Governor Gary Herbert nice guy that has been in office too long

I had promised both campaigns that I wouldn't endorse either Gary Herbert or Jonathan Johnson before the convention. The County Convention was last week... :)

I had someone I respect today question why the delegates would possibly not vote for our current Governor Gary Herbert.

I will give you more than one reason. But #1: He has been in office too long. Perhaps not in years, but too long. (If he doesn't win another term he will be over 7 years as Governor, and almost 5 years as Lt. Gov).

Some will say that they will not pay attention to some State House Rep. that missed getting out of convention by 2 votes last week. I say, don't shoot the messenger.

Let me go back to 2009. I got my photo taken with then Sen. Hatch. I had decided that Sen. Bennett had been in DC too long, but in 2009, I was just fine with Sen. Hatch. By 2012, I had changed my mind. We had 2 candidates that year (we had lots more running) that I felt could do the job. One, I thought could do the job better, and I wrote this:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/06/dan-liljenquist-or-senator-orrin-hatch.html

(OK, Dan has made some decisions since 2012 that I question, so no guarantees for 2018, other than Sen. Hatch has been in DC now very much too long. We will see who comes along).

I do believe the Governor is starting to do some amazingly dumb things to make himself look good. That is never a good sign. 

 First, lets start with this:
This group seemed to do a great job of getting both of our previous State AG's into trouble. Lets hire them to help my campaign?  NOT!!!

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3246126-155/rolly-hes-baaaack-swallow-operative


OK, not as dumb as it could be, but I am just getting started.


Why would Gary Herbert and Spencer Cox "miss" marking their 2016 candidate forms correctly and then going back the next week and changing them, when they had signed and specifically initialed on March 15 that they knew they could not change the form after March 17.

The election law broken: 20A-9-201(8)
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter9/20A-9-S201.html?v=C20A-9-S201_2014040320150101


The typical Penalty: 20A-1-609
"Except as provided ... a person convicted of any offense under this title may not:
(a)    file a declaration of candidacy for any office or appear on the ballot as a candidate for any office during the election cycle in which the violation occurred;
(b)    take or hold the office to which he was elected; and
(c)    receive the emoluments of the office to which he was elected."

 http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter1/20A-1-S609.html?v=C20A-1-S609_1800010118000101

The way out: 20A-9-202 (5) find someone to complain about the form within 5 days of March 17th
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter9/20A-9-S202.html

They both made the same "mistake" at the same time. 
Yes, a few others did as well, but very few overall and this was a very public item on the form

https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2016%20Declarations%20of%20Candidacy/Governor/Governor%20Herbert%20and%20Lt.%20Governor%20Cox%20Declaration%202.pdf

Notice that they added a check box saying which method of nomination they were seeking on 3/21/16. Notice on the 2nd page they initial that they knew they couldn't change the form after March 17th at 5pm.


It isn't too bad, as they found an exception, a way to legally fix the forms without getting charged with the Class B Misdemeanor, and being banned from taking office as Governor and Lt. Governor, which is the normal default for violating the election law in this area of the law.


More recently:
Why would Governor Herbert even risk violating the State Constitution and negotiate a deal for a special session vs a veto override session to save face during an election year?  


http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=20160419-1

Compare this to Utah Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 8, (4)
http://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleVII/Article_VII,_Section_8.html 

Notice the words: Shall,  and also 60 days.There is no provision in the State Constitution for the Governor to have the legislature delay polling their body to create this deal, a Special Session.


And finally:

Today at the State GOP Convention, the Governor had his very expensive convention booth with signs that it is being sponsored by Coal and at least one other industry. He had sponsored very expensive events for delegates at both the professional basketball arena and the pro soccer stadium. 

And today he complained about attacks when the delegates just got in the mail in the last few days several letters from the Governor supporters trashing Jonathan Johnson. This included lobbyist, state school board member, and ballot nomination signature businessman Spencer Stokes. You can't write the stupidity. 

One attack was my good friend Lt. Gov. Cox hitting Jonathan about 2 adult magazines Overstock was carrying (they announced today that that is ending) when Jonathan was complimenting the state legislature for passing a resolution condemning Porn.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=39432748&nid=757&title=lt-gov-spencer-cox-calls-gop-opponent-hypocritical-in-porn-twitter-exchange

Governor Herbert has been in office long enough. Some think I have been too. I am saving my yard signs. Will the Governor?

More Recent updates:

Speed dating fundraising:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3833261-155/donor-speed-dating-with-guv-doesnt-sit?fullpage=1 
Audio:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3890228-155/in-audio-utah-guv-says-hes 

Fundraiser with ties to even with taxpayer money:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3850380-155/herbert-campaign-piggybacks-fundraiser-on-governors

Adding items to the special session call:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865653961/Utah-House-speaker-says-Herberts-Common-Core-efforts-are-political.html?nm=1


The corporation (working hand in hand with the Governor's department) credited with getting all the jobs the Governor has been taking credit for,  no filing taxes for 5 years:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/3887372-155/states-economic-development-partner-failed-to


It is one thing to hire the same political group that got our past 2 Attorney Generals in trouble, to appear to intentionally violate election laws on their candidate forms, to skirt the state constitution to save face, and then to toss out everything the attorneys are telling elected officials recently based on current federal election laws and how they are being enforced and make proposals that had lobbyists uncomfortable?

I have seen the Governor for almost 12 years, more times than I can count. He started out as the person that would go anywhere to represent the then Governor. The recent actions show he is willing to do anything to stay in office. Even skirt the State Constitution? The recent comment from the Speaker "The legislative branch has not been grafted into the governor's re-election campaign" is what I am feeling.

Outdoor Rec Industry Lashes Out Again or Still Against Utah

Do we need to back off on Utah Lands?
Under the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17, and the 10th amendment, the Federal Government can not exercise exclusive jurisdiction or own land in Utah, unless it is for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, and it was purchased by the Consent of the Utah Legislature.

When Utah became a state, the Federal Government committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title, and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund.

I believe it would be better to have the land transferred to Utah as opposed to requiring the Federal Government sell the land to developers or other countries like China.

The Utah State Constitution is designed to protect the Public Land based on Article XVIII, Section 1, Forests to be preserved, and Article XX, Section 1, Land grants accepted on terms of trust. If the Federal Government sells or transfers any public land to Utah or others, 5% of the proceeds of the sales should got to the School Trust Fund. There is a gaping loophole in that process which should be fixed.

Question: Where does this come from? "When Utah became a state, the Federal Government committed to selling the unappropriated public lands, extinguishing the title, and providing 5% of the proceeds of the sales to the State School Trust Fund."

Answer: The Utah Constitution and the Utah Enabling Act. I believe it is pretty clear. Obviously some others don't, but look at what the feds did with the same language in the enabling act for states further east. They sold the lands, and extinguished the title. Utah didn't have the water and they eventually stopped the homestead act and then FLIPMA violated the agreement from the feds side.

I would rather Utah keep the land, most as multi-use than the Feds sell the land to China. And yes, a year ago many were pushing to make the Feds sell the land. I actively pushed back. The bill that the Gov. signed doesn't make the Feds sell the land to anyone, but recognize the Enabling Act and the US Constitution.

Utah Enabling Act:
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall [SHALL} be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.

Under Sec. 2
"unappropriated public lands"
" and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States"



I believe the US was to sell the land and create a clear title. The US Supreme court in recent case involving Hawaii all agreed that was why the Feds had the land at statehood, to create a clear title, a transition. 

The US didn't sell the land in Utah, not all of it. Whether greed or water, it didn't happen. When Kleppe v. New Mexico overturned any states rights for land in 1976, Congress figured they could get away with anything. 1976 was when FLIPMA was signed, which officially put the US in violation of the Enabling Act. That is the point when Utah had claim for the land. You can argue that the US didn't have the US Constitutional power to create the agreement in the enabling act, since the US can't be owning large chunks of a state, under the US constitution. 

So you have 2 choices, force the US to sell to who knows, developers or China, or have the US recognize that they were only to hold the land in trust and transfer the land to Utah. I have fought against forcing the Feds to sell the land at this point for over a year. I won that fight. The bill that passed was not what was promoted by the sponsor last August.


Do we need a County Hotel to keep them?
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 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 hotel 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.

For some interesting reading, see:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/193/

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s2.html

5th of Sept. debate.

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/11/land-rulings.html