Fred C. Cox for Utah

The threshold is a two way sword

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sun, 19 May 2013 07:28:00 +0000

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/Henrickson, 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.

Yes a 2/3 would have made even 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.

Why vote down the take over compromise at the convention

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 18 May 2013 11:57:00 +0000

For a period spanning 2 years, I had the best floor attendance record for floor votes in the entire Utah legislature. I wanted to hear what Rep. King, Rep. Powell, Rep. Bird, and Rep. Noel were going to say. Even though I had read the bills in advance, discussing them could cause me to change my mind or figure out a better way, solving the concerns of many.

That is being proposed to be removed from the caucus meeting. Dropping off our votes but not discussing. That is what is wrong with Washington DC. They don't listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that not follow it.

I am not in favor of changing the 60% threshold and changing to 65% will not get the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote people to back off, they also want:

"AND if the caucus event is opened up so everyone can participate even if they cannot attend at a specific place at a specific time" .

I say go watch WALL-E from Pixar again, the people on the spaceship.

I like the idea of improving the caucus meeting so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact. We can make the meetings so someone can come for two hours and vote.

We are talking neighborhood town halls. We aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group would ruin that.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. Ie think that is a good thing.

Keep Fair Elections in Utah.

Keep Fair Elections in Utah

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Thu, 16 May 2013 07:52:00 +0000

The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed that I wrote. You can read it at:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp

The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.

We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.

No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.

In support of Aaron Gabrielson for Utah State Republican Party Chair

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 11 May 2013 15:04:00 +0000

The movement of the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group in many cases is to make sure the establishment has more power than grassroots. It is my opinion watching them personally this last month that Aaron Gabrielson wants to help both groups (establishment and grassroots) and James doesn't. Do we really want to hack off a very vocal part of our party? For all the move to be inclusive, the establishment wants more to participate as long as they maintain the power. This is a bad direction to go.

Four years ago, I supported Dave Hansen for state party chair and very actively helped his campaign because I believed we would have a divided state party if the other candidates won and Dave would keep the party whole. I also supported Morgan Philpot at that time because I believed he would help to make sure we didn't have a divided party. In 2010 after watching Dave attend rallies and be supportive of those in the party wanting to push back against the Federal Government, I knew I made the correct choice. I have been on different sides than Dave on other races and other causes, but Utah was better because of his service. Dave was also fair to all the US Senate candidates in 2010. I watched other states such as Nevada react poorly to 2010 and it showed in 2012.

One of the reasons I ran to be a member of the state central committee was I felt like a large percentage of the committee was trying to shift the balance of power away from the state delegates and more to the state central committee and was amazed to watch the votes of the state central committee. I attended for a year before running to be a member. I do agree there needs to be a balance of power between the delegates and the state central committee. I have voted against changes I believed shifted the power to far either way.

I voted for Thomas Wright for State Party Chair 2 years ago, despite concerns because I felt the other choices would not help unify the party. This year I am supporting Aaron Gabrielson for similar reasons. I believe Aaron will keep the party whole and growing.

How much did Aaron raise to help fight Matheson in 2008 and 2010? How much has he raised to even run for this election. I am not worried about Aaron's ability to raise money. More importantly to me was Aaron's ability to find 80 volunteers to help him fight to get good Republican's elected when he didn't have a title and he didn't have to do anything.

I am worried about the establishment movement to crush grassroots. I believe Aaron will help unify. Remember that a large chunk of the funds Aaron raised for state raises in 2012 was to go to Rep. Kraig Powell, hardly a "TEA Party" favorite, but a good man representing his constituents and the Republican Party candidate.

For the last week or two I have been also asking myself why LaVarr Webb who leads the powerful lobbyist and insider Exoro Group and also the Count My Vote / Buy My My Vote group working to bypass the neighborhood election, caucus and convention system doesn't want Aaron to win ?

I believe we should improve, but not gut, our neighborhood election, caucus and convention system. The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure a grass roots process can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.

While all 3 candidates claim they are in favor of fighting to support and keep the caucus system, I do not believe we should do this by caving into their demands . Out of the 3 candidates, the one that has the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group the most concerned is Aaron Gabrielson. He is also the one that has impressed me based on his actions and not just his words.

Aaron Gabrielson is also someone involved with social media, and didn't just sign up on Facebook this last month. He is relatively young and energetic. One of the major focus groups that the Republican Party needs to help understand the party are the young voters.

Join me in supporting Aaron Gabrielson for Utah State Republican Party Chair. Let's keep the party whole, add the younger voters and and let's fight to keep our neighborhood election, caucus and convention system.

To the members of the State Central Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:12:00 +0000

To the members of the State Central Committee, 2011-2013,

I wish to go on record that I object to the attempt by some to create an emergency or "surprise" State Central Committee meeting prior to the State Convention next week with most of the "outgoing" committee members. I would think we were more grownup that this.

Dozens of you were contacted recently by email or phone to see if you are willing to sign on to requesting a new meeting, apparently because someone didn't like the results of the votes we took in the March and April meetings. I didn't like all the results either, but that is why we vote, to see what we as a committee can agree on and what we don't. That email wasn't sent to everyone. This email is being sent to all the ones listed on the State Party website. I am sorry if it no longer applies to you or I get the email address wrong.

If this "grassroots" called State Central Committee meeting were to be held just prior to the convention, I believe it would disrupt those members that have volunteered to help candidates and the constitutional and bylaw issues being discussed. The delegates are coming as early as 7am and for the SCC members to be in a meeting after than time, that eliminates those that are helping with credentialing, booths, passing out flyers, or just meeting old friends and making new ones.

