Deseret News | Reader comments: House speaker says he could not disclose association with bidder

Reader comments
House speaker says he could not disclose association with bidder

orion | 1:11 p.m. March 4, 2008

Wow. Sounds like Curtis is dancing another legislative two-step around a sticky issue.

I sure hope everyone else is as sick and tired as I am of these legislative Pharisees. Sheesh!

Anonymous | 2:19 p.m. March 4, 2008

No conflict of interest seems to be too large or out of bounds for our esteemed legislators. And the people keep voting them back into office no matter what they do.

Serving two masters | 2:20 p.m. March 4, 2008

Sure sounds fishy.
He should have reclused himself from any and all dealings on the airport.

Then there would be no look of cheating.

Comments continue below

fr1nk | 2:22 p.m. March 4, 2008

This is what we get with 1 party rule. Pure corruption.

This | 2:39 p.m. March 4, 2008

definitely doesn't pass the smell test.

Compassion | 2:41 p.m. March 4, 2008

The love of money is the root of all evil. I guess Curtis felt that this was the moral law he would ignore and involve himself in shady business deals. Oh well, I say we have compassion on him and give him state tax money to help him along.

To all who have written... | 2:37 p.m. March 4, 2008

No, this is not corruption. This is what happens when we have a part-time legislature. Did any of you even read the article? Curtis STEPPED OUT when it was discussed in caucus, and he has lived up to ethical standards in the best way he could. Who was to say Anderson would even get the bid? It's unrealistic for Curtis to take himself totally out of the equation. But it appears he did his best. I guarantee--if each of you who complain about this were in the legislature, you would have similar conflicts of interest at some point in time. Please understand that these officials, especially Curtis, sacrifice a LOT to be in the legislature. They are constantly under fire for conflicts of interest (which isn't bad--I believe in the watchdog role of the press). But they do their best and definitely don't need people drumming up conspiracy theories about their involvement in "unethical" deals. Read the article--it isn't accusing Curtis. It's bringing this to light and gives Curtis a chance to explain himself, which I thought he did very well.

Weber County voter | 2:46 p.m. March 4, 2008

Typcial of the legislature ! Corrupt and self serving. Worst of all they think of us voters as stupid! This is the same cronyism that allowed the charter school contractors and builders to have the sweetheart deal, and be owned by legislators that are passing the legislation. I am a loyal republican, but we need a two party system in this state. Our current system is corrupt and dishonest!! I'm surprised this didnt get added to the omnibus bill.... amazing and frustrating.

Politics and Religion | 2:54 p.m. March 4, 2008

There was a great Talk of the Nation yesterday that you can find on the web. One point of interest here is that evangelicals are moving away from the republican party because they are finding the consequences of their too close association. One leader who was interviewed said that people now associate Jesus with the Republican Party Platform, not with the gospels. He said that was disturbing and they were hoping to change that. I wonder whetehr the Deseret News and the LDS presidency thinks Jesus preached `Follow Greg Gurtis' or the golden rule?

Reclused? | 2:57 p.m. March 4, 2008

What is he a spider...I think you mean recused?

Anonymous | 2:58 p.m. March 4, 2008

Until is it 100% illegal to accept favors, monies, etc., the system we have in place will be a corrupt one.

Ditto on smell test... | 2:59 p.m. March 4, 2008

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and especially if it smells like a duck, my guess is - IT'S A DUCK!!

Please, Sandy voters, find someone new to represent you this fall!!

Conflicts galore | 3:05 p.m. March 4, 2008

To: to "those whop have written": what ethical standards has he lived up to? Our legislators prove again and again that have none. And people like you are willing to excuse them again and again no matter what they do.

sob | 3:06 p.m. March 4, 2008

to all who have written
spoken like a true insider

that is why there is the option to recluse
utah wins an award for good government
must mean we have the best government money can buy.

I agree, we need compassion | 3:08 p.m. March 4, 2008

My church leaders have taught me recently that there are no laws that really need to be upheld, the individual is more important. So I say let this thing slide, its the compassionate thing to do.

Bill Keshlear | 3:23 p.m. March 4, 2008

Didnï¿½t Woody Allen (or somebody) say timing was 90 percent of life?

Just as Mr. Bernick documents the kind of sweet deal and access to power that would make Speaker Curtis a valuable asset to any big developer, along comes a Democratic candidate, Jay Seegmiller, who says enough of this (Seegmiller was actually downstairs today at noon announcing his candidacy when members of the Republican caucus were upstairs being pumped for $42 million that would benefit St. George and Curtisï¿½ client Anderson Development).

