the bigger problem.  I don’t like spam, it’s a nuisance but my date of birth is much more important.  I can change email addresses but I can’t change by birthday.  So who would stand in the way of adding this to SB 81?… Both major political parties:

Utah’s two major political parties require citizens to make their birth dates available to the world so the parties can have this data even though it opens citizens up to identity theft and other fraudulent activities.

The parties have consistently killed attempts to protect the birthdates of voters in spite of citizen requests to safeguard this information and pleas from County Clerks to make the birth dates private.

Immediately contact Senator Dayton and your senator.  Ask that they support amending SB81 to include date of birth.  As stated in the above link: “…no citizen should be required by any political party, or any business group for that matter, to make their birth date public in order to exercise their right to vote.”

Disclosure: My father wrote the quoted text but no coordination has occurred.

If your time is limited, besides Transparency, I recommend the End Washington Style Politics and Oath of Office pieces.

Utah legislative reform – Overview of the CitizensForTaxFairness.org initiative
Utah legislative reform – End Washington style politics
Utah legislative reform: Transparency
Utah legislative reform: Honor and uphold the oath of office
Legislative reform: Control spending and growth of government
Legislative reform: Encourage greater citizen participation

The above being said, ethics is a two way street.  Citizens also bear responsibility to be informed and participate.  Citizens complain about ethics and free meals but should also look at themselves: they are the driving factor for money in politics and should ask themselves if their own support is not up for purchase.  People won’t accept such of elected officials, they should also not accept it of themselves.

Disclosure: the author of the above initiatives is my father but no coordination has taken place – we work independently.

Everyone from the delegates to general election voters get all worked up over elected officials’ ethics in taking lobbyist money, dinners, and gifts. Public opinion poll after poll always notes how annoyed everyone is with gifts.  That’s great – we absolutely should care about who’s buying influence, how much they are getting, any impropriety therein, and how that may affect votes on critical/controversial issues.  However, has anyone ever polled the same respondents and asked: “Have you ever been swayed by a gift or expensive item from a campaign?” or “Do you feel you have ever pressured a campaign to provide gifts for you?”

Most won’t admit or realise it, but they likely have.

At the delegate and occasional primary level, free “meet the candidate” breakfasts or lunches etc. tend to attract more people.  Typically, expensive glitzy ads (TV, radio, or mail), chapsticks, pencils, cheesy t-shirts with negligible information tend to grab attention more than a set of black and white pages with fairly detailed positions on issues.  Yes, part of it has to do with our busy lives (I reject that as a reason to be an uninformed voter) but a chunk of it has to do with the fact that we like getting free junk.

Yet many of us finding time for a lunch or line for the goodies jump up and down about legislators doing the same.  Is it good for me and not for thee?  I know criticism stings and this isn’t the first time I’ve brought this up, but it is worth asking:

If you detest money in politics, do you engage in the same behavior you dislike in a legislator?

It would be nice if we got to the point of asking: “Why do they feel the need to give me this stuff for my consideration and why don’t their positions/principles suffice?”

In my post on December 21, 2011 “Utah Business PAC On Education: Taxes For Thee But Not For Me” I noted how monetarily and politically powerful groups/individuals had aligned themselves under the name “Education First PAC’.  In that post,  I also highlighted the fact that they were lobbying to significantly increase taxes on everyone else fortunately drawing some push back from Senator Waddoups.  I further noted that rather than use their money to directly further fund educational initiatives they have chose to use that money to lobby for a tax increase.  Prior to above post, I noted in another post that the PAC was after the Senate 23 seat and speculated that Shumway was their preferred candidate based on his associations and the quote from a Trib article:

Education First has no intention of unseating lawmakers it sees as hostile to education, but it will groom candidates to run for vacant legislative seats, such as that of Sen. Daniel Liljenquist, the Bountiful Republican who is resigning to mount a shot at Orrin Hatch’s seat in the U.S. Senate.

In an email, sent from the big lobbying firm, the Exoro Group, I think it is safe to say that the group is firmly behind Mr. Shumway and appears to be placing significant sums of money towards his campaign:

From: Kameron Lopez [Redacted]@exoro.com
To: [Redacted]
Sent: [Redacted]
Subject: Randy Shumway for State Senate

Randy Shumway
Candidate for State Senate

The Alta Club
100 East South Temple

Friday, January 6th
8:30 am to 9:15 am

Hosted by Mark Bouchard, Natalie Gochnour, and Bob Marquardt
Continental Breakfast and Beverages

Recommended donations: $250-$2,500.
Checks payable to Friends for Randy Shumway.

If you are unable to attend, but would like to donate,
please send checks payable to:

Friends for Randy Shumway
[Remainder redacted to protect personal information]

This confirmation should come as no surprise.  Just clicking the “About” page on the groups website reveals that Mr. Shumway is on the Steering Committee.  Take a look at the page as well for a who’s who of well established power players, several of whom attended Jowers’ meeting (ironically, also at the Alta Club) that served as a jump off point to neutralise the caucus system and who were also behind the rushed and flawed HB116.  The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is represented in the group and was a huge pusher of HB116 and has consistently opposed effective E-Verify measures (identity verification by employers to protect victim identites and prevent illegal workers – fugitives/illegal immigrants/deadbeat parent etc – from obtaining the job.  The Exoro Group (which sent this email) coordinated the Jowers’ meeting.

Another thought: This fund raiser will also help build a war chest should he lose this delegate election thus preparing him for the next delegate selection (caucus) meetings and subsequent election.

They want the legislature to spend more on public education to benefit the business community.  Great, right?  But guess what the prime area for the state legislature to increase revenue for such is…your income tax (100% of it goes to education in Utah).  Waddoups crunched the numbers on that:

Utah, a state with a large number of children, spends $6,062 per student per year, far below the national average of $10,441. Aligning Utah spending with the national average would cost nearly $2.4 billion, requiring an income tax increase from the current rate of 5 percent to 9.4 percent, according to Waddoups.

Don’t fall for the we spend less than other states red herring.  Local circumstances will affect spending levels (ie comparing apples to oranges here) and more spending certainly does not equate to better education (Washington DC spends a lot of money but their system stinks), nor does this look at whether the system is more efficient and producing quality students compared despite the lower cost (a business goal, no?).  They also don’t seem to look at other solutions other than the “just throw more money at it” mantra.

Anyway, raising taxes on families in a slow economy (or any economy, for that matter) is the implied desire.  Why not call for the corporate tax* to be raised as they see themselves as the beneficiary of the spending increase?  Call it a user fee.  Nope, they want you to pay for it. They also prefer to pool their money not for schools but to lobby to raise your taxes and “…groom candidates to run for vacant legislative seats…” (Shumway appears to be their man in the vacant Liljenquist seat right now).

Corporate welfare is live and well in Utah.  The Salt Lake Chamber remains an enemy of taxpayers. Glad to hear Senator Waddoups is pushing back, hope voters and other legislators won’t buy the spin.

*Note: the corporate tax rate does affect business as it increases product cost.  That also means that consumers (you) effectively pay the tax if you buy their product.  In other words, don’t buy liberal lines that we need to make business pay by increasing the corporate tax – consumers pay that tax and it does slow economic activity.

UPDATE(1/2/12): Added several updates and made this a sticky post.  Also, I recommend delegates read “Introspection: Legislator Ethics Versus Delegates and Voters – The Double Standard” and consider if they are falling into the trap (particularly with Mr. Shumway).

I decided to write a consolidated post on the various candidates which I will keep a running update on as more, if any, candidates definitively run for Senator Dan Liljenquist’s vacated Utah Senate seat.  Right now there are three who are definitely running.  I, personally, liked Dan Liljenquist.  While not always in agreement with his positions, he was a fairly dependable conservative on the issues I followed.  It would be nice to have someone like him fill the seat and not wind down to a liberal republican.

Before anyone freaks out about being negative on candidates, understand that the candidates will cover all the positive spin stuff on their sites and I don’t need to regurgitate it here.  My decision is also based on a Michelle Malkin’s “nose clips” post on the presidential candidates – I found it to be an excellent means of disclosure and clarity in knowing what you are getting with your vote (the political ‘truth in advertising’ equivalent).  Caveat emptor, in alphabetical order:

Greg Ericksen

I trust him on defending the neighborhood caucus/delegate system (his thoughts and mine are similar).  But…on illegal immigration, I see a red flag (from his site):

I support Utah legislation passed in 2011 as a stopgap measure rather than an ultimate solution…I support work permits that require accountability for undocumented immigrants…

He’s referring to HB116 which is undeniably unconstitutional (the bill even had a constitutional note attached), passed in the same late session as HB477 with negligible debate (I called it Utah’s Obamacare Legislature).  Unsurprisingly, the rammed ‘down your throat’ legislation ended up having a litany of expected and unexpected flaws (including for the illegal immigrant beneficiaries).  Mr. Ericksen is also involved in Orbit Irrigation products which had a lot of workers walk out to the 2006 May illegal immigrant amnesty rally (indicating Orbit hired plenty of illegal workers).  At the time they pledged action would be taken but who knows if any was.  Hopefully, Mr. Ericksen will reconsider the effects and process employed for this legislation – right now he seems prime for pressure from the illegal worker use protection lobby (which includes the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce).