Many, but not all SCC members are state delegates and should be asking their final questions to candidates during this time period, or help their favorite candidate get elected.

If there truly was an emergency, that would be one thing, but what would be the limit to the agenda items?

To be further discussed that day at the Convention, they have to be items that we have already voted on, or the C&B committee voted on already, and already be in the call for the convention.

I hope that this email already finds you in agreement and that this "last ditch effort" has already failed.

My likely assumption is that someone wants the SCC to change their vote on the threshold to avoid a primary. While this is a critical vote, we had it in March and again in April. We could not get 2/3 of those voting to agree on changing the 60/40 system we have now. There was no confusion on the vote.

Again, I ask that you reject this apparent "sour grapes" move. If someone is worried about the County My Vote / Buy My Vote group's threats, I say "bring it". We can kick their butt.

Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

For my opinion on the 60% issue, see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/04/keep-it-at-60-percent.html

Disclaimer, I was originally "maybe OK" with a change in percentage until I realized 2 things:

1. Moving from 60% to 2/3 would, based on the last 12 years and the party released stat sheets, increase the number of contested in-party state wide or congressional races going to a primary up by 17%.

2. The Count My Vote / Buy My Vote group in their last letter to us threatened us to raise the threshold high enough so that later they could push to eliminate multiple round or preferential voting, (only have one vote) and have more than 2 candidates go to the primary. At least they were open and honest about their motives. I would hope we would be smart enough to see them.

3. See other reasons at the above link.

[update. At least 50 members of the committee voted to re-vote the 2/3 threshold vote and hold the special meeting apparently because they didn't like the results last time. They are not proposing an amended proposal, it is the same one]

Fair Elections Utah

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:05:00 +0000

My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/

Why I am OK with LDS Church being pleased with BSA Membership Standards Resolution

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:00 +0000

BSA isn't proposing on January 1, 2014 of allowing homosexual scouts. It is allowing scouts that stay morally clean with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief to be scouts. There is a difference.

There has been a lot of comments re: individuals pulling their sons from Scouting. I believe those statements show a lack of understanding of what the Church has said, and what BSA has said. I have linked and included those statements below with the following initial comments from me.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and an Eagle Scout, and as someone that has been a scout leader, I am very supported of both organizations.

The Church allows someone with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief to serve as an active member in callings of responsibility. It is only the persons actions that the Church teaches to be wrong that causes the Church, or BSA to take action limiting the status of the individual.

The Church said this about the proposed standard " a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God".

Based on that, after Jan. 1, 2014, if you get a scout that has same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief, and the scout follows the " single standard of moral purity for youth in the program" he can participate. I don't have an issue with that.

From the BSA Member Standards Resolution: "AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting"

Someone with same-sex attraction, orientation, and/or belief can already serve as Scout Leaders, providing they follow the Scout Oath and Law and are not open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

From the BSA Member Standards Resolution:

"AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting"

"The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law."

"While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA."

The statements referenced are linked and are listed below for referenced:

See also:
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america

Church Issues Statement on Boy Scouts of America

Salt Lake City —

For 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong, rewarding relationship with Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
Recently, BSA has been reviewing a possible policy change in its standards for membership and leadership. Now that BSA has finished its review process and has proposed a resolution for consideration, the Church has issued the following statement:
“Over the past several weeks BSA has undertaken the difficult task of reviewing its membership standards policy. In their own words, this undertaking has been 'the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history.'
"While the Church has not launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change we have followed the discussion and are satisfied that BSA has made a thoughtful, good-faith effort to address issues that, as they have said, remain 'among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.'
"The current BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.
"We are grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues. We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future.”

The statement they are referring to is at:

http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Resolution.aspx

Membership Standards Resolution

WHEREAS, it is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law:

Scout Oath		Scout Law
On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, Mentally awake, and morally straight.		A Scout is: Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind	Obedient Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent

AND WHEREAS, duty to God, duty to country, duty to others, and duty to oneself are each a core value and immutable tenet of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, the Scout Oath begins with duty to God and the Scout Law ends with a Scout's obligation to be reverent, and that will always remain a core value of the Boy Scouts of America, and the values set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are fundamental to the BSA and central to teaching young people to make better choices over their lifetimes; and
WHEREAS, the vision of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Scout Law; and
WHEREAS, for more than 103 years, programs of the Boy Scouts of America have been delivered to youth members through cooperation with chartered organizations that select adult leaders who meet the organization's standards as well as the leadership standards of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, numerous independent experts have recognized that the programs protecting Scouts today, which include effective screening, education and training, and clear policies to protect youth and provide for their privacy, are among the best in the youth-serving community; and
WHEREAS, the current adult leadership standard of the Boy Scouts of America states:

The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.
While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting; and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda; and
WHEREAS, youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life; and
WHEREAS, America needs Scouting, and the organization's policies must be based on what is in the best interest of its young people, and the organization will work to stay focused on that which unites us, and
WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The following membership standard for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America is hereby adopted and approved, effective Jan. 1, 2014:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

Why my proposal should be considered today

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:55:00 +0000

When I can to my first state convention in 2002 as a delegate, I was glad my state house rep was there. I wouldn't have to run against him at a precinct meeting. He knew what was going on and knew enough about rules, etc. to be helpful. I didn't need someone to tell me who to vote for and he didn't. I came to the meeting having read all the proposals and knew which I would vote for and against. When Joe Cannon grouped all the ones he liked together and all the ones he didn't together, despite the fact that the 2nd bunch didn't work together, I was happy to have both bunches killed on the floor.

Over the years, a number of very smart people have argued why the current system can stay and used the state party constitution and bylaws to defend it. Others have argued why it is not allowed under those same documents. It is clearly that we don't agree what the documents say overall and attempts by both sides to clarify have failed.