In a press release last week Seegmiller said, ï¿½Itï¿½s time to hold him (Speaker Curtis) accountable for his leadership style, rules he imposes on a whim that uniformly benefit his cronies, and the privileged access he grants special interests but denies constituents. I will fight for campaign finance and ethics reform that Utahns overwhelmingly favor but the Curtis Legislature has consistently stymied.ï¿½

WC | 3:33 p.m. March 4, 2008

Time to give a Democrat a try...if they can't do it better then fine...get rid of them...but I bet they can.

Reader | 3:44 p.m. March 4, 2008

With the track record of this bunch in the Legislature, any suspicion of corruption is warranted.

Wise Up Sandy Voters | 3:51 p.m. March 4, 2008

Greg Curtis seems to think he is above the law. He is the worse legislator on the hill.

He only won the last election by 20 votes...VOTE HIM OUT!

re: To all those who have... | 3:48 p.m. March 4, 2008

Get a clue.

TylerUofU | 4:06 p.m. March 4, 2008

I dated Curtis' daughter and he was the nicest man I have ever met, so funny. I seriously don't think that this "dark" secretive picture everyone is painting is true AT ALL. Rep. Curtis is a better leader than the governor, we need him now more than ever until Huntsman is out of office.

Seegmiller sucks | 4:07 p.m. March 4, 2008

Seegmiller cries for ethics reform? How ethical is it to have the Democrats' STATE PAID press person taking campaign photos for him (while on the clock) during his little Capitol stunt? He seems to land in that gray area, too!

This is a non-issue | 4:33 p.m. March 4, 2008

Speaker Curtis is an honorable man, and has followed the letter and spirit of the law here. He kept his word to his client with regard to confidentiality, and then recused himself as a legislator. What more should he have done?

This story is not news. It WOULD be news if Curtis had not done exactly as he did.

Subject to law or above law? | 4:34 p.m. March 4, 2008

Sheesh! There's always an excuse for circumventing rules, ethics and integrity when it can be done and gotten away with, and when caught, well... there's always a justifiable excuse, isn't there?

And that's the first lesson of politics 101.

the kid | 4:44 p.m. March 4, 2008

If the state doesn't have the money to buy the airport, why would the state have the money to lend to Anderson unless it is to unduly enrich this developer and associates. If the Governor supports the loan, then his loyalties to Curtis/Anderson should be questioned. Stay on this one D-news.

Be reasonable | 4:51 p.m. March 4, 2008

This is a by-product of having a part-time legislature. These people have to continue their professional activities because they make next to nothing in the Legislature. Therefore, conflicts of interest are bound to occur. I think Curtis handled it well.

To those who have wrtten... | 4:54 p.m. March 4, 2008

to sob:
Spoken like a true insider? Hmmm...then let me try to prove a point.
I did intern up at the capitol in the House. By your definition, that would make me an insider. But what I saw up at the capitol is far different than the pictures these commentators are painting through their postings on this board. I saw legislators come early in the mornings to work long and hard until they went home late in the evening. (Some can't go home often during the session.) Their work wasn't a "dark conspiracy," either. They contemplated and consulted with others about legislation. They worked tirelessly to promote legislation they believed needed to be passed. They went through heated debates trying to work out compromises and find the best solution. I challenge each of you to find such a hard-working group of people who are barely compensated for their time spent doing such a difficult task. Being informed about so many issues and recusing themselves from conflicts of interest is difficult in a part-time legislature. They do the best they can in an honest manner.
Spoken by an insider--someone who understands the process and what these good people go through.

Curtis was completely ethical | 5:08 p.m. March 4, 2008

In this whole process, someone point to me where Curtis was unethical? He served his client exactly as he should have by not violating their right to confidentiality. As soon as it was clear a conflict would emerge (IE Anderson wins the bid), Curtis recused himself from discussions. That's all I could ask, both as a client to Curtis, and as a resident of his House District.

If he had recused himself before his client was successful in their bid, he would have harmed them in the negotiating process, and would have been summarily fired and perhaps even disciplined or disbarred.

If he had not recused himself AFTER the bid was successful, he would have been acting in bad faith, and I would sympathize with all of these complaints about ethics.

