Some comments in the current Election mentioned my effectiveness. I can
make this bill list look much larger and pad this list with Co-Sponsored
Bills, but those bills are sponsored by someone else and you just sign
to endorse them. No other work is required.
Original Sponsored Bills
(Not
including Substitute versions, Co-Sponsored or Floor Sponsored Bills,
or amendments to other bills or helping pass or defeat other bills)
2011
HB0221S01 Classic Car Inspections (Gov. Signed)
HB0227 Test Driving Vehicles (Industry Changed)
HB0281 Sex Offender and Kidnapping Amendments (See 2012)
HB0377 Higher Education Textbook Fairness Act (Agency Changed Policy)
HB0380 Utah Lands Protection Act (See 2012)
Several Redistricting map proposals
2012
HB0018S01 Kidnapping Offender Amendments (passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0067S03 Storm Water Capture Amendments (See 2013)
HB0209S01 Utah Lands Protection Act (Alternate Bill passed)
HB0262 Building Code Amendments (Modified in 2013)
2013 (Sponsored for 2013, Transferred, passed and Gov. signed)
HB0036 Storm Water Capture Amendments (passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0215 Water Quality Amendments (passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0262 Unaffiliated Voter Amendments (passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0338 Alimony Revisions (passed, Gov. Signed)
2015
HB0029 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board Amendments (Passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0126S02 Design Professionals - Amendments (Alternate Passed in 2016)
HB0162 Construction Trades Continuing Education Amendments (See 2016)
HB0177S02 Modifications to Voting Law (Passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0243 Vintage Vehicle Amendments (Passed, Gov. Signed)
HB0281 Revisions to Elections Law
HB0286 Building Code Amendments (Alternate Bill Passed 2016)
HB0448 Disabled Adult Child Guardianship (1/2 passed in another bill)
HB0450 Licensing Modifications (See 2016)
Alternate to moving the Draper Prison
2016
HB0011S02 Referendum Amendments
HB0065S01 Exemption from Daylight Saving Time
HB0069 Qualified Political Party Amendments
HB0080 Vehicle Impound Amendments
HB0101S02 Disabled Adult Guardianship Amendments (Passed and Gov. Signed)
HB0108 Licensing Amendments
HB0109 Construction Trades Education Amendments (Alternate Passed)
HB0125 Fire Code Amendments (Alternate Construction and Fire Codes Passed)
HB0152S01 Voted and Board Local Levy Modifications (passed in HB1)
HB0256 Net Metering of Electricity Amendments
HB0261 Wood Burning Stoves Amendments
HB0269 Recycling of Copper Wire (Passed and Gov Signed)
HB0361 Air Quality Modifications (Included in other passed bill)
HB0429 Specie Legal Tender Amendments
HJR011 Joint Resolution Designating Utah as a Purple Heart State (Passed and Lt. Gov. Signed)
See also:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2016/04/floor-power-rating-and-bill-sponsor.html
Also see the Session Update for each year
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Monday, April 2, 2018
60 vs 70 percent threashold Are we really going to debate this again
60/40 vs 70% threashold - are we really going to debate this again?
For years, the SCC and State Delegates debated the threshold for convention to
primary elections. I was and I am still a supporter of the 60/40
threshold we currently have, despite the fact that I lost getting 40%+
by 2 or 3 votes out of 70 delegates (100% voting) in 2016 and didn't
make it to a primary.
This State Convention there is again a proposal to change the party constitution to 70%. If
it passes, it would not effect the 2018 races Do we still want to
continue this fight?
The 60/40 allowed a challenger to eliminate an incumbent in 2016 for at least 2 Utah House races, including me. I am running again this year and I am not
getting signatures. I am willing to take the risk with the 60/40 again
as I did in 2014 and 2016. I won in 2014 at convention and also won in
the general election. If the threshold had been changed to 70/30, it is
likely that a democrat would have won that year.
Remember
that CMV in 2013 always had more than one demand. It was never just the
threshold. Even though adjusting the threshold would not
have helped Gov. Walker in 2004 or Sen. Bennett in 2010, CMV using Y2
polled the delegates in 2012 and found that the Sen. Bennett would still
not have received 40%+ with the delegates that year either.
(Information released by Quin Monson at the Young Republican Convention)
I wrote this in May 2013. It is still true.
The threshold to avoid a primary is a two way sword.
