Senate President: The Best Deliberation Is No Deliberation

We're on week two of Utah's nearly 7-week Legislative Session, and we may already have the quote of the session.  And, it comes from Senate President Wayne Niederhauser.

First, some background:

SB100 is the current bill number for a bill that has been floating around the Utah Legislature for 6 years.  It is currently sponsored by St George Republican Senator Steve Urquhart.  It adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of things that you can't be discriminated for in the state of Utah.  The list currently protects people from getting fired (among other things) on the basis of race, religion, sex, and family status.

It's similar to laws passed by several cities in the past several years, including one in Salt lake City that was supported by the LDS Church.

Oh, and it's an issue that a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll says that 60% of Utahns support.  The Deseret News has the number at 72%.

However, Urquhart can't get his bill heard.

On Friday, he held a press conference encouraging Utahns to let their Senators know they want the bill to be heard.  He encouraged people to come to the Capitol and post "blue notes" on the Senate Door.And, people came.And by the time the Senate reconvened on Monday, the door and doorway were covered in blue notes.

And, what did that mean to Niederhauser?  Well, it was further proof that the bill SHOULDN'T be heard.That's right.  If you want a bill heard by the Utah Senate, don't tell anyone.  Especially the Utah Senate.

From the Tribune:

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said Monday the notes are proof "there is a lot of emotion out there" over same-sex marriage and related issues.

But, he added, the Legislature should stick with plans to let the issue cool down and not deal with more changes until the courts consider Utah’s appeal to a federal ruling that struck down its ban on same-sex marriage.

"This is an emotional time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s stop and pull our faculties together and address other issues this session and wait for the process [in court] … to take place and we’ll come back at another time to address religious liberties and other types of discrimination."

Because the Utah Legislature never, ever acts based on emotion.

Wait, what court process is he talking about? Oh yeah, the gay marriage lawsuit.

You see, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes told the Legislature that they shouldn't take up any bills relating to gay people because they don't want the state to show any animosity towards gay people, since the whole basis of the case hinges on "'The Utah Government is being mean to gay people.'  'No, we're not!'"Well, that's what it sounds like, at least.

And, what better way to prove that the state doesn't not like gay people than by keep the Legislature from talking about gay people.

Yeah.  That will work.

However, the killer quote from President Neiderhauser comes at the end of the Tribune article:

"It is most important for us right now to take some time," Niederhauser said. "Let’s not get too anxious. The best kind of policy is the policy that takes some time and has had a lot of deliberation."

Did you catch that?  We need to deliberate the bill, so we're not going to deliberate it.

It may just be me, but I would think that allowing the bill to be discussed over the remaining 37 days of the session would be a great way to deliberate it.

Especially a bill that's been around for 6 years.  How much deliberation will be enough?

Honest Question to Utah Demcrats

Really, it's a two-part question, wherein both questions are similar yet different.

1) Is there anything that I'm currently getting with Jim Matheson as my "representative" that I couldn't get with a Republican in his seat?
2) Is there anything Democrats living in the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts get with Matheson in office that they otherwise wouldn't get.

I'm just wondering. And by Republican, I mean more a Steve Urquhart than a Jason Chaffetz.

-Bob

Utah Press Association responds to SB 208

I wrote about SB 208 as it was being discussed at the blogger briefing yesterday at the Capitol. I received the following comment, which I'm reprinting here to call attention to the other side:

The truth is that newspapers get it. If Sen. Urquhart had made a simple phone call or asked questions of legislators who are familiar with the idea would have shown that the Utah Press Association agrees on the the need to expand the reach and accessibility of use of public notice.

However, we believe that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web. For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing.

Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word.

We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States. The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that would help citizens better understand and access public notices.

As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?

Also, there are real costs associated with creating and maintaining a public notice Web site. Currently, along with the initial startup costs, the Utah Public Meeting Notice Web site has at least one full-time staff and ongoing costs through the Utah Department of Archives.
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor
foiguy@gmail.com

Caroline Kennedy -- Qualified, or no?

Much has been made about whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a US Senator.

Even Representative/State Senator-Elect Steve Urquhart weighs in:

I don’t like her politics. For many, many reasons, I would not like to see her in the Senate. But, let’s stop asking whether serious devotion to motherhood is a disqualifying activity (which really is the question being asked – without, of course, actually being voiced).

Along with being a mother, Kennedy has accomplished much. Along with being a mother, she is very well educated. Along with being a mother, Kennedy is a serious writer and editor. Along with being a mother, she is a serious player in the public education arena. Along with being a mother, she is a political heavyweight.

Flawed and naive in some areas? Of course.

Unqualified? Give me a break.

If she were a man, the narrative would be much different. If, for example, her brother John were alive and being considered, the question of qualifications would not gain traction in the media (though, in that case, it should).

Everyone should be vetted. That’s fine and necessary. So, vet her. Don’t mock her and dismiss her. Don’t dehumanize her.

I agree. Much has been made about the fact that she hasn't yet held political office.

Which is interesting, given that she would replace Senator Hillary Clinton, who had not held office herself prior to being elected to the Senate.

Last time I checked, the Constitution, which sets forth the qualifications for Senators, has no requirement for prior office.

In fact, both of Utah' Senators have held exactly one elected office -- US Senator.

-Bob

I stand with Urquhart -- the Dnews needs to release their tapes

I think Representative Steve Urquhart is right -- the Deseret News needs to release the recording of their editorial board meeting last Monday with Senator Bramble. The reason this needs to happen is that there is a discrepancy between what the Republicans say Bramble said and what the DNews reported.

Why am I standing with Steve on this?

Because at worst, it shows just how bad their political reporting is. At best, it shows what liars and crybabies Republicans are.

Either way, I win.

-Bob

An open message to Rep Urquhart: Quit whining

In a recent post on his, Representative Steve Urquhart complains that two COLUMNISTS for the Salt Lake Tribune apparently say nothing negative about Democrats.

And when was the last time SteveU said anything negative about a Republican?

Anyone?

So his biggest complaint is that these columnists are still trying to find the unnamed legislator who allegedly helped Mark Walker Allegedly bribe Richard Ellis.

The fact of the matter is, the complaint to the Ethics Committee said that there was another person involved. Another Legislator.

As SteveU says, that could be 103 people. Given that there is better than a two-to-one ratio of Republicans to Democrats, and the alleged bribery happened in a Republican primary, it's safe to say that the unnamed legislator is not a Democrat.

And, the person would probably have to have some power in the legislature. I'm sure that Brad Winn (R-Ephraim) would have the power to make that kind of promise. So, why not try to pin it on the Speaker, who has been known to have a few ethical lapses? If it's not the speaker, reopen the ethics investigation.

However, I don't think it's Speaker Curtis. No, if it were him, he would be talking about it more.

But, I do have me guess as to who it is.

Rep Urquhart, methinks thou doth protest too much.

-Bob