Those who really understand the ethical obligations of legislators and attorneys know that Greg Curtis has been the perfect legislator and lawyer in this situation: Protecting attorney/client privilige, while recusing himself as soon as a conflict became apparent.

blogs make people cowards | 5:10 p.m. March 4, 2008

I am a new person to blogs and I have decided they make people cowards. People say things on them that they would never say in public and probably be ashamed if they were caught. I am sorry that our public attitude has gotten so surly and mean spirited. My husband serves on capital hill and he works tirelessly to make the best decisions for the state. There are a few bad eggs at the capital but for the most part they are hard working men and women who don't do it for the 'favors' or the pay. They do it because they love this state. If you don't agree with a decision get involved in the issue and try and get it changed. Dont' sit and write blogs and hide behind the anonymity. That is what a true coward is.

IknowCurtis | 5:26 p.m. March 4, 2008

I personally know Greg Curtis very well and I have no doubt about his integrity and ethics. It is so pathetic to see so many uninformed, ignorant people chime in with their blatantly false comments. If you people only knew how dead wrong you are about this man. Don't forget that being a member of the part time legislature is not a way to get rich. It means a lot of hours and work for minimal pay. Too many people try to talk about something they have absolutely no clue about!

Anonymous | 5:38 p.m. March 4, 2008

To those who have written, according to Utah's Right to Know, he made $19,740 as a part-time legislator last year. He also has an excellent health care plan free of charge and a generous retirement benefit. Not to bad for a "part time job". Actually that is much better than my three part time jobs put together. You also mention the heated debates, I will take your word for that, assuming that is what occurs in the republican caucuses, because there certainly is not much debate that occurs out in the open. Those closed door caucuses that have replace open debates is why people question ethics. If the republicans would do there business in the open, people would be much less likely to question what they did

To those who have written | 6:04 p.m. March 4, 2008

To Anonymous at 5:38pm
You make good points. $19,740 is not bad. However, people do not realize, like I mentioned in my earlier posting, how hard these people work. While it is a "part-time job", these legislators, especially Speaker Curtis, spend much more time than simply the 45 days in session and the monthly interim meetings. Their time is often swallowed up in serving. I wish I had some stats to give you, but I can promise you that these people devote far more time to this service than the public even realizes. So, while $19,740 isn't bad, it's actually pennies compared to what they do. Other states fully compensate their professional full-time legislators.
As for heated debates, have you ever been to a debate on capitol hill? I'm just curious--if you haven't, I'd recommend that you go to one. I think you'd agree with me that, while many aren't to heated or controversial, there is a large share of them that are. The public is invited to any debate. The new capitol has public galleries for people to watch. Check it out sometime.
I appreciate the dialogue on this issue from "Anonymous" as well as from everyone else.

repub turned demo | 6:19 p.m. March 4, 2008

The payoff to Mr. Curtis is not from the salary paid at the legislature, it is from the legal fees he will charge as legal counsel to Anderson Development for the project. My only question is this: if this was a fair and impartial bid, why was Mr. Cutis informed over the weekend, that his client was most likely to win the bid before the award was given (on Monday)? I am not accusing Mr. Curtis of influencing the outcome of the bid, but in my business dealings, NO bidders are contacted before the winner is announced to avoid any questionable influence of the process; NONE.

to blog: I didn't see your name as you accused others of hiding behind anonymity.

TheWayItWorks | 6:28 p.m. March 4, 2008

Curtis could have been in China when the bids were opened, that isn't the issue. Here's how it works: Curtis passes key information on to Anderson, his client in the private sector, BEFORE and leading up to the bid, information only he and a few others in the inner circle can collate. Strategic stuff. And, he knows how to pass information on to his client that won't leave a trail, he's an attorney, remember? Curtis can then say "well, I am only passing on public information" but only he, and a few others can be, or are, the collection point of this oral archive of info. So, Curtis is a legislator who knows how to get deals done, how to structure deals, based on his personal relationships, power and knowledge of the inner workings of this unique process and, by wearing both hats, can then fatten his wallet. To avoid a direct link, Anderson awards Curtis with a legal matter unrelated to St George. Bottom line: his clients have an automatic leg up, which creates an unlevel playing field, or the appearance of one, and he's making money off of his legislative position of trust.

Anonymous | 6:43 p.m. March 4, 2008

To those who have written, I realize that they spend more than 45 days, and I don't even question their work ethics, don't forget to include a health insurance policy that would be valued at $12,000 at a minimum, and retirement plan that you don't see for any kind of part time job. I would say that is far from pennies for what they do.