An 85/15 would make it easier for a weak challenger to get to a primary,
but impossible to eliminate the incumbent without large amounts of
money or fame. That was the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote request
originally. Added to that the eliminating of any kind of multiple round
and you could have 6 candidates in the primary, one of which would
always be the incumbent.
They couldn't get 85/15, so they next tried 75/25. Almost impossible for an incumbent not to get 25% and make it to a primary. Yes, the incumbent is going to have a harder time getting 75%, but if the goal is more primaries that cost more money, it is one step closer to Buy My Vote or Buy My Ads. Add the elimination of the multiple round and you could get 3 or 4 candidates going to the primary. 70/30 allows up to 3 and again makes it harder to eliminate an incumbent.
Yes, the goal of 60/40 may have been to help the incumbents, but after Jason Chaffetz almost won in convention and Bennett and Gov. Walker lost, those that wanted to protect the incumbents realized they made a mistake with the 60/40 and many for years have wanted to switch it back. Two legislators were eliminated at convention this year. And yes, we still have some primaries, but not as many as we get with 2/3 or 70%.
In 2012 Utah, we have primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez, Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield, Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta, Muniz/Hendrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens, Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few. Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.
Since 2000, 1/2 of all state wide and congressional contested GOP races have gone to primary. 44 races, 30 were contested and 15 went to primary.
Yes a 2/3 threshold would have made a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down.
Some that spoke for the 2/3 or 70% may believe what they have said, but I totally disagree and many in the SCC and also many of the delegates disagree as well.
I have always said, The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing. Finely tuned balance. It won today.
(originally posted 18 May 2013)
They couldn't get 85/15, so they next tried 75/25. Almost impossible for an incumbent not to get 25% and make it to a primary. Yes, the incumbent is going to have a harder time getting 75%, but if the goal is more primaries that cost more money, it is one step closer to Buy My Vote or Buy My Ads. Add the elimination of the multiple round and you could get 3 or 4 candidates going to the primary. 70/30 allows up to 3 and again makes it harder to eliminate an incumbent.
Yes, the goal of 60/40 may have been to help the incumbents, but after Jason Chaffetz almost won in convention and Bennett and Gov. Walker lost, those that wanted to protect the incumbents realized they made a mistake with the 60/40 and many for years have wanted to switch it back. Two legislators were eliminated at convention this year. And yes, we still have some primaries, but not as many as we get with 2/3 or 70%.
In 2012 Utah, we have primaries: Hatch/Liljenquist, Dougall/Johnson, Swallow/Reyes, McCartney/Valdez, Okerlund/Painter, Vickers/Anderson, Perry/Galvez, Redd/Butterfield, Anderegg/Moore, Handy/Crowder, Macdonald/Bagley, Sagers/McCoy, Kennedy/Nitta, Muniz/Hendrickson, Stratton/Murray, Christofferson/Kane, Greene/Stevens, Layton/Daw, Nelson/Wright, Westwood/Carling, and Crockett/Winder, to name a few. Not every race had a primary nor should it. Most of those were GOP primaries.
Since 2000, 1/2 of all state wide and congressional contested GOP races have gone to primary. 44 races, 30 were contested and 15 went to primary.
Yes a 2/3 threshold would have made a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down.
Some that spoke for the 2/3 or 70% may believe what they have said, but I totally disagree and many in the SCC and also many of the delegates disagree as well.
I have always said, The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing. Finely tuned balance. It won today.
(originally posted 18 May 2013)
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Town Hall Meetings and SLCOGOP Meet the Candidate meetings for 2018
Recent
Past and Upcoming Town Hall Meetings:
Sat., April 7, 2018, 11:00 a.m.-Noon Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 SouthSat., March 24, 2018, 2:00-4:00 p.m. Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Sat., March 17, 2018, 11:00a.m.-Noon Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Wed, February 28, 2018, 7:00-8:30 p.m. Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Sat., February 17, 2018, 11:00 a.m.-Noon Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Sat., January 13, 2018, 2:00-3:00 p.m. Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Salt Lake County GOP Meet the Candidate Meetings for 2018
3-27-18 Herriman Library, 5380 Main St, Herriman, UT 84096, 6-8 pm
4-2-18 Riverton Library, 12877 S 1830 W, Riverton Utah 84065, 7-9 pm
4-4-18 Sandy Library, 10100 Petunia Way, Sandy, UT 84092, 6-8 pm
4-7-18 Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 W 4100 S, West Valley City, UT 84120, 1-3 pm
4-9-18 Whitmore Library, 2197 Fort Union Blvd, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 7:15-8:45 pm
4-10-18 Millcreek Library, 2266 E Evergreen Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84109, 6-8 pm
County Convention
Friday, April 13th Meet and Greet 7 pm to 9:30 pm
Saturday, April 14, 2018, Meet and Greet 7 am
Call to Order, 10 am
Cottonwood High School
5715 South 1300 East, Murray 84121
Monday, March 12, 2018
Voting Ratings for 2018
Note: I was not in the legislature in 2018. (I am running in 2018 and hope to be back in 2019)
Below
is what I posted last year. As the ratings/rankings come in for 2018
for my current representative, I will be posting them below. See the
bottom of this post for additional links.