Update (12/28): I’ve been hearing that he does seem fairly conservative but doesn’t yet have a grasp of the issues (he’s still on the learning curve but progressing).  I messed up and failed to ask about impressions on his stance regarding illegal immigration.

Timothy Hawkes

Here’s what I know for now: He’s pledged to support the caucus system and wants greater participation but doesn’t include any specifics on how he would do so (that can be very important).

His site is ethics heavy but doesn’t have many specifics other than promising only to run for two terms.  I hope by ethics he doesn’t mean the Utahns for Ethical Government scheme which is much more about power than ethics.  Note: Mr. Hawkes has elaborated on this in the comments section.

Other than that, his site lacks specifics (see update below) but may be in development.  I’ll add more as time permits.

Update (12/28): I’ve been heard him speak recently and he does seem fairly conservative but also is still gaining a grasp of the issues (also on the learning curve).  It was nice to hear that Mr. Hawkes has joined in running a shoe string campaign and not trying to influence votes by buying delegates lunches and dinners etc.  Note that also brings some challenges (see Ron Mortensen section).

Ken Holman

UPDATE (1/2/12): I have been told that Ken Holman has exited the race and is no longer a candidate.

***Under Construction***

So far, I know he’s a former Centerville Councilman and is heavily involved in real estate and appears to partner with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.  The Realtors are a major lobbying/special interest force as is the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber and Realtors lobbied for HB116 (illegal immigrant amnesty – see Ericksen section) and both have a track history for corporate welfare (like the Utah new home purchase credit).

I have no idea on his personal stance regarding preserving the neighborhood caucus but the SL Chamber had plenty in attendance at the exclusive meeting where Jowers et al launched their effort to kill Utah’s caucus system (see Shumway section) and consolidating influence for political elites and big donors.

Update (12/28): The only feedback I’ve heard was that some delegates felt lukewarm about him as a conservative.  Sorry – it’s not much to go on.  Hopefully more will arise – as a former councilman he must have a record.  I’m not sure if he was on the council when the tax-raising recreation center, RAP tax, theater, and recycling votes took place.

Glen Jenkins

***Under Construction ***

On his site he is reasonably specific on education but appears to be still developing positions on some other issues.  He didn’t list anything on the caucus system, illegal immigration, or ethics.  As I previously stated, he’s a semi-late entry and is either still getting his issues up or on the learning curve.  He does, otherwise, appear reasonably conservative.  One caution, similar to Holman is his service on the Woods Cross City Council – what was his record there regarding the recreation center, RAP tax, theater, and recycling along with any private property restricting ordinances (if any).

Ben Lusty

***Under Construction***

12/28 – I found out he is a ‘late entry’ into the race.  I understand several delegates did like him and believe he’s also conservative but they also noted that he was a bit shaky on issues and is on a learning curve right now.  No surprise, since he just started.

I’ll try to update if/when I have time.

Ron Mortensen

Disclosure: Ron is my father.

Well I guess you can say this is now a festivus post and we’re at the family “airing of grievances”.

First, he is fully committed to defending the neighborhood caucus and has played significant role in identity theft, illegal immigration, and legal immigration legislation*.

In keeping with his belief in governmental fiscal responsibility, citizen representation, and avoiding special interest influence, he runs low budget campaigns eschewing lobbyist/big donor money.  That means he relies on an engaged electorate willing to accept detailed pamphlets etc over expensive colorful, puff piece cards with bullet two ‘policy’ bullet points.  That works for the caucus/convention system but is tougher during primary/general elections when many (disengaged) voters ultimately prefer the expensive puff card (face it, voters say they hate $$ in politics but they like the product).  It also means he is targeted by big donors and lobbying groups who see a potential loss of influence.

Along with the above, in the past he’s pledged not to attend closed legislative caucus sessions sponsored by an interest group (they usually provide lunch) as it provides an exclusive perk to the sponsors unavailable to regular citizens (shuts out Joe Blow).  He’s said he’ll be happy to sit out in the hall eating his peanut butter sandwich and meeting with constituents.  That can also mean that he will miss out on some tactical strategy talk by colleagues (they could fill him in later, but that assumes time is available to do so).