I personally will not question the ethics of Mr. Curtis, only he can answer what he has or hasn't done in this particular situation. I will however question the way that republicans do business on the hill. To much business is done outside of the public eye, behind closed doors in caucus meetings. Because of the super majority they hold, they can get away with it. But doing the publics business in private you create a sense that you are hiding something, and thus bring questions about your ethics into the publics mind.

To those who have written | 8:16 p.m. March 4, 2008

Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments. This has been a productive discussion.
I disagree with the fact that business on the hill is done "behind closed doors." Not that I'm saying Republicans don't caucus and plan their strategies well...I am saying, however, that every single plan, strategy, scheme, whatever, MUST be passed by the House and Senate, and then on to the governor for approval. The Republicans have rightfully earned the majority in both the House and Senate. Voters in Utah have decided that, not anyone else. Because they have the majority, they have the privilege and opportunity to meet together privately to formulate their strategies. I do not deny this at all. BUT...all the business they do in that caucus regarding legislation must pass the House and Senate. Everything eventually comes out in the open. Business can be planned, contemplated, debated among Republicans in their closed caucus, but in the end...it comes out on the floor for a good debate. The only reason these bills become law is because of the overwhelming number of Republicans on the floor. If we are disappointed in our Republicans, then let's elect some Democrats. Until then, it's their right to caucus and plan.

Anonymous | 8:41 p.m. March 4, 2008

I don't disagree that under the rules that it is their right, to caucus. You are correct when you say that they must come out of the caucus and vote. That however does not mean that all the "business" is done on the floor. I think that there is a lot of arm twisting that goes on behind closed doors, and people receive their marching orders, and return to the floor for the "debate".

I think a one party legislature is not good for anyone. I am hoping that we elect enough democrats to at least come close to a 50-50 split. Then caucus meetings will be for strategy and not behind closed door arm twisting, which I think we both know is the rule of day currently.

K.Johnson | 10:08 p.m. March 4, 2008

HELLO!! To those of you who think you know what is going on, the Republican party has OPEN caucus meetings, meaning anyone can attend. This has not always been the case with either party but there has not been a closed Republican Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill for at least two years. Ask Bob Bernick if you doubt because he usually attends. I agree with one of the previous bloggers concerning getting involved. If you want to know the true story, go up to the Hill and get involved. Demonizing legislators is the media's favorite past time so find out for yourself!

Vote Curtis OUT! | 10:26 p.m. March 4, 2008

The long list of Greg Curtis' unethical antics stretches from SLC to St. George. Voters of Sandy should have learned from Curtis getting ousted from Salt Lake County during "guzzle gate." Why won't people start connecting the dots?

Seriously the entire state would be better off if Greg Curtis lost his reelection bid. He is a unethical leader that makes a mockery of democracy.

Message to Legislators Rally 3/5 | 10:29 p.m. March 4, 2008

The NAACP is organizing a rally to send a message to our legislators. This gathering is targeted at Buttars but we thought it might be better to address all Legislators because those in the Senate (Except for Sen. Romero) stood or sat and listened to Buttars remarks and never said anything and has done the same in the past.

The rally will be held at the State Capitol in the Rotunda (2nd Floor), Wednesday, March 5, 6:00 p.m. and we plan to conclude no later than 7:00. Please join us and bring your family, friends and constituents. We will begin gathering by 5:30 on the 2nd floor.

Let's send a message to our legislature, including House Speaker Curtis.

Sen. Romero would have been cens | 12:28 a.m. March 5, 2008

To "Message to Legislators Rally 3/5" (10:29 p.m.): thanks for informing us about this rally and what we can do to stand up for our rights against those who voted for Buttars. I was appalled when I first learned about Chris Buttar's comments yet my sense of outrage has increased as his comments have gone without any consequences.

Every Senator should have felt it their duty to stand up and condemn him for his comments even if it meant that they had to be censured for doing so. They should have felt a responsibility to stand up and say "your comments are racist." When they were censured for their comments in response while the racist Buttars wasn't for his racist comments then they should have demanded that the Senate change their rules from protecting the right of racists to say racist things while not protecting the rights of Senators to call a racist a racist.

That Senator Romero had to wait until he was off the floor to bring the racist comments to our attention because he would have been censured for doing it on the floor while Buttars isn't censured for making them in the first place is wrong.

MLG | 6:54 a.m. March 5, 2008

As a Republican, I can say it is time to clean house on the hill. There are plenty of nice, reasonable, and ethical citