This has two responses I sent out Nov. 23, 2015 re: the questions about elections for 2016:
_____________
When you stick a knife into a well crafted sweater, it starts to
unravel. (Whether or not you liked the sweater, isn't the point).
There are several other issues.
See Robert Gerhke for a few of them.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3219561-155/herbert-wishes-he-wouldve-vetoed-sb54
In my opinion, several decisions the Lt. Gov. has issued this week
based on the advice of the AG (office) are in direct conflict with the
judge's judgement, and statements from the AG in court.
Below is based on my understanding.
First, IF a QPP must allow all 3 options (Caucus/Convention,
Signature, or both) that doesn't match Fact 14 from the judgement based
on #12 from the state AG.
Second, It also doesn't match the ruling that the constitution party
can be a QPP as they can't do the signatures as the law currently reads
with the judgment and the signature route was only declared
constitutional if the unaffiliated were not allowed per the judgement if
they didn't want them.
Third, based on the ruling, it is the opinion of the Lt. Gov. that
the Democratic party can't have the unaffiliated as part of a primary.
That violates the idea that the party gets to choose.
[The judge came back and said the ruling only effected the GOP and Constitution Parties. That raises another question. ]
Fourth, the judge made it clear that the GOP could determine
membership and based on the judges judgement and list of facts, the GOP
can be a QPP.
Fifth, as stated above, the QPP signature gathering numbers restrict
signature gathering by some parties in some or all areas/races.
It is true that James Evans said this last week that the party
wouldn't have any issue if someone gathered signatures for grassroots or
other reasons, they just couldn't get on the ballot with them, they had
to follow the convention threshold requirements to get on the ballot.
We already have a congressional member/candidate that has announced he
isn't doing signatures and he isn't alone.
If the QPP sweater has unraveled enough that only a RPP is allowed,
there are other constitutional issues that were not covered before
because a party had a choice between and QPP and RPP. At least one of
those items left a former Utah Supreme Court justice to say during the
race to replace the former AG that it raised a strong constitution
concern based on the US Constitution. Many of the flaws of the RPP/CMV
option were fixed with 2015 SB 207 this year, but not all.
The bill I had drafted for 2015 that ran in both the house and senate
and went to standing committees and passed a senate committee delaying
implementation of a signature requirement for a QPP until 2018 wasn't
"ripe" yet. It didn't pass last session. Perhaps it is time now.
Fred
PS, this is what I sent to my school district contact and the state
school district contact. I thought you should know. it deals with March
22.
__________________
Count My Vote's
(CMV's) biggest complaint at their press conference was the doctor or
police or firefighter or parent with sick kids not being able to come to
their neighborhood caucus night. The SCC passed the same day ballot
system to help with that.
While the Utah GOP
meetings had well in excess of 115,000 attendees in 2012, it is likely
that the attendance in 2016 will exceed that. It should. So should the
Democratic party attendees which is likely to also exceed tens of
thousands.
The fact is that our POTUS is nominated by national delegates
elected by state delegates as it was in 2008, 2012 and will be in 2016.
CMV did do nothing to change that, and the 2014 SB 54 as fixed by 2015
SB 207 did not effect the US President races re: the delegate system.
In Utah, the first
round of voting, the delegates votes are bound, the other rounds they
are not. In the past the first round vote was decided by the June
Primary. It is too late for the parties this year and so the decision
was made by the parties to decide their nominee in March at or around
their neighborhood caucus meeting. The GOP typically has a winner take
all system for their delegates. Not so this year if the top votegetter
doesn't get a majority. The GOP will have some online POTUS preference
voting available, but the precinct leaders and delegates will be chosen
that night.
It is my
opinion, any school concert, sports event or fencing class on March 22
2016 is a disservice to the citizens of this state, nation and world, as
that will be where we really decide who our POTUS will be.
Not only will
the state delegates that pick the national delegates be voted on, but
the POTUS nominee preference vote will be that night as well. There will
likely be a push from POTUS candidates to get their base to the
neighborhood caucus night on March 22nd.
On Saturday, at the GOP State central committee the two districts
that were mentioned to complain to the Governor about was [...]. It has been known since last March 2015 that the POTUS
nomination would not be decided in June but in March. The 22nd. (some
online voting for the POTUS nomination will occur)
In the case of Salt Lake County GOP, the Vice Chair of the party also
provided the specific request for the schools on March 22 within the
first week of school this year. As far as I know, none of the High
Schools came back as available. That is rubbish. There shouldn't be
anything else happening that night. I worked hard to get both of the
major parties on the same day.
I will bring this up on Dec. 7th at the state school district
meeting. It is my hope that this is solved this week and we don't have
to wait until then.
We still are getting some districts around the state that are
reportedly taking advantage of the parties, according to state law, re:
the cost and availability of getting the schools for the neighborhood
caucus night.
Several legislators have been contacted to open bill files to amend
the law to be more clear. The Governor is on board to talk to the state
school board. Depending on what the districts do the next couple of
weeks, that may not be required.
Since much of the budget for the 2016 session will be decided by Dec.
16 of this year, if the schools want part of the $3 Million of savings
we have for not having a special US presidential election, to help with
the funding of the neighborhood caucus night, they would have to show
they were actually helping instead of hurting. The schools promote that
they are community centers. They should act like it.
Fred C. Cox
House 30
West Valley City, UT 84120
Monday, November 30, 2015
Sunday, October 25, 2015
List of Legislators endorsing Jackie Biskupski for Mayor
For many legislators supporting Jackie, See this Op-Ed:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3092343-155/op-ed-biskupski-will-fight-for-not
I didn't work with former Rep Becker as a Representative, but did as an architect. I have worked some with Mayor Becker as an architect and also a Representative. He has strengths and weaknesses like everyone.
In 2011, I worked with Rep. Jackie Biskupski on the House Judiciary Committee. When I needed help to kill a bill also sponsored by a Republican freshman, but which was really being run for our current Republican AG to further amend our 4th Amendment Rights I had sworn to defend, Rep. Biskupski was there. She helped this new conservative legislator kill the bill repeatedly in committee, despite a full court press by our AG. She won my thanks and my respect. She didn't stop there. She helped me many times that year. Any contact or help I have needed since, she has treated me with respect and help, even when we didn't agree.
While not on the above list, add Rep. Fred C. Cox as someone that supports Jackie for Mayor for Salt Lake City. She is deliberate but fair and she will make a great Mayor.
Rep. Fred C. Cox, former and current member of the Utah House of Representatives.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3092343-155/op-ed-biskupski-will-fight-for-not
I didn't work with former Rep Becker as a Representative, but did as an architect. I have worked some with Mayor Becker as an architect and also a Representative. He has strengths and weaknesses like everyone.
In 2011, I worked with Rep. Jackie Biskupski on the House Judiciary Committee. When I needed help to kill a bill also sponsored by a Republican freshman, but which was really being run for our current Republican AG to further amend our 4th Amendment Rights I had sworn to defend, Rep. Biskupski was there. She helped this new conservative legislator kill the bill repeatedly in committee, despite a full court press by our AG. She won my thanks and my respect. She didn't stop there. She helped me many times that year. Any contact or help I have needed since, she has treated me with respect and help, even when we didn't agree.
While not on the above list, add Rep. Fred C. Cox as someone that supports Jackie for Mayor for Salt Lake City. She is deliberate but fair and she will make a great Mayor.
Rep. Fred C. Cox, former and current member of the Utah House of Representatives.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Utah Access Plus Medicaid Expansion Proposal
[Update: Utah Access+ couldn't get enough votes to move forward.
Lets see, the Utah House GOP earlier this year was willing to invest $30 Million for Utah Cares, coupled with a 70/30 split would be $100 Million total to help the poor adults with health care. The kids are already eligible. That wasn't enough.
The Governor wanted Healthy Utah where the state would need $80 Million with the 90/10 split, but the $80 Million wasn't funded.
UtahAccess+ funds the $80 Million with the $30 Million from the state and $50 million from the health care providers, as new taxes and fees. What killed UtahAccess+, or likely did, was Greg Bell saying the Hospitals, who would make tens if not hundreds of millions a year on either Healthy Utah or Utah Access+, didn't want it if there was no cap other than the 6%.
They were willing to pay $25 Million total and if it was more, they weren't.