These will start with Rep. Winder for 2018 and me for 2016 and be updated for 2018 as the ratings/rankings come in.
These will start with Rep. Winder for 2018 and me for 2016 and be updated for 2018 as the ratings/rankings come in.
Winder 2018 Votes for the General Session are at:
Unlike what I have always done, there are no public postings yet for all votes together, but you can look up each bill vote at le.utah.gov
Cox 2016 Votes for the General Session are at:
(2011, 2012, 2015 votes are also shown on this blog. Look in March of each year)
Winder 2018 Utah Grassroots, 31%, tied for 53 of 75, Average House 46%
Winder: 34% lifetime average, tied for 53 of 75, Average House 46%
http://www.utahgrassroots.org/annual/
Cox: 2016 Utah Grassroots, 57%, tied for 11th of 75, (Average House 36%)
Cox: 69% lifetime average, tied for 11th of 75, Average House 47%
Winder: Libertas 2016, 66% rating.
Cox: Libertas 2016 Defenders of Liberty Award, 94% rating.
Winder: (BYU/UtahDataPoints #55 most conservative ranking in House, Top 20 Liberal (2018)
Cox: #31 most conservative ranking in House (2016)
https://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/ideology_house?year=2018
Winder: 2018 Utah Taxpayers Association, 88.2% rating, tied for 19th place, 25th lifetime.
2017 Utah Taxpayers Association, 83.3% rating, tied for 33rd place
http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=8272
http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=7992
Cox: 2016 Utah Taxpayers Association, 100% rating, tied for 1st place
Winder, Utah Republican Women’s Liberty Caucus, 2018, 43%, tied for 42 of 75 most conservatives or tied for 23 most liberal. (no 2016 ratings).
Winder 2018 Floor Voting Attendance 7 missed of 734 votes. 1.0%
Cox 2016 Floor Voting Attendance 2 missed of 657 votes. 0.30%
Winder Number of "No" Votes on the Floor, 28 votes or 3.8% #61 in the House (2018)
Cox: Number of "No" Votes on the Floor, 61 votes or 9.3% #19 in the House (2016)
https://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/nay?year=2018
Winder: Party Line Voting 75.4%, 60th in the House (2018)
Cox: Party Line Voting 70% 68th in the House (2016)
https://adambrown.info/p/research/utah_legislature/party_support
Utah Planned Parenthood
Winder, 2018, 75% or more (sponsor of one bill not totaled)
Cox, 2012, 0% (last rating given out)
Winder: 2018 UEA, 92% rating,
http://www.myuea.org/issues_action/uea_under_the_dome/legislative_voting_records.aspx
Cox: 2016 UEA, 50% rating,
2017 rankings/ratings not updated yet.
Winder: 2017 Heal Utah, 100%, A rating
http://www.healutah.org/2017-legislative-grades/
Cox: 2016 Heal Utah, 92%, A- rating
Winder: 2017 AFP-Utah, 84.48%, B rating, #38 in the House
https://utahscorecard.com/
https://utahscorecard.com/results/?leg[]=UTL000295&dist=30
(no 2016 rating)
Winder: 2017 Salt Lake Chamber Business Champion.
Cox: 2016 Salt Lake Chamber Business Champion, 89% rating (Also 2015, 2012 Business Champion.
Cox 2016 Ratings/Rankings:http://www.healutah.org/2017-legislative-grades/
Cox: 2016 Heal Utah, 92%, A- rating
Winder: 2017 AFP-Utah, 84.48%, B rating, #38 in the House
https://utahscorecard.com/
https://utahscorecard.com/results/?leg[]=UTL000295&dist=30
(no 2016 rating)
Winder: 2017 Salt Lake Chamber Business Champion.