This idea is very similar to what Thomas Wright proposed a year ago. I didn't like it then and wanted to create a loophole so counties still have the ability to send ex-officio delegates. This proposal has all 4000 state delegates elected precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention for underfills. No delegates "off the top" and no other delegates. Yes, the limited voting representatives would be able to vote on some things.

http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Fred%20Cox%20Proposal%20(3)(1).pdf

Why keeping the 60 percentage threshold to avoid a primary helps Fair Elections

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:21:00 +0000

We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.

I had considered raising the threshold to avoid a primary, but after looking at the numbers, it doesn't make sense.

The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.

Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.

They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.

70% would not have helped Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.

Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.

It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?

The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.

I like the 60/40, but initially thought I would be willing to go to 2/3 and 1/3. It would make it harder to boot out an incumbent at convention and but give someone new a little better chance of making to a primary. Gov. Gary Herbert would have most likely faced Morgan Philpot this year and Rep. Chris Stewart would have faced Dave Clark. Moving it back to 70/30 makes it almost impossible to kick out an incumbent at convention. That violates their 4th principle. This year, my friend Rep. Newbold was defeated at convention in her re-election campaign. If the threshold to avoid a primary had been 70%, she would have made it to the primary. I asked her last month if she favored changing the threshold to avoid a primary to 70%. She said no.

The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?

"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." I agree and the "Count My Vote" proposals up to now don't follow their own principles. Perhaps that is why they deleted it from their list of 4 principles.

We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.

Three of my other posts on this subject:

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-elections-most-important-principle.html

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html

Fair Elections the Most Important Principle

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:45:00 +0000

In Lavarr's email to the SCC, (See below) the most important item is what is missing. It is LaVarr's 4th principle, the one that surprised me when this was released last month, just prior to our other meeting, because I believe their proposals violate it:

http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process

"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."

If Fair Elections are no longer a principle of theirs, than the opposite could be true, in which case, I have no interest in keeping them happy.

Also, from Daily Policy today, the ultimate, you will not do what we want so we are really going to do it anyway.

http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/22225960/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook--Change-Can-be-Difficult--Especially-in-Primary-Elections?

"The Utah Republican Central Committee, meeting Saturday, apparently won’t even consider a change in convention candidate nomination rules that would address a major complaint by Utah voters: The ability of a few hundred state GOP delegates to drive relatively popular Republican incumbents from office."

"In short, even with a long list of possible candidate nomination changes, Utah GOP bosses would still be able to boot from office incumbents like former Sen. Bob Bennett (in 2010) and former Gov. Olene Walker (in 2004)."

Since these two didn't make even the top 2 candidates, the only proposal to change it is likely not to pass. We don't elect officials for life. This isn't the SCOTUS. They have no right to expect to remain in office if the voters don't agree, and it was the voters that elected the delegates in their neighborhoods.

This group has no advantage to turn in their initiative prior to the first couple of days of June of 2013, according to information I received from the Lt. Gov. office. They have to have their signatures all counted and approved at the county and state level in 316 days from the day they file, if I remember correctly, and prior to April 15, 2014. That is next year.

Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"LaVarr Webb"
*To: *"LaVarr Webb"
*Sent: *Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12:32 PM
*Subject: *Memo to Political Party Leaders

M E M O R A N D U M

April 12, 2013

*From*:                    Count My Vote Executive Committee (Gov. Mike
Leavitt, Rich McKeown, Maura Carabello, Matt Sanderson, Kirk Jowers,
David Hansen, LaVarr Webb, Michael Shea)

*To*:                          Republican and Democratic party leaders

*Subject*:               Update and Statement of Principles

As you know, over the last several months our group, along with many
other Utahns, has been discussing Utah’s process for nominating
political party candidates with the goal of increasing voter participation.

The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack
fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We
also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with
neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.

We believe, however, that substantive reforms are necessary to reverse
the current trend of low voter participation and to ensure good
governance and creation of good public policy.

We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the
process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large,
statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014
ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination
process. Given the results of survey research and focus groups, we are
confident that such a proposal would be strongly supported by most Utah
leaders, and would be overwhelmingly approved by voters.

As part of this process, we have engaged in productive and good-faith
discussions with party leaders, and many party members. We are pleased
that party leaders have been open-minded, creative, and desirous of
increasing participation in the political process. We appreciate their
willingness to discuss, negotiate, and seek solutions.

Some time ago, we developed three important principles that continue to
guide our deliberations. We have concluded that if the political parties
are able to make internal reforms to fulfill these principles, we will
not need to move forward with the ballot measure.

Here are our expectations for fulfillment of these principles:

1.The nomination process must be inclusive, accessible, and allow
participation in the caucus phase by all voters.   A process that
requires individuals to attend a particular meeting at a particular
place at a particular time on a particular day excludes and
discriminates against those who may be away serving their country or
church, those who may be ill, those who may be required to work, or away
on business. Such a system is not acceptable. Fulfilling this principle
will require opening caucus participation over a longer period of time,
and providing an accessible method for votes to be cast by those who
cannot attend in person.

2.Primary election choices must be expanded so more voters have the
opportunity to determine a party’s ultimate nominees. This can be
achieved by: (a) raising the convention vote threshold to avoid a
primary election to between 70% and 80%; (b) certifying for the
primary-election ballot any candidate who receives over 20% or 25% of
the delegate vote on any ballot during the Convention; and (c)
eliminating multiple ballots. These modest changes would provide more
choices for the broader party membership in a primary election, which
will, in turn, boost Utah’s voter participation rate. While we encourage
the parties to consider all of these proposals, raising the threshold to
at least 70% is the minimum required to fulfill this principle.

3.Some degree of stability, consistency and permanence is necessary so
that changing political winds do not result in frequent changes to the
system. We recognize that nothing in politics is certain or lasts
forever, but we expect party leaders to work to implement long-term
internal or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.

Because of deadlines and the large amount of work involved in mounting a
signature petition drive to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot, we will
continue our ballot-measure preparations as we monitor the success of
the parties in adopting these reforms over the next several weeks. We
appreciate party members’ and leaders’ willingness to listen, analyze
and work with us.

*LaVarr Webb / *The Exoro Group

10 West 100 South #300 / Salt Lake City UT 84101

www.utahpolicy.com
<http://www.utahpolicy.com>/ www.exoro.com <http://www.exoro.com>

[email address and mobile phone number deleted for privacy]

Two other of my blogs on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html

Thoughts on the Utah Neighborhood Elections Caucus System

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:36:00 +0000

We need to make sure the Utah neighborhood election caucus system is set up so it could be done in 2 hrs. and we get the election results, not just back to the county and state, but to those that missed it so they can still contribute and let their elected delegates and precinct leaders know what they think. The person that got a babysitter for 2 hrs to attend their neighborhood caucus should be able to vote

We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah to make sure students know where a caucus meeting is, and Utah residents can register to attend and participate. Perhaps we should increase the number of locations the neighborhood caucuses are on college and university campuses. We can add another hundred thousand new caucus attendees in 2014.

The most anger I saw at our caucus was there were 4 that walked out after they realized the 6 people running for 2 state delegate spots were all Sen. Hatch Supporters. They weren't the typical, "I will vet the candidates and pick the best one and also listen to your comments" type people. My precinct had been stacked. These 4 people had come for the first time and felt like someone in office for 36 years was already too long. I assured them I wasn't going to be voting for Sen. Hatch as my first or 2nd choice. He was my 3rd choice. It made them feel better.

The current system does work. I spent a year trying to get a candidate elected running against Bob Bennett and we got Mike Lee. He has done better than I expected. He was my 3rd or 4th choice. He was almost eliminated at convention because his campaign team didn't go for the 2nd or 3rd choice vote. Tim Bridgewater did. He knew he wasn't my first choice, but was willing to accept my 2nd choice vote. When my candidate lost, I went with Tim Bridgewater. There was very few Eagar, Bridgewater or Bennett 2nd choice votes that went or would have gone to Mike Lee. That is why Tim Bridgewater received almost 60% of the delegate vote.

It was during the Primary Election that Mike Lee was selected to be the Republican Party Nominee even though Tim Bridgewater was endorsed by Sen. Bennett.

During a mid term selection for the Utah State House of Representatives, I won against the West Valley City Mayor's mom in West Valley for a special caucus on the 2nd vote. She was ahead on the 1st round. There is no way I would have won against her in a primary. If I had had 8.5 people change their mind per precinct this last year, I would have won against another incumbent that had 30 plus years of West Valley politics and elected offices. It is hard to beat an incumbent. We shouldn't make it harder by raising the primary avoiding threshold to 70% or more.

The 60% primary avoiding threshold has worked well. If we adjust it at all, it should be kept as close to the current number as possible. Raising it to 2/3 would have created a primary in 2012 for Gary Herbert, and Chris Stewart. It would have made sure Sen. Hatch didn't buy himself out of at Primary. He didn't succeed, even with $5 Million and large bonuses to his paid staff on the line.

Many think rising the threshold could be good, but you have to remember that Jason Chaffetz almost hit 60% when running against Chris Cannon. He still won in the primary election. Since then in Utah, we have had good candidates willing to run against incumbents. That is a good thing. We do not want to destroy that because of a threat by a powerful lobbyist group.

"A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." One principle we all can support.

http://www.fairelectionsutah.com/

Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:40:00 +0000

Fred C. Cox is a current member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee representing Salt Lake County and is a former member of the Utah House of Representatives.

One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus meeting and convention system we have in Utah, is this: "A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." The problem is their proposals would do exactly that.

The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think this is a good thing.

Vote for Fred Cox to fight to improve, but not gut, the neighborhood caucus and convention system.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

• Utah State House of Representatives, January 2011 through December 2012.

• Utah Republican State Central Committee, 2011 to present.

• Utah Republican State Delegate 2002-2003, 2005-2011.

• Salt Lake County Central Committee, 2010 though 2012.

• Salt Lake County Republican Legislative District Chair, August 2010 to January 2011.

• ChamberWest Regional Chamber of Commerce Government Action Committee, Nov. 2010 to present

• AIA Utah, Government Affairs Committee, January 2008 to January 2011 and January 2013 to present.

• Campaign Volunteer and/or Consultant for the following:

Ron Bigelow, Utah House of Representatives, 1994 to 2010.

Jason Chaffetz, U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 3rd District, May 2008 through 2010.

Kevin Fayles, Candidate for Mayor, West Valley City, UT, 2009.

Dave Hansen, Utah State Republican Party Chair, March 2009 to June 2009.

Cherilyn Eagar, 2010 US Senate Race, May 2009 to May 2010,

Tim Bridgewater, 2010 US Senate Race, May and June 2010.

Morgan Philpot, 2010 U.S. House of Representatives, Utah 2nd District, June 2010 to November 2010.