So, go back to Utah Cares, there are the votes and the funding for it. It covers those that can't make money because they need health care and more.
[Original Post]
Should Utah do something? Yes. The Federal Government, in the attempt to make sure everyone can have medical insurance has made it worse. What we should do re: Medicaid expansion is what we do in other areas where people need help.
We should provide short term aid and work to provide a long term solution. Prove caps on time and money. Do not take away individual responsibility. This isn't Medicare, something that everyone retiring has to deal with. This is Medicaid, something that was designed for those that can't afford other options. ObamaCare trying to make more people fall into that category isn't the answer.
Don't Expand Medicaid in Utah. Do care, Do provide short term aid and work to solve the long term solution.
The Utah Access+ bill isn't final, but what is being proposed at this time is covered in the following documents:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess1.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess2.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess3.pdf
A almost Draft Bill for Utah Access+ is at:
http://le.utah.gov/documents/medicaidExpansion.pdf
Earlier this year I voted for a proposal called Utah Cares. A copy of that bill is here:
http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0446.html
The Cost to the State Taxpayers would eventually be approx. $30 Million per year.
We have people that can't work because they need health care and don't make enough money to qualify for help. Those are the ones we need to focus on and encourage people to make more money, not less.
The other main proposal was called Healthy Utah.
http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0164.html
The cost to the State Taxpayers for Healthy Utah would eventually be approx. $80 Million per year, would have no cap for budgeting, would cover people not in the "Coverage Gap", and would expand medicare to 138% of poverty level.
Currently on Medicaid or Chip, children are covered, as are adults with children under 50% are covered and approved disabled adults under 100%.
The largest healthcare coverage gap are for
adults that are not disabled under 100% of poverty and
adults with children between 50% and 100% of poverty. (The Children are covered)
Adults over 100% of poverty, but under 400% qualify for subsidy plans through ObamaCare.
The only reason to expand Medicaid to 138% is so the state will get a 90/10 Federal/State split on the cost of the expansion population medical costs vs the 70/30 Federal/State split we currently pay and will continue to pay for the non expansion population medical costs. The 90/10 Split would allow Utah to provide coverage for more people using more Federal dollars.
Healthy Utah crossed the 100% of poverty line and would have moved those between 100% and 138% to Medicaid. Utah Access+ does the same thing. The biggest difference is the cost.
Utah Access+ uses about $30 Million in State money, similar to Utah Cares, but adds approx. $50 Million in new taxes to the Medical field. Many of those with the new taxes would benefit from the new federal money but not all.
I oppose the new $50 Million in taxes. I oppose expanding Medicaid to 138% of poverty.
Federally, we can revise solve many of the healthcare problems without ObamaCare. Expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare is the wrong direction.
We can help people that can't work because they need health care and don't make enough money to qualify for help, without expanding Medicare. I am working to move the discussion back to Utah Cares and that focus. A step, not as big as some want, but a step none the less is the correct approach.
To take the stand that it is all or nothing that the Governor did with Healthy Utah and now Utah Access+ with the $50 Million in new taxes and fees is just wrong.
Lets see, the Utah House GOP earlier this year was willing to invest $30 Million for Utah Cares, coupled with a 70/30 split would be $100 Million total to help the poor adults with health care. The kids are already eligible. That wasn't enough.
The Governor wanted Healthy Utah where the state would need $80 Million with the 90/10 split, but the $80 Million wasn't funded.
UtahAccess+ funds the $80 Million with the $30 Million from the state and $50 million from the health care providers, as new taxes and fees. What killed UtahAccess+, or likely did, was Greg Bell saying the Hospitals, who would make tens if not hundreds of millions a year on either Healthy Utah or Utah Access+, didn't want it if there was no cap other than the 6%.
They were willing to pay $25 Million total and if it was more, they weren't.
So, go back to Utah Cares, there are the votes and the funding for it. It covers those that can't make money because they need health care and more.
[Original Post]
Should Utah do something? Yes. The Federal Government, in the attempt to make sure everyone can have medical insurance has made it worse. What we should do re: Medicaid expansion is what we do in other areas where people need help.
We should provide short term aid and work to provide a long term solution. Prove caps on time and money. Do not take away individual responsibility. This isn't Medicare, something that everyone retiring has to deal with. This is Medicaid, something that was designed for those that can't afford other options. ObamaCare trying to make more people fall into that category isn't the answer.