He is quite analytical.  He doesn’t go into paralysis by analysis but just dumping something on him and expecting an immediate answer (unless it’s something he’s already knowledgeable about), you’ll have to wait.  He will take some time to study the issue and it can be longer than impatient folks like me want.  Snap decisions are not something he likes to do.

*Regarding the recent legal immigration legislation (HB469) he, to my knowledge, still supports, I supported it too but have since retracted my support and called for its repeal due to Constitutional issues I did not realize (I doubt many do) exist with the legislation.  Please read the linked post for details on why the 10th Amendment does not apply.  Note: he may be re-evaluating his position on HB469 but I can’t confirm that until he returns, sorry.

He’s also out of the country filling in on a humanitarian mission with limited contact capability on this.  Delegate contact will be negligible until his return.  His timing totally sucks but no one knew when Liljenquist would resign and the schedule thereafter.  Murphy’s Law.

Now, on to the feats of strength…

Randy Shumway

He gets a staunch “no way” from me.  He’s aligned with those who seek to kill the neighborhood caucus system, thereby shifting power to the political elites and big donors.  Delegates and neighborhoods would be effectively locked out of the process.  Shumway not only attended Jower’s Alta Club meeting which initiated the effort to neutralize caucuses, but is also part of the Dan Jones and Cicero Group and serves on the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Governors.  These groups had multiple attendees at Jowers’ meeting. He is also part of the Chamber’s Capitol Club which recently hosted a meeting on neutralizing the neighborhood caucus with Kirk Jowers and LaVarr Webb presenting.

He’s also received what I called a reverse endorsement from Republican turned Democrat, Sheryl Allen.

Update (12/28): Mr. Shumway contacted me and stated that he is supportive of the caucus system and would like to see “greater consistency in the system” but it is not a campaign priority at this time and should be handled within the party (Note: my above concerns about his actions toward the caucus system remain – especially given his financial backers – see 1/2/12 update).  He didn’t remember much from the aforementioned meeting and believed it had more to do with education than the caucus system.  I maintain that the meeting was the launchpad for the Jowers’ push on the caucuses.  He stated that he’s not part of the Capitol Club but part of the SL Chamber’s Board of Governors.  I didn’t follow up but just took another look at the linked Capitol Club roster and he’s on it (is it a typo?).  We very briefly discussed the SL Chamber on illegal immigration/identity theft and he did not take  a position.  The SL Chamber has consistently opposed enforcement measures, identity theft prevention via E-verify and was a driving force behind HB116.

UPDATE (1/2/12): Phill Wright on his blog, related to a meet the candidates event, noted that Mr. Shumway came out against HB116 but ultimately gave him a “D-” grade.  I’m also left scratching my head given those who will soon financially support a potential war chest for him are folks behind the effort to neutralise the caucus system and a major force behind HB116.  I hope delegates do not fall for the smooth talk and focus on the issues and who is supporting him and why [edits made on 1/5/12].

Richard Siddoway

***Under Construction***

I just heard a rumor that he is running and would, likely, be a last-minute entry.  I would guage him as the UEA-backed candidate given his past associations.  As I recall, he was a Utah House Representative and I think would be reminicent of Sheryl Allen (not something I’m keen on).  I don’t have any other specific information on his positions at this time.

Todd Weiler

He has stated that he’s supportive of the caucus system and will fight to preserve it.  I wasn’t able to turn up any links to formal articles or statements on caucuses. He’s been in the party leadership structure since 2003.  Mr. Weiler is not supportive and derisive of the Tea Party movement going as far as implying supporters are not “normal people” (also taking a jab a Mike Lee).  I believe he was a Senator Bennett supporter and received $2000 from Bennett in 2009-2010.

Mr. Weiler, however, has had some ethical bumps in the road as recent as this year.  The most recent (this year at the Davis County Republican Convention) was breaking Convention rules and speaking on a resolution despite not being a delegate.  I knew a complaint was lodged at the time.  Then he brushed it aside when asked. Recently, however, I found out that action appears to have been taken in the matter as both he and then Chair Bouwhuis issued apology letters to the current chair.  While trying to turn up references on the caucus system, I stumbled onto a post on cronysim exhibited by party leadership (2008) in which Weiler was also mentioned.  The issue raised in the post was also corroborated by a Deseret News article.

He was a staunch supporter of HB116 (see Ericksen’s section) at the recent County Convention and spoke (the above mentioned violation) to oppose a resolution calling for the flawed legislation to be repealed and replaced.  Hopefully he will reconsider his support of the bill and the process enacted for passage.