Daniel W. Thatcher, 2010 Utah State Senate, District 12, August 2010 to November 2010

• Church Based community service

CONTACT INFORMATION:

fred@fredcox4utah.com

http://www.fredcox4utah.com

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/fredcox4utah http://www.fairelectionsutah.com

http://www.facebook.com/fred.c.cox

http://www.facebook.com/fredcox4utah Paid for by Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County, WVC 060

Federal budget cuts sequestration

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:37:00 +0000

Having been in a small 4 seat plane coming back from St. George, flying about 180 MPH and seeing an other small plan flying about the same speed coming the opposite direction, I was glad that we were at different elevations, but not by much. We had no warning, as the plane I was in didn't have a "fish finder", small radar system. I was sitting in the Co-Pilot chair as there were only two of us in the plane. We were surprised that no one from the Air Traffic Tower didn't mention something, but it was very likely that they had noticed we were at different elevations and in our "lanes" and so it shouldn't have been a problem. Without someone in these small towers, who would be warning the small planes there was a problem? We had been warned about someone crossing our path at at a different occasion. Landing and take off at the St. George airport was interesting, as we just announced to anyone that might be listening that we were landing, or taking off and hoped that SkyWest pilots were listening to the correct frequency.We were comforted that someone in Cedar City was listening.

Closing these Air Traffic Towers is about as stupid as DABC (Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) a few years ago saying they were closing down 40% of their best stores when the legislature had a 7% across the board cut among several agencies, including them. DABC was acting like a small child throwing a media temper tantrum, and temporarily got their way with the Governor working to find them a few extra $ Million.

Lucky for taxpayers that the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, who works for the Legislature later found their stash of $ Millions they had already been squirreling away and other major problems, something that our previous State Auditor's office had missed.

Because Congress has been unwilling to pass a budget since Pres. Obama has been in office, they did agree to some automatic cuts of about 2%. The Feds are acting just like DABC did.

We shouldn't let these small children throwing a media temper tantrum win, We should replace those in charge, just like we did at DABC.

Fair Elections in Utah vs Count My Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:01:00 +0000

“Count my Vote” or Buy my Vote?
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus meeting and convention system we have in Utah, is this:

" A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process

I find this statement amazing, because I agree with it. The proposal to bypass the caucus system and also change the percentage to avoid a primary to 85%/15% will actually create "inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous". It is designed to do exactly what the supporters of this proposal state are against their principles.

If you are going to run as a democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an unaffiliated or independent, or run as a 3rd party candidate. This is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature. That is called being a pirate.

There are 104 members in the Utah State Legislature. It contains both Democratic members and Republican members, liberal, moderate and conservative. It is simply amazing that not one of them were willing to run a bill to do what this group plans to do by a voter initiative. Why? It isn't that all incumbents win under the current system. In fact there were 2 members of the Utah House that lost at convention this last election, a half dozen that lost in a primary election and 2 more than lost in a general election. There were others that decided not to run.

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. Perhaps that is the problem this group is trying to solve.

The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

Most people who want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people who show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money; you just have to show up.

Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. Approx. one out of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One in every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to attend.

When people realize this will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab.

It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.

This proposal isn't "Count my Vote" it is “Buy my Vote”, funded like a hostile corporate takeover by DC lobbyists acting like pirates.

Don't let them Buy your Vote, Keep the Caucus System.

Read the State Democratic response:
http:www.fairelectionsutah.com/NewsletterLetterfromtheChairUtahDemocraticParty.pdf

(Print to .pdf of the letter to replace the one updated on April 12, 2013)

The Utah Compact

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:56:00 +0000

None of the 4 main Utah immigration bills signed in 2011 followed the 1st principle of the Utah Compact.

Contrary to Mr. Shurtleff's public comments, it wasn't a key in what was passed. As a member of the legislature in 2011 and 2012, I received hundreds of emails saying to vote for something that followed the Utah Compact, apparently encouraged by both the Salt Lake Chamber and also the Sutherland Institute.

Since there were no bills that followed the first principle of the Utah Compact, nor could there be at a state level, It only made me wish the document was never created. I have never signed The Utah Compact.

The local Catholic Bishop didn't come to the signing of the 4 immigration bills in 2011 because, as he stated, they didn't follow the Utah Compact.

http://www.utahcompact.com/read-the-utah-compact

THE UTAH COMPACT

A declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.
LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.
FAMILIES Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.
ECONOMY Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.
A FREE SOCIETY Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

Again, I have never signed The Utah Compact.

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/05/utah-compact.html

The 2013 Legislative Session Update

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:18:00 +0000

My favorite bills that passed are HB 338, Alimony Revisions, HB 36 Storm Water Capture Amendments, HB 262 Unaffiliated Voter Amendments, and HB 215 Water Quality Amendments, all of which I originally pulled the bill requests last year as a Representative, transferred to others and they passed both houses. [update: the Governor signed all 4 bills]

I have to thank the new House sponsors and Senate sponsors and others for their hard work in my place. HB 338 Alimony was originally SB11, but it didn't pass the Senate Committee. The final version of HB 338, Alimony, received 27 yea votes and no, no votes in the Senate and passed the House by over 2/3. I also need to thank Stan Rasmussen and Sen. Valentine and several interested voters that wrote the legislature with personal stories and reasons for the bill.

I actively fought and spoke to have HB 338 Alimony and HB 36 Storm Water pass and HB 36 was one of the last bills voted on the last night of the session passing both houses with all yea votes. I need to thank Soren Simonsen for helping solve an impasse that blocked passage for over a year.

HB 253, Employment Verification Amendments, which I had drafted was heard in committee, but I was not able to get my proposed amendments to the bill drafted after Sen. Bramble pulled his SB 225, Immigration Trigger Dates which extended the 2011 HB 116 guest worker start date.

I am also very glad that HB 310, HB 202 and HB 217 passed keeping our Building, Energy and Fire codes. I worked hard on those as an interested and vocal citizen.

I actively fought the SB 267 New Convention Hotel Development Incentive Act, which failed by 2 votes. I actively worked to fix SB 120, which defines when the state forester can ban target practicing, which the sponsor agreed to run anyway after putting it on hold. The decision to restart the bill was partly because of my proposed amendments.

I am amazed the HB 268, Rep. Ray's gun bill didn't get voted on in the Senate. I didn't see that coming. I believe that will cause HB 76 Open Carry to be vetoed, and be the reason it won't get the upcoming veto overridden. I had concerns with even the final version of the bill HB 76, but they are greatly increased because HB 268 didn't pass.

I would have tried to kill the smoking in cars with kids bill and the teenager cell phone use bill as I believe the bills, as drafted, overstep private property rights.

I actively fought raising the sales tax on food and a recall election bill.

I congratulate Rep. Fisher for running HB 240, Alcohol Service in Restaurants which passed both houses. It will help solve a problem with enforcement run amok.

Overall, I am happy with the session and thankful for all the hard work that was done.

Disclaimer, I was not paid for any work on any of these bills in 2013, complying with State Law.

Salt Lake City Mega Theater

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:22:00 +0000

They are putting this on the wrong block. IF it is to be built, it should be on the same block as the Capitol Theater and closer to the Salt Palace Convention Center. The Convention Center "needs" more meeting room space. Hello?

I watched Les Miserables at a London theater smaller than what the Capitol Theater is. The Palace Theater holds 1400.

The Gershwin Theater in New York, one of the few "large" Broadway Theaters, that has Wicked playing, where I saw it, holds 1933. The Capitol Theater holds 1876.

OK, they aren't exactly the same shape and size, and I attended over 20 years of season opera at the Capitol Theater dealing with the tight legroom at row E upstairs. It is fine. .

Wicked has performed here and we don't need a larger theater.

How many bucks for the extra seats? There is a new theater opening up in West Valley. Not as big, but well used.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55953694-90/arts-center-contracts-council.html.csp

Salt Lake Convention Hotel

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:13:00 +0000

A new County Hotel is being looked at even though it could cause the Grand America and others to go under. I have read the past reports sent to the Convention Center about the proposed County Hotel. It was pretty obvious that this connection doesn't work and that the hotels as a whole think the County is competing with them instead of working with them.

I would like to see the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau work with the existing hotel owners instead of trying to compete with them. They almost ignore both the Little America and Grand America Hotel and that you can ride TRAX free from the north convention center exit to those hotels.

The hotels near the Salt Palace Convention Center should be able to market their individual hotels and the fact that they have all the convention and meeting room space that someone could want with the convention center. The convention center should be able to market with the surrounding hotels to utilize their meeting rooms and convention space if more space is needed.

There are at least 2 adjacent Hotels to the Salt Palace. The 381 room Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown recently spent about $7 Million upgrading their hotel.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54557826-79/salt-lake-radisson-hotel.html.csp

There is also the Salt Lake Marriott Downtown at City Creek across the street. I believe it has at least 510 rooms with a complete renovation in the last 5 years.

One could easily be the "Convention Hotel", and create the ability for someone to check off that box on their decision sheet on where to have their next event.

For the few days a couple of times a year where the hotels are too full, why don't we do what we did for the Olympics? We have brand new condos right next door. How many would rent them out for a few days twice a year? That would have to be coordinated, but could help.

For those that really want the 5 Star Hotel, we already have one of the best, The Grand America, within a free TRAX ride, or coordinated private transport from the Convention Center.

We don't need to pump $100 Million (or even $33 M) of tax payer money into a new Hotel to compete with the private sector, or provide that kind of funding for a private hotel competing unfairly.

Wasatch Canyons Wilderness vs Watershed Protection

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 06:11:00 +0000

[update. 2013 HB 36 passed with a new amendment proposal. It works]

I have been fighting for a year to pass a bill, now 2013 HB 36 , (See the link for more information and videos) to make it easier to reuse rain water and SLC has been blocking it, I believe, because they want to keep control of private property up all of the east side canyons of Salt Lake valley. They seem to be afraid they don't have enough jurisdictional power and want more. They have the League of Cities and Towns to help them.

Initially I thought this added line was to protect Salt Lake City to avoid lawsuits from people wanting to use their own property. Then I thought is was that they really wanted to protect the watershed, the drinking water used by 60% of Salt Lake Valley. With their rejection of my last suggestion, it appears they don't feel they have enough jurisdictional power over all the private property up the canyons.

The fight is over a few words, shown below as 143a:

139 (6) Beneficial use of water under Subsection (2)(b) does not
constitute a water right
140 and may not be:
141 (a) changed under Section 73-3-3;
142 (b) assigned;
143 (c) consolidated with a water right ; or

143a (d) used as a basis to establish the availability of water for land use development.

My latest compromise used this for line 143a

143a (d) used to bypass watershed protection jurisdiction as provided by
Section 10-8-15

I feel like their version of 143a is a Utah State-wide Zoning Ordinance.

I tried limiting that line143a to just Cities of the 1st Class (Salt Lake City and West Valley City) so it wouldn't effect all of Utah, especially the smaller areas of the state, some of which have developments with no running water.

Then I found out they wanted it to also cover the entire canyons in the Watershed. That includes areas outside of Salt Lake City and includes:

City Creek Canyon

Emigration Canyon (above Burrs Fork)

Parleys Canyon

Dell Canyon

Lambs Canyon

Big Cottonwood Canyon

Little Cottonwood Canyon

Including any City in those Canyons.

So I proposed to limit line 143a to Counties of the First Class. That wasn't accepted.

My last suggestion above, should make the bill neutral as it doesn't take away any of SLC's current watershed protection jurisdiction, but doesn't provide any new restrictions to develop property.

They say that isn't enough and are insistent that that the law be changed so captured storm water cannot be used as the basis for land use development approval.

So how much watershed protection jurisdiction power do they already have?

http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Salt_Lake_City_Watershed_Management_Plan_-_1999_final.pdf

If you look on pages 29 and 30 from the above plan, the section 10-8-15
from state law is used a lot in the watershed management plan. (pages 39 and 40 from the .pdf file)

The document does also reference the state constitution, which gives SLC a lot of power over watersheds since it appears they have locked up the water rights and 2013 HB 36 doesn't give anyone any water rights.

As a city of the 1st class, the current state law gives SLC and SL County Health Department watershed protection jurisdiction for entire canyons, not just the first 15 miles, with a few exceptions.

The limited rain water capture is likely to be used just for watering gardens and landscape. Since 2013 HB 36 requires anyone using over the (2) 100 gal. drums to let the state water engineer know what they are doing and also to meet building code, someone would need to go through quite a filtering and treatment process to use the water in a home or cabin and would need to meet plumbing code.

2500 Gallons of water might be enough for a week of water for a small cabin, perhaps more, but it could give someone in the middle of Utah an option to use their land. I believe one of the main reasons the Federal Government couldn't Homestead or sell the land in Utah was the lack of water, then in 1976 they violated their agreement at our Statehood and decided to keep the land.

The Federal Government now controls about 2/3 of Utah.
Salt Lake City, using 10-8-15 and other similar laws controls the canyons even private property outside the city boundary.

Whether or not they are abusing 10-8-15 now is not the question. Should Salt Lake City have a new law to make it more apparent they can block any and all development in the canyons on private property even if the owner can design something that also protects the watershed and doesn't take away someone's water rights?

2013 HB 36 Stormwater Capture Amendments

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 05:32:00 +0000

2013 HB 36 Stormwater Capture Amendments

The bill makes sure the state water engineer does not enforce water rights laws for doing basic required storm water protection using retention and detention.

It also allows greater flexibility for home owners and businesses to capture rainwater for reuse. It keeps the 2500 gal max but allows more than (2) 100 gal containers to be used above ground if someone will notify the state through their website.

It has been reviewed by the state engineer and mosquito abatement groups as well as farmers.

It had 3 standing committee buildings last year, and passed committee, house, but ran out of time to pass the senate. This bill the bill did pass and was recommended by an interim committee for this session and has passed the house for 2013 with no votes against it.

As was proposed the end of the 2012 session the bill adds some verbiage to make sure water rights were not created by the bill.

Additional information:
Retention (holding rainwater) and Detention (slowing down rainwater) act like shock absorbers to avoid flooding businesses and homes and are required by many cities and counties.

The most obvious design to many people are the small parks in urban subdivisions that fill with water during a heavy rain storm, but drain and are relatively dry most of the time.

In Utah, when the rain drop or snow flake hits the ground, the water is the State's Water. Water Rights protects individuals who have been using this water. Several years ago, it was agreed that a person could capture and use for beneficial use up to 200 gallons above ground and 2500 gallons below ground. The controversy was due to a car wash in Salt Lake City reusing large amounts of rainwater to decrease their culinary water use. Attempts to change the overall 2500 limit have failed, due to concerns by farmers and others.

Water tanks are required to be covered to avoid mosquito problems.

By adding additional flexibility to whether or not the tanks are above ground or below ground, the bill increases the likelihood of more recycling of storm water.

We live in one of the driest states in the US. Perhaps it we reused more rainwater we could decrease some of the cost of providing more water as the population grows.

Some video's that might help explain. The 2nd one is the best.

Small storage

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/video/0,,20045365,00.html

1200 Gallons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH16e-1RwE8

play 8:30 min. into the video until about 11:30 min. after the ad.

Current law in Utah allows the 1st option, the 2nd option would now have to be an underground tank. That is being proposed to change, allowing what is being shown on the video.

Update:The bill passed with a new amendment that works.

Wrong Amendment to the State Fire Code

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:54:00 +0000

I am very concerned about the amendment placed on the fire code, 2013 HB 217, this morning in the House. I have dealt with building codes for 35 years and fire codes much of that time.

As an architect, it is important that I know what the building and fire codes are when designing a building. Currently, there is a process for a local amendment through the Utah Building Code Commission and their recommendations to the Business and Labor Committee. Today's floor amendment allows changes to go around this system and, effectively eliminates a state wide fire code. I am concerned similar attacks will be made on the Building Code and Energy Code.

I believe the solution to the various complaints should be in Chapter 1 of the Fire Code as well as the Building Code, 2012 IBC 104.10.

The House Floor amendment today I consider a disaster for life safety in the state. We can solve the concerns with a simple change and then the amendment made this morning can be deleted in the Senate. We don't need a new process.

This is from the 2012 IFC

[A] 104.8 Modifications.
Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of fire prevention.

[A] 104.9 Alternative materials and methods.
The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. The fire code official is authorized to approve an alternative material or method of construction where the fire code official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.

The words "special individual reason" in the first paragraph I believe are the problem. The words also appear 2012 IBC 104.10.

They should be changed. We want the building and fire departments to use common sense. If we allow them to do so, we don't need to create new building and fire codes for each county.

Delete the words "special individual" from both the IFC and the IBC in these sections of chapter 1 and allow the building officials to use "reason" and keep the state amendment process we have with the codes.

[Update: The amendment was removed in the Senate Committee. ]

Could John Swallow be Impeached

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:06:00 +0000

What about the actions of John Swallow? I have ignored the statements of Mr. Johnson. I have not ignored the statements from John Swallow and the documents and recording already released. From the recording, I have focused on just John Swallows statements.