Don't Expand Medicaid in Utah. Do care, Do provide short term aid and work to solve the long term solution.
The Utah Access+ bill isn't final, but what is being proposed at this time is covered in the following documents:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess1.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess2.pdf
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/UtahAccess3.pdf
A almost Draft Bill for Utah Access+ is at:
http://le.utah.gov/documents/medicaidExpansion.pdf
Earlier this year I voted for a proposal called Utah Cares. A copy of that bill is here:
http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0446.html
The Cost to the State Taxpayers would eventually be approx. $30 Million per year.
We have people that can't work because they need health care and don't make enough money to qualify for help. Those are the ones we need to focus on and encourage people to make more money, not less.
The other main proposal was called Healthy Utah.
http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0164.html
The cost to the State Taxpayers for Healthy Utah would eventually be approx. $80 Million per year, would have no cap for budgeting, would cover people not in the "Coverage Gap", and would expand medicare to 138% of poverty level.
Currently on Medicaid or Chip, children are covered, as are adults with children under 50% are covered and approved disabled adults under 100%.
The largest healthcare coverage gap are for
adults that are not disabled under 100% of poverty and
adults with children between 50% and 100% of poverty. (The Children are covered)
Adults over 100% of poverty, but under 400% qualify for subsidy plans through ObamaCare.
The only reason to expand Medicaid to 138% is so the state will get a 90/10 Federal/State split on the cost of the expansion population medical costs vs the 70/30 Federal/State split we currently pay and will continue to pay for the non expansion population medical costs. The 90/10 Split would allow Utah to provide coverage for more people using more Federal dollars.
Healthy Utah crossed the 100% of poverty line and would have moved those between 100% and 138% to Medicaid. Utah Access+ does the same thing. The biggest difference is the cost.
Utah Access+ uses about $30 Million in State money, similar to Utah Cares, but adds approx. $50 Million in new taxes to the Medical field. Many of those with the new taxes would benefit from the new federal money but not all.
I oppose the new $50 Million in taxes. I oppose expanding Medicaid to 138% of poverty.
Federally, we can revise solve many of the healthcare problems without ObamaCare. Expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare is the wrong direction.
We can help people that can't work because they need health care and don't make enough money to qualify for help, without expanding Medicare. I am working to move the discussion back to Utah Cares and that focus. A step, not as big as some want, but a step none the less is the correct approach.
To take the stand that it is all or nothing that the Governor did with Healthy Utah and now Utah Access+ with the $50 Million in new taxes and fees is just wrong.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Town Hall Meetings
Come meet Representative Fred Cox and ask questions at:
Town Hall Meeting, Tue., August 25, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall Meeting, Thu., August 27, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall Meeting, Sat., August 29, 2015, 12:00-2:00 p.m.
All at the Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Town Hall Meeting, Tue., August 25, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall Meeting, Thu., August 27, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall Meeting, Sat., August 29, 2015, 12:00-2:00 p.m.
All at the Hunter Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
I really appreciate representing the great people of this
area of West Valley City. I have worked hard to read the bills,
speak up, and also vote on the bills, taking into account different viewpoints.
I was able to have bills pass the legislature and signed by the governor. Many
of the bills I sponsored were at your request.
For 2015, I
was given a 100% rating from the Utah Taxpayers Association for voting against
tax increases and looking out for the taxpayers. I also received a Salt Lake
Chamber 2015 Business Champion award for working to help business grow.
I have
worked hard recently to make sure the legislature doesn’t ignore the idea of keeping
the prison in Draper, which I believe would save over $100 Million or more.
About Fred: Fred serves as a member of the Utah
State House of Representatives for 2015 and 2016 representing almost 1/3 of West Valley City residents. He also served in the
House for 2011 and 2012. A Utah native,
and a lifelong resident of Salt Lake County, Fred graduated from Highland High
School, studied at the University of Utah, graduating from what is now called
Salt Lake Community College in Architectural Technology. A licensed Utah
Architect, Fred started his own architectural firm in 1996, working and living
in West Valley City. Fred and his wife Aleta have lived
in West Valley City for over 28 years.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Utah Prison moving it or not to Salt Lake City
My response to recent emails:
PRADA and the PRC were not tasked with studying rebuilding the prison at Draper. While I was not in the appropriation meetings referred to a few years ago in a response to your email, I have been at all public PRC meeting this year, and attended the public meetings at the 3 communities, and I have reviewed studies that are public and requested and recently obtained other studies that have not been posted such as the Geotechnical and Utilities Reports.
While there was one report from the outside consultants recently re: building at Draper, I personally spoke to the consultant and he was not able to defend, in my opinion, his claim that the prison would be more costly or could not be rebuilt safely at the Draper site. That is his opinion. His big concern was doing construction work inside the fence and not outside the fence. The State is expanding Gunnison Prison right now, but constructing it outside the security fence.
There is enough room to rebuild the current main men's facilities (South Point) and the new core area for a prison at Draper in the vacant land, "outside the fence". Construction traffic can come from the north, not impacting the current security gate systems. South Point can then be torn down and the rest of the prison can be rebuilt on site. The power lines could be moved onsite for $10 Million if we need to, based on estimates sent to me from RMP.
Phasing could run from $5 Million per year (local contractor number) to $17 Million per year, (PRC number). Depending on how it is phased, at least one year of extension of time would be required. Based on the proposal to use surcharging at the SLC site, it would not take more time to rebuild at Draper, in my opinion. Even not surcharging the SLC site, the time to build roads and utilities could be less at Draper as they are already on site. We don't have to spend the $150 Million just to get and use the site if we use Draper.
At Draper, we could phase it over a much longer time period, reportedly saving $Hundreds of Millions, but if we are going to build a brand new prison somewhere now, it is my opinion it can be at Draper, and I believe at a savings around $100 Million, and be closer to current employees and not be further from current volunteers.
There is some savings for other travel/transportation costs of the SLC site over Draper, but those two locations, Draper and SLC, are the least costly long term to have a prison at than the other 3 locations, according to the reports provided the PRC.
For the SLC site, the consultants geotechnical firm's "not for construction, preliminary" but lengthy report suggests 1 to 2 years of surcharging the site to remove excess water and to compress the site and then to remove part of that earthwork to allow the site to rebound. If the state does follow that suggestion, along with the piers recommended, their estimate is $60 Million and 18 months for that work.
Re: the Ground at SLC site, Do I believe the prison could be built at the SLC site with less costly methods than those suggested? I do. Do I think the geotechnical solutions will be more costly than budgeted, I don't. I am not a Geotechnical Engineer, but as an architect I have been reviewing geotechnical reports regularly for over 20 years and I am working on resolving any concerns I have with the site with a different geotechnical engineer that has the most experience, in my opinion, of any in the state and especially in that specific area. It is likely the same engineer that other agencies of the state are asking questions about the site.
The water and sewer costs at the SLC site vary greatly depending of if the those utilities are obtained from Magna or SLC. Water is cheaper one place and sewer is cheaper the other. This item could effect the cost to construct a prison at SLC by [ ...] millions, either way.
Again, I am not an expert on prisons. I served as a volunteer at the Draper Prison for 2 years. many years ago I worked on the construction drawings for the Gunnison Prison, including the site and floor plans and also the site and other drawings for Oxbow in South Salt Lake, plus site master plans for several proposed prison locations around the county, while working for a local firm. I have spent 30 years designing sites for commercial shopping centers and other commercial sites. Utah has 680 acres at Draper and we could design that location to free up land for Draper to get additional prime commercial property, creating a win-win.
Do I believe it makes sense policy wise to move the prison from Draper? I do not.
If you are going to spend, what I believe to be $100 Million of more money to move the prison, the SLC site location makes the most sense long term for the state based on transportation and other ongoing costs. I don't believe the site there will stay vacant for very long. The Agricultural zoning will likely be changed to manufacturing and high tech firms will move there, near the airport. Will they also move to Draper, over time, likely.
Good questions.
Fred C. Cox,
Rep. House 30
PRADA and the PRC were not tasked with studying rebuilding the prison at Draper. While I was not in the appropriation meetings referred to a few years ago in a response to your email, I have been at all public PRC meeting this year, and attended the public meetings at the 3 communities, and I have reviewed studies that are public and requested and recently obtained other studies that have not been posted such as the Geotechnical and Utilities Reports.
While there was one report from the outside consultants recently re: building at Draper, I personally spoke to the consultant and he was not able to defend, in my opinion, his claim that the prison would be more costly or could not be rebuilt safely at the Draper site. That is his opinion. His big concern was doing construction work inside the fence and not outside the fence. The State is expanding Gunnison Prison right now, but constructing it outside the security fence.
There is enough room to rebuild the current main men's facilities (South Point) and the new core area for a prison at Draper in the vacant land, "outside the fence". Construction traffic can come from the north, not impacting the current security gate systems. South Point can then be torn down and the rest of the prison can be rebuilt on site. The power lines could be moved onsite for $10 Million if we need to, based on estimates sent to me from RMP.
Phasing could run from $5 Million per year (local contractor number) to $17 Million per year, (PRC number). Depending on how it is phased, at least one year of extension of time would be required. Based on the proposal to use surcharging at the SLC site, it would not take more time to rebuild at Draper, in my opinion. Even not surcharging the SLC site, the time to build roads and utilities could be less at Draper as they are already on site. We don't have to spend the $150 Million just to get and use the site if we use Draper.
At Draper, we could phase it over a much longer time period, reportedly saving $Hundreds of Millions, but if we are going to build a brand new prison somewhere now, it is my opinion it can be at Draper, and I believe at a savings around $100 Million, and be closer to current employees and not be further from current volunteers.
There is some savings for other travel/transportation costs of the SLC site over Draper, but those two locations, Draper and SLC, are the least costly long term to have a prison at than the other 3 locations, according to the reports provided the PRC.
For the SLC site, the consultants geotechnical firm's "not for construction, preliminary" but lengthy report suggests 1 to 2 years of surcharging the site to remove excess water and to compress the site and then to remove part of that earthwork to allow the site to rebound. If the state does follow that suggestion, along with the piers recommended, their estimate is $60 Million and 18 months for that work.
Re: the Ground at SLC site, Do I believe the prison could be built at the SLC site with less costly methods than those suggested? I do. Do I think the geotechnical solutions will be more costly than budgeted, I don't. I am not a Geotechnical Engineer, but as an architect I have been reviewing geotechnical reports regularly for over 20 years and I am working on resolving any concerns I have with the site with a different geotechnical engineer that has the most experience, in my opinion, of any in the state and especially in that specific area. It is likely the same engineer that other agencies of the state are asking questions about the site.
The water and sewer costs at the SLC site vary greatly depending of if the those utilities are obtained from Magna or SLC. Water is cheaper one place and sewer is cheaper the other. This item could effect the cost to construct a prison at SLC by [ ...] millions, either way.
Again, I am not an expert on prisons. I served as a volunteer at the Draper Prison for 2 years. many years ago I worked on the construction drawings for the Gunnison Prison, including the site and floor plans and also the site and other drawings for Oxbow in South Salt Lake, plus site master plans for several proposed prison locations around the county, while working for a local firm. I have spent 30 years designing sites for commercial shopping centers and other commercial sites. Utah has 680 acres at Draper and we could design that location to free up land for Draper to get additional prime commercial property, creating a win-win.
Do I believe it makes sense policy wise to move the prison from Draper? I do not.
If you are going to spend, what I believe to be $100 Million of more money to move the prison, the SLC site location makes the most sense long term for the state based on transportation and other ongoing costs. I don't believe the site there will stay vacant for very long. The Agricultural zoning will likely be changed to manufacturing and high tech firms will move there, near the airport. Will they also move to Draper, over time, likely.
Good questions.
Fred C. Cox,
Rep. House 30
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
August 2015 Town Hall Meetings
Come meet Representative Fred Cox
and ask questions at:
Town Hall
Meeting, Tue., August 25, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall
Meeting, Thu., August 27, 2015, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Town Hall
Meeting, Sat., August 29, 2015, 12:00-2:00 p.m.
All at the Hunter Library Meeting
Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Melvin Nimer Utah GOP Treasurer
Mel Nimer is someone I trust that has the knowledge, experience and
ideas to tackle keeping track of and protecting the Utah Republican Party funds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)