Cox: 2016 Salt Lake Chamber Business Champion, 89% rating (Also 2015, 2012 Business Champion.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2016/03/rep-fred-cox-voting-ratings-for-2016_12.html
For 2015 Session Ratings/Rankings and votes for previous years, see:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2015/03/rep-fred-cox-voting-ratings-for-2015.html
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee
For Immediate Release
Contact: Don Guymon
for Constitutional Defense Committee - Utah Republican Party
Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee
Republican leaders clarify intent of special meeting and new bylaw language
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Salt Lake City, UT. Don Guymon, spokesperson for the Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee (“CDC”), released the following statement to correct false information, reported in the news, regarding the purpose and outcome of the Saturday, February 24, 2018 meeting of its governing body, the State Central Committee (SCC):
The SCC meets regularly, and sometimes monthly, as needed, to address Party business, including organizing for caucuses and elections. The 2018 Caucus takes place on Tuesday, March 20. For this reason, in accordance with our rules, the SCC members called a special meeting on Saturday, February 24, to address Caucus preparation, budget issues, and bylaw modifications, including modification of an existing bylaw that has been under discussion since 2013.
State statute authorizes political parties to challenge the candidacy of any candidate who violates party rules.
Additionally, Justice Scalia in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California Democratic Party vs. Jones stated:
In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process...because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power…
Since 2015, candidates have been required to certify they will not violate the party rules, but the bylaw lacked enforcement language. Under the new bylaw language, a candidate who willingly files to run, using a method contrary to Republican Party rules, temporarily forfeits membership in the Party, for the duration of the election cycle.
These changes were made in consultation with legal counsel and in compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Utah Code Section 20A-8-401-(2a) . This Court precedent was confirmed in the Party’s recent successful constitutional challenge to election law changes, which the Utah Legislature passed in 2014 (Senate Bill 54). It is SB54 that is unconstitutional and is the subject of the current lawsuit.
If the Republican Party Executive Committee chooses to enforce this bylaw change, it does not affect any candidate already filed to run, and during the 2018 election cycle, it only applies to U.S. House Districts 1 and 2, so that no already filed candidate will be impacted.
For more information, Contact Don Guymon
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
It is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the same.
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there. The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted down.
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership.
Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts, and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018 candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris Stewart.
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some counties have had that as well. What passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018 for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present. Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.
Some thoughts from others
https://guymonsays.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-utah-gop-and-the-first-amendment/
https://youtu.be/8S02ZFpPlpU
Contact: Don Guymon
for Constitutional Defense Committee - Utah Republican Party
Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee
Republican leaders clarify intent of special meeting and new bylaw language
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Salt Lake City, UT. Don Guymon, spokesperson for the Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee (“CDC”), released the following statement to correct false information, reported in the news, regarding the purpose and outcome of the Saturday, February 24, 2018 meeting of its governing body, the State Central Committee (SCC):
The SCC meets regularly, and sometimes monthly, as needed, to address Party business, including organizing for caucuses and elections. The 2018 Caucus takes place on Tuesday, March 20. For this reason, in accordance with our rules, the SCC members called a special meeting on Saturday, February 24, to address Caucus preparation, budget issues, and bylaw modifications, including modification of an existing bylaw that has been under discussion since 2013.
State statute authorizes political parties to challenge the candidacy of any candidate who violates party rules.
Additionally, Justice Scalia in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California Democratic Party vs. Jones stated:
In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process...because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power…
Since 2015, candidates have been required to certify they will not violate the party rules, but the bylaw lacked enforcement language. Under the new bylaw language, a candidate who willingly files to run, using a method contrary to Republican Party rules, temporarily forfeits membership in the Party, for the duration of the election cycle.
These changes were made in consultation with legal counsel and in compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Utah Code Section 20A-8-401-(2a) . This Court precedent was confirmed in the Party’s recent successful constitutional challenge to election law changes, which the Utah Legislature passed in 2014 (Senate Bill 54). It is SB54 that is unconstitutional and is the subject of the current lawsuit.
If the Republican Party Executive Committee chooses to enforce this bylaw change, it does not affect any candidate already filed to run, and during the 2018 election cycle, it only applies to U.S. House Districts 1 and 2, so that no already filed candidate will be impacted.
For more information, Contact Don Guymon
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
It is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the same.
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there. The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted down.
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership.
Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts, and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018 candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris Stewart.
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some counties have had that as well. What passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018 for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present. Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.
Some thoughts from others
https://guymonsays.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-utah-gop-and-the-first-amendment/
https://youtu.be/8S02ZFpPlpU
Thursday, January 25, 2018
2018 SB 87 School Security Locks
[Update: The bill was amended to remove the ADA concern for the bill, but it still has a major life safety concern as stated below]
In 2011, during my first session as a new legislator, I heard the phrase, Dead kids make bad laws. I asked for more information and found that legislators, wanting to protect kids, have sometimes over reacted when a child dies in creating new laws. The goal was good, but they didn't take take to look at the different ramifications of the proposed law. In some cases it has taken years to undo the damage of the bad rushed bill.
Yesterday I became aware of a new such bill.
S.B. 87 School Security Locks
What does the bill do?
This bill: amends the International Building Code and International Fire Code regarding: hardware height on a door for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill; and door operations provisions for locks and bolt locks, and latching and unlatching, for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill.
But there are dead kids, so the bill has to pass to make parents feel safer.
If the bill were to pass, is there a simple amendment that would save lives?
Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
What will that do?
It will allow children to get out of a classroom faster during an emergency and could save lives.
Won't that gut the bill?
No, there are already countless existing building code approved "barricade classroom function" locks on the market and many of the existing classroom looks can be field modified to allow the door to be locked from the inside of the room and not just the outside.
There is only one lock manufacturer that makes an aftermarket barricade classroom lock that can be opened from the outside with a special key that is the target of the bill. If the bill is amended, that lock won't be installed in schools, but other building code approved locks can be installed.
Won't that cost the school district more money? Not necessarily. The more expensive "Mortise" type locks, can be field modified saving money, providing the security and safety. The less expensive "Cylinder" type locks can be replaced with less expensive locks that allow the door to be locked from either the inside or the outside with a key, but allow the children on the inside to get out without a key or slowing them down.
Is there any other problems with the bill? Yes
for decades, the US Department of Justice has determined that the combination of the current International Building Code and the Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities ICC A117.1 is equivalent to the building design requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAG) without dragging the architect into a civil rights law for liability.
As currently written, I believe SB 87 violates both ICC A117.1 and ADAAG and would NOT allow someone in a wheelchair to lock the door, but more importantly unlock the door to get out of the classroom.
Are you saying that in your opinion that SB 87 as currently drafted violates ADA and could open architects, district and the state to lawsuits re: ADA? Yes
So is the bill as originally drafted worse that than passing nothing? Yes
Is any related bill needed? Good question.
Any classroom I have ever seen has a lock on it that can be secured to protect the occupants, but the traditional "Classroom Function" lock requires a key to be used to lock the door from the outside (protects the teacher from being locked out and protects students from being dragged into a classroom and locked in and harmed. That isn't bad, but in the new age of shootings, it doesn't allow the door to be locked from the inside. The door always opens from the inside without a key in one operation.
The newer building code complaint "barricade classroom function" locks are the same as the old ones, but also allow someone on the inside to lock the door with a key. In a shooting situation, this is quicker and safer, but still allows someone on the inside (including in a wheelchair) to open the door with one operation and no key.
IF the Utah legislature wants to require certain new school classrooms to have the barricade classroom function locks, the ones that meet current code and allow only one operation to get out of the room and requires no key to get out of the room, they could substitute or amend the bill to require that.
Should the current bill pass? No
Can it be amended? Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
Is there a better option? Yes, debate whether or not it is good policy to require certain new classrooms to have the newer code complient locks that allow locking from both sides of the door.
What about the State Fire Marshall's office? If you go to the Governor's office, you limit what the state fire marshall's office can say and do, and they can not create policy. I personally met yesterday with the person in the office that gave the sponsor the language to change the building code. If Lines 48 and 102 were changed from "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines., he would not be personally opposed to the bill.
Disclaimer. I am an architect who has be using the building codes and has been designing to meet ADA and ICC A117 for decades.
In 2011, during my first session as a new legislator, I heard the phrase, Dead kids make bad laws. I asked for more information and found that legislators, wanting to protect kids, have sometimes over reacted when a child dies in creating new laws. The goal was good, but they didn't take take to look at the different ramifications of the proposed law. In some cases it has taken years to undo the damage of the bad rushed bill.
Yesterday I became aware of a new such bill.
S.B. 87 School Security Locks
What does the bill do?
This bill: amends the International Building Code and International Fire Code regarding: hardware height on a door for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill; and door operations provisions for locks and bolt locks, and latching and unlatching, for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill.
But there are dead kids, so the bill has to pass to make parents feel safer.
If the bill were to pass, is there a simple amendment that would save lives?
Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
What will that do?
It will allow children to get out of a classroom faster during an emergency and could save lives.
Won't that gut the bill?
No, there are already countless existing building code approved "barricade classroom function" locks on the market and many of the existing classroom looks can be field modified to allow the door to be locked from the inside of the room and not just the outside.
There is only one lock manufacturer that makes an aftermarket barricade classroom lock that can be opened from the outside with a special key that is the target of the bill. If the bill is amended, that lock won't be installed in schools, but other building code approved locks can be installed.
Won't that cost the school district more money? Not necessarily. The more expensive "Mortise" type locks, can be field modified saving money, providing the security and safety. The less expensive "Cylinder" type locks can be replaced with less expensive locks that allow the door to be locked from either the inside or the outside with a key, but allow the children on the inside to get out without a key or slowing them down.
Is there any other problems with the bill? Yes
for decades, the US Department of Justice has determined that the combination of the current International Building Code and the Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities ICC A117.1 is equivalent to the building design requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAG) without dragging the architect into a civil rights law for liability.
As currently written, I believe SB 87 violates both ICC A117.1 and ADAAG and would NOT allow someone in a wheelchair to lock the door, but more importantly unlock the door to get out of the classroom.
Are you saying that in your opinion that SB 87 as currently drafted violates ADA and could open architects, district and the state to lawsuits re: ADA? Yes
So is the bill as originally drafted worse that than passing nothing? Yes
Is any related bill needed? Good question.
Any classroom I have ever seen has a lock on it that can be secured to protect the occupants, but the traditional "Classroom Function" lock requires a key to be used to lock the door from the outside (protects the teacher from being locked out and protects students from being dragged into a classroom and locked in and harmed. That isn't bad, but in the new age of shootings, it doesn't allow the door to be locked from the inside. The door always opens from the inside without a key in one operation.
The newer building code complaint "barricade classroom function" locks are the same as the old ones, but also allow someone on the inside to lock the door with a key. In a shooting situation, this is quicker and safer, but still allows someone on the inside (including in a wheelchair) to open the door with one operation and no key.
IF the Utah legislature wants to require certain new school classrooms to have the barricade classroom function locks, the ones that meet current code and allow only one operation to get out of the room and requires no key to get out of the room, they could substitute or amend the bill to require that.
Should the current bill pass? No
Can it be amended? Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
Is there a better option? Yes, debate whether or not it is good policy to require certain new classrooms to have the newer code complient locks that allow locking from both sides of the door.
What about the State Fire Marshall's office? If you go to the Governor's office, you limit what the state fire marshall's office can say and do, and they can not create policy. I personally met yesterday with the person in the office that gave the sponsor the language to change the building code. If Lines 48 and 102 were changed from "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines., he would not be personally opposed to the bill.
Disclaimer. I am an architect who has be using the building codes and has been designing to meet ADA and ICC A117 for decades.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Why the 2017 Homeless bill should have been amended before passage
In
2016 I voted FOR 2 Homeless bills, designed to help the homeless and
AGAINST the one taking away Midvale's right to have any say in the
shelter they had being year round or not. This last year, 2017, I was
not in the House of Representatives and did
NOT vote for the bill taking way West Valley's or South Salt Lake's
ability to have any control as to where Mayor McAdams wanted to put the
new shelter. The proposed locations were terrible.
As a Rotary member, we have been helping a center with a great record of helping single parents get housing and employment.
http://www.familysupportcenter.org/lifestart-village/
After the bill passed in 2017, I provided specific location issues for sites proposed, and even the size of some of them. See:
https://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/03/salt-lake-county-homeless-shelter.html
I didn't say it shouldn't be in any one city, including ours. I personally spoke to Mayor McAdams more than once on this issue and attended all the public meetings. Each city had a place that would actually work, but they were not asked as I stated. Proposing on locating a homeless shelter next to a school for teen age girls that were expecting or recently became a single parent was more than silly, and that was just one of the several locations proposed. The Legislature voting to give the county mayor that power was dangerous. (Disclaimer, Sen. McAdams was the senator sponsor of several of my bills in 2011 and 2012 including my bi-partisan congressional district redistricting map proposal).
Did anyone realize that the H.B. 441 Housing and Homeless Reform Initiative Amendments was going to be a bad bill and not just a funding bill? Yes.
West Valley City officials told their representatives in the House and Senate that the Homeless Bill had this problem and not to vote for it as drafted. All House Members voted for the bill initially, (one in Utah County eventually voted no) including the ones that heard George Chapman in the House Standing Committee tell them what the bill would do to city rights and that it needed to be amended. Our local State House Member voted for the bill.
One West Valley City State Senator, Sen. Thatcher, brought this issue up to the Senate during floor debate and had the bill passage put on pause, (circled) until the Governor's office promised that the cities would not be railroaded if the bill passed. It is surprising the House didn't have the same discussion.When that did happen, Sen. Thatcher was one of the first to cry foul.
Now that the proposal is to build the facility near the Jordan River Parkway, there is a new proposal to turn the Parkway over to the State as a State Park, with the main reason the Homeless near the river. It would have been better not to locate the facilities near the river in the first place.
It there any one thing that started the problem to where Homelessness in the areat got out of hand?
I believe yes.
Many of the homeless that were downtown until the recent relocation were from out of state, and they were sent by other cities to Salt Lake City when past Mayor Becker announced: in 2014 to 2015:
"We are 90 percent of the way with the housing-first model toward eliminating homelessness for our chronically homeless in this city. It is an incredible national achievement that is recognized every day."—Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, at the Poverty Summit, Aug. 29, 2015
https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/problem-not-solved/Content?oid=2966986
Utah has its own share of problems in this area, without trying to solve it for other places in the nation. We will do better to follow programs that work, such as the Family Support Center LifeStart Village and not removing state and county funding for it and providing for programs that have not been tested or have proven to fail.
As a Rotary member, we have been helping a center with a great record of helping single parents get housing and employment.
http://www.familysupportcenter.org/lifestart-village/
After the bill passed in 2017, I provided specific location issues for sites proposed, and even the size of some of them. See:
https://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/03/salt-lake-county-homeless-shelter.html
I didn't say it shouldn't be in any one city, including ours. I personally spoke to Mayor McAdams more than once on this issue and attended all the public meetings. Each city had a place that would actually work, but they were not asked as I stated. Proposing on locating a homeless shelter next to a school for teen age girls that were expecting or recently became a single parent was more than silly, and that was just one of the several locations proposed. The Legislature voting to give the county mayor that power was dangerous. (Disclaimer, Sen. McAdams was the senator sponsor of several of my bills in 2011 and 2012 including my bi-partisan congressional district redistricting map proposal).
Did anyone realize that the H.B. 441 Housing and Homeless Reform Initiative Amendments was going to be a bad bill and not just a funding bill? Yes.
West Valley City officials told their representatives in the House and Senate that the Homeless Bill had this problem and not to vote for it as drafted. All House Members voted for the bill initially, (one in Utah County eventually voted no) including the ones that heard George Chapman in the House Standing Committee tell them what the bill would do to city rights and that it needed to be amended. Our local State House Member voted for the bill.
One West Valley City State Senator, Sen. Thatcher, brought this issue up to the Senate during floor debate and had the bill passage put on pause, (circled) until the Governor's office promised that the cities would not be railroaded if the bill passed. It is surprising the House didn't have the same discussion.When that did happen, Sen. Thatcher was one of the first to cry foul.
Now that the proposal is to build the facility near the Jordan River Parkway, there is a new proposal to turn the Parkway over to the State as a State Park, with the main reason the Homeless near the river. It would have been better not to locate the facilities near the river in the first place.
It there any one thing that started the problem to where Homelessness in the areat got out of hand?
I believe yes.
Many of the homeless that were downtown until the recent relocation were from out of state, and they were sent by other cities to Salt Lake City when past Mayor Becker announced: in 2014 to 2015:
"We are 90 percent of the way with the housing-first model toward eliminating homelessness for our chronically homeless in this city. It is an incredible national achievement that is recognized every day."—Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, at the Poverty Summit, Aug. 29, 2015
https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/problem-not-solved/Content?oid=2966986
Utah has its own share of problems in this area, without trying to solve it for other places in the nation. We will do better to follow programs that work, such as the Family Support Center LifeStart Village and not removing state and county funding for it and providing for programs that have not been tested or have proven to fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)