Do I believe that I believe that John Swallow was part of a plot to bribe Sen. Reid? No.

Do I have concerns? Yes. (The following is my opinion. I am not a judge or an attorney, nor currently serving in the legislature.)

What about the apparent intentional hiding of a potential required disclosure of a conflict of interest, P Solutions LLC, (3) times, which has ties to Richard Rawle, and whose only revenue initially came from the same account that Johnson paid Rawle from? OK, I could believe that John Swallow just missed on March 9, 2012, but how do you explain the March 15, 2012 and January 10, 2013 forms with them not showing up, even under his wife? How do you explain the money being refunded by P Solutions LLC and being repaid by a different account less than 1 year from the filings?

As I stated before, 76-8-109 (4) doesn't have a penalty, as it is a protection from violating other subsections. I don't know if it could be proved he intentionally lied on the form. I have personally filled out that form several times and could give him a pass for missing something on the March 9, 2012 version, but I have not heard a defense on the other two versions.

Since that appears in this case not to have worked, (the incentive to fill out on the form all items required by 76-8-109 (4) ) IF I were still in the Utah Legislature, I would have pulled a bill file already to add the same coordinating clauses and penalty as the other required financial disclosure forms, and I would have requested the House Judiciary Standing Committee to put John Swallow on the witness stand, and depending on his answers to questions on the committee, decide if this, or the House Boat, 67-16-5 . or the reported Pay to Play Campaign Fundraising for Mark Shurtleff , 76-8-105 , reach to the point of impeachment. IF warranted, I would have a committee report read to the House recommending the Speaker poll the members to see if they have the required 2/3 to impeach. If not, John would be clear of the threat of impeachment.

I have not asked for John to step down, as I don't know all the answers to the above items.

I have seen the March 9, 2012 , March 15, 2012 , and January 10, 2013 forms and have discussed the state law section I have quoted with individuals that know more about it than I do. I thought someone, a member of the legislature, was going to run the bill, but I haven't see it yet, which means it would be more apt to be done during interim.

Depending on how the above possible scenario plays out, and the results of the answers provided John could be impeached before the end of the year or that threat would be extinguished. I have no clue what the senate would decide with those charges if they decided them to be valid.

Utah State Republican Party Constitutional Amendments, v2

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:42:00 +0000

Utah State Republican Party Constitutional Amendments, v2

(If passed, to be effective at the 2014 Nominating Convention.)

ARTICLE XII
CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES
Section 1. Precinct Caucuses

C. No subsequent election or ratification shall be required by county conventions for state delegates elected at the precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention. All state delegates shall be elected at a precinct caucus or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention.

ARTICLE XII
CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES
Section 2. State and County Nominating Conventions

C. Delegates shall be apportioned based upon relative Republican strength of each county. Relative Republican strength shall be calculated by aggregating the total combined Republican votes cast at the previous election for governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, and state treasurer, excluding the vote for any
candidate who had no opposition. Each county's portion of the aggregate vote shall next be calculated on a strict percentage basis, without rounding. ~~Each county whose allocation of delegates is smaller than the number of precincts in the county shall have its allocation of delegates increased to equal the number of precincts.~~ In addition to the apportioned number of delegates, Republicans holding partisan elected offices and also county or state party officers, who are not elected as voting state delegates, may participate in the state conventions as credentialed Legislative, State, or County Representatives. Participation by these credentialed representatives is limited to speaking and voting on floor issues, but does not include voting for candidates.

Submitted by Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County

Protect Utahns gun rights, save 2013 SB 120

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 23:00:00 +0000

S.B. 120 Target Shooting and Wildfire Regulations -- Dayton, M.

I believe this bill is needed. It is unwise to let the executive branch use constitutional power assigned to the legislature without statute.

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillint/sb0120.htm

It however appears that the changes proposed by SB 120 seem to be broader or at least less defined than those the Governor in consultation with the legislative leadership agreed to last summer.

http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=7373

Perhaps adding some clarifications, something like:

The closure may include the restriction or prohibition of the use of firearms for target shooting in unincorporated areas of the state where the banning of non-traditional rounds, or exploding targets or devices, are not sufficient to protect against the extreme fire danger.

The banning of target practice areas are only in very specific areas described or shown on a state website and by a signed notification by the state forester after consultation with county commissioners or officials and other local officials and sheriffs.

The banning of fire arm target practice shall not ban the legal carrying of fire arms as protected under Art. I, 6.

Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

PS,
Target shooting with traditional copper/lead bullets do not cause sparks. It is rare for a bullet to hit a rock, causing it to hit another rock and that rock to rock impact sparks and creates a fire, or the bullet stopping so fast by hitting a rock to heat up to a high enough temperature to cause a fire.

The great majority of the target shooting fires caused in 2012 were not caused by traditional bullets alone.

Shooting exploding targets or non-traditional rounds, such as steel jacketed or steel core or tracer rounds are main the problem.

Shooting old TV's around dry grass during a fire danger is just plain dumb.

ObamaCare

noreply@blogger.com (Fred C. Cox) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:55:00 +0000

Someone was recently asking for a copy of the "ObamaCare" bill.

This is what I found:

HR 3962 was eventually passed as a different bill later that year. It is about 30 pages or less and you don't want it. You also don't want the ACA, you want:

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) signed into law March 23, 2010 plus the amendments that are from the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, signed into law March 30, 2010. I believe the .pdf file I linked below does exactly that. I haven't found a better version. There are apt to be changes since then, so it isn't current law.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

For some really good information, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act