That’s all for now.  As noted, if others officially join the race, I will try to keep up.

From: Sheryl Allen [Redacted]
Sent: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: A recommdnation for Utah Senate District 23

I have been told by reliable souces that our State Senator Dan Liljenquist will be resigning soon so that he can run against Sen. Orrin Hatch.  I respect Sen. Liljenquist, and I regret his loss to the Utah Senate.

However, there is an exceptional gentleman who is interested in running for this position.  I am recommending Randy Shumway to you for consideration.  Randy is a former California board of education member, a graduate of Harvard, a successful business consultant, and he recently purchased Dan Jones & Associates although he does not get directly involved in polling.

Randy regularly makes written contributions to the Deseret News, most frequently on education topics.  His articles can be googled but here are links to three of them:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700191185/Education-must-be-Legislatures-highest-priority.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700195666/Legislature-should-empower-educators-to-excel.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184801/For-many-reasons-Utah-needs-educated-women.html

I strongly recommend Randy Shumway as a Utah State Senator and hope you will carefully consider him for that position when the Republican county delegates or alternate delegates, if necessary, meet in the near future.

If you have any questions, please call me or write to me.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Sheryl Allen    [Redacted]

Anyone who knows Allen’s liberal positions will think Shumway is asking himself “Why does she hate me?” right now but that isn’t the case.  More likely, Shumway is in Allen’s boat on spending and liberal policies.  One clear indication is the articles he’s authored and his attendance at the previously linked meeting to terminate neighborhood caucuses.  I’m quite certain he is backed by Kirk Jower’s but also by the candidate being “groomed” by the tax-and-spend (as long as it’s someone else’s taxes) business PAC:

…but it will groom candidates to run for vacant legislative seats, such as that of Sen. Daniel Liljenquist…

That’s two killer endorsements in my book added on top of his association with Jowers to kill the Utah caucus system and shift power firmly to the elites.

I will try to put up a full run down of the current candidates running for the seat later and link it to this post for those interested.

Paul Rolly ran a report on Dan Liljenquist’s potential run for Senator Hatch’s seat.  In that article he also discussed three people who are already making moves for Liljenquists seat with Republican delegates (delegates will pick his replacement until the next election).  Scrolling down in the article under the subheading “Let’s get ready to rumble”:

Republican activists Todd Weiler, Randy Shumway and Greg Ericksen have begun reaching out to Davis County delegates for support to fill Liljenquist’s seat upon his expected resignation to run against Hatch.

Two of the three noted in the article raised an immediate red flag for me. Both Todd Weiler and Randy Shumway attended Kirk Jowers Alta Club meeting for the political elites in an effort to change the nomination process (specifically the neighborhood caucus system) and retake/increase their hold on the party.  Since the meeting Jowers and others from the meeting have been running articles and media appearances pushing for the end of the neighborhood caucus system.  Doing so shifts electoral power toward big donors and large political organizations/insiders.

Shumway not only attended the meeting but is also part of the Dan Jones and Cicero Group and serves on the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Governors.  These groups had multiple attendees at Jowers’ meeting. He is also part of the Chamber’s Capitol Club which recently hosted a meeting on neutralizing the neighborhood caucus with Kirk Jowers and LaVarr Webb presenting.

Weiler, besides being an Alta Club attendee, has tweeted Jowers appearances (here and here) on the caucus system.  He received a significant amount from former Senator Bennett in 2009.  Senator Bennett’s ouster was a good part of what prompted the Jowers Alta Club meeting as grassroots forces pushed out established insiders but Mr. Weiler has stated that he did not attend the meeting and is a “strong proponent” of the caucus system.  As an aside, Weiler recently broke GOP convention rules by taking to the floor to debate an illegal immigration resolution reserved for delegates (he was not a delegate) – a complaint was filed.

I don’t know much about Ericksen (yet) but while looking for his stance on the caucus, I did find his “Keep Utah’s Caucus” article from the Salt Lake Tribune.  He makes similar arguments to mine in the article.  I also don’t know if there are any others beginning to make move in anticipation of Liljenquist leaving (please pass their names on).

For now, it looks like a Jowers political machine may be in the early stages with at least one affiliated candidates vying for an office with the ability to author ‘anti-caucus’ legislation.  The irony of it all, however, is that these candidates need Mr. Shumway must convince the delegates Jowers seeks to neutralize to vote for him…

All posts on threats to the caucus available here.

UPDATE: Edited the above (left significant edits for clarity/disclosure) based on new information received (comments).