Sunday, May 20, 2012

Data Breach

From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Utah lawmakers grill new IT chief on Medicaid breach

VanOrden’s remarks were the first detailed explanation given by technology officials since the breach.

But it failed to fully satisfy lawmakers who wonder if management failures don’t reach deeper than VanOrden’s predecessor, Stephen Fletcher, who was asked to resign in the wake of security failure.

"I heard that 12 IT staff have left that department due to management issues," said Rep. Fred Cox, R-West Valley City. "If that’s true, it seems to me one of the biggest problems may be IT management, not the technicians."

VanOrden said he’ll delve into management issues. "Corrective action" is being taken with two employees, and a third employee at fault, a contract worker, is no longer with the state, he said. There have been no terminations.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54127742-78/state-vanorden-data-server.html.csp

From the Deseret News:

" Rep. Fred Cox, R-West Valley City, questioned management issues within the department, as he had heard of a high turnover rate there in recent months."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555954/Multiple-mistakes-led-to-massive-health-data-breach-director-says.html

Monday, May 14, 2012

Equal Access for Education Employee Association Amendments

2012 SB 82, Equal Access for Education Employee Association Amendments

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillint/SB0082.pdf

I felt if the existing law was clarified, adding teeth to the law wasn't needed. I didn't believe setting the school district or principal up for a lawsuit or fine to enforce the law was needed.

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/pamend/sb0082.hfa.01.pdf


My amendment didn't pass, a substitute amendment, which was a step in the right direction, passed, another amendment passed, and I ended up voting against the bill, which then failed. I would have voted for the bill if my amendment had passed.

The UEA strongly opposed the bill and PCE and the Utah Taxpayers Association both strongly promoted the bill.


Friday, May 11, 2012

Radio Interview of Represenative Fred Cox by Jeff Robinson at KCPW

"Republican State Representative Fred Cox took a stand during last year’s divisive redistricting battle by trying to pass a bipartisan map. He ended up being drawn into the same district as a Democratic incumbent. We talked with the lawmaker and architect about what issues are important to him and his political strategy."

Podcast/Audio for the on-air interview:
http://kcpw.org/files/2012/05/051112PUCREPFREDCOX.mp3

http://kcpw.org/blog/local-news/2012-05-11/politics-up-close-senate-candidate-breck-england-rep-fred-cox/

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Mia Love for the Fourth Congressional District from Utah

I endorse Mia Love for the 4th Congressional District.

I have been watching and listening to her for some time. I have been impressed. She has consistently improved at each debate I have watched. The last one I saw, I scored her the best out of the 5 candidates. I have attended her town halls. She has listened. If she didn't know the answer, she would find out. We need more of that.

It is my hope that others will meet and listen to Mia and agree, and that she will be the 1st congressional representative from the new 4th Congressional District from Utah.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Grama

For years after the DesNews v SLCo decision and others, the Utah Legislature tried to fix the problems with Grama. They had a committee meet for 2 years and then those recommendations were scrapped.

This time, after 2011 HB 477 was passed, a group finally met last summer and did something, and this year we passed 2012 SB 177 Government Records Access and Management Act Amendments with no members of the senate or house (republican or democrats) voting against it the bill. It was signed by the Governor.

It doesn't solve everything, but it did solve many things. It took 4 years after the court ruling.

What I strongly disagree with, and is obvious from the articles I link below, is there was never any intent from the legislature to keep government records secret. The intent was to protect constituent 4th amendment rights.

You can disagree with a law or vote, but don't assume you can read someone's mind as to their motivation. For further explanation, see below:

-----

Why was 2011 HB 477 (
Government Records Amendments) repealed?
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/regarding-repeal-of-former-hb-477.html

Why was 2011 HB 477 created in the first place?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51499750-76/bill-dougall-grama-records.html.csp

What did the bill do, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Research and General Counsel:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/GRAMA-HB477%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf
(Note: this document was originally made public by Rep. Fred C. Cox)

When did the bill come out and when was it first voted on:
March 1, 2011 it was made public, online and 24 hr. notification of public committee meeting, Public committee meeting March 2, 2011 (2 hrs) complete with media testifying against, providing no meaningful suggestions for changes, but providing TV coverage. Committee vote 10 to 0 (bipartisan). March 10th was the last day of session
For the rest of the votes and timeline see:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0477.htm

Why did Rep. Cox vote for the bill, and then voted to repeal it?
The bill helped solve one of the biggest questions, should we keep emails from constituents, that often describe their personal family situations, private, so as to not show up in the media? Should the part time legislature have the business emails from their business associates using business email systems be subject to Grama?

I had the bill for the same 24 hrs. prior to committee, the public had, asking media and others for any amendments to the bill. No modifications or answers were suggested, only to kill the bill, leaving the situation as it is. With that choice, and the above information, the committee, myself included, democrats and republicans, all voted for the bill.

The same happened on the floor of the house, with almost all voting for it. Because of the media storm, some then decided to make this a partisan issue, even though the problem with the current law interpretation, (Utah Supreme Court decision) in all appearance, had been caused by a republican trying to make the Salt Lake County democrats look bad with a lawsuit involving the Deseret News and the County. The vote on the floor of the house started to see many democrats voting against the bill.

The Governor then decided he wanted to delay implementation. That required that we pull the bill back, amend it, and vote on it again. At this point, several others voted against the bill, allowing the voting to fall below 2/3 of both houses.

Eventually, the media and others agreed to be on a public committee to study the problems over the summer, and the bill was then repealed. A new Grama consensus amendment bill was passed this year.

Public working group recommendations:
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787058Cost_Timeliness.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308787007Simplication.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786890Emerging_Technology.pdf
http://local.sltrib.com/upload/2011/06/1308786801Law_wording.pdf
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52057357-78/group-grama-records-law.html.csp

Additional motivations for changes:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51567840-78/request-records-grama-network.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51715159-78/records-county-requests-christensen.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51988376-78/amyspencer-constituent-constituents-correspondence.html.csp

How long has Rep. Cox's committee and roll call votes been online?
Almost immediately afterwards on the state website
http://www.le.utah.gov/

How long has Rep. Cox's combined 2011 Session voting record been online?
March 17, 2011
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/03/2011-session-voting-record.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/Cox.pdf

2012 Session voting record:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/03/2012-general-session-floor-voting.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/2012Cox.pdf

For redistricting, who voted to keep the House GOP Caucus open and sponsored a bipartisan (democrat senator co-sponsor) congressional map?
Rep. Fred Cox
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392649/Lawmakers-approve-new-congressional-districts-amid-partisan-bickering.html?pg=3
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705392613/Utah-lawmakers-to-take-another-crack-at-setting-new-congressional-districts.html?pg=2
http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/congress-senator-mcadams-and-rep-cox-modification-of-hat-and-3-stripes

Note, during the 2012 General Session, the House GOP did not vote to close it's caucus meetings. they were open, and often attended by reporters and others interested.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Clarification regarding contacting the LDS Church last year

Comments re: an article at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/53709967-200/lds-church-says-position.html.csp

The Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, didn't send anything directly to lawmakers on 2011 HB 116 until April of last year linking to their April immigration statement, after the session and after the vote. (That I am aware of)

Similarly, Rep. Fred Cox, R-West Valley City, says he tried to contact LDS leaders after the session to clarify where the church stood on the same bill. "They wouldn’t return my emails or phone calls but did eventually send out an updated statement that did help some with civility on immigration."

[Initially the article didn't clarify that the exchange didn't happen until after the session and after the votes]

The April statement on immigration:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-response

The June statement on immigration:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

I don't make decisions on bills based on the party of the sponsor, nor their religion.

A great statement from the "Church" on politics:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

"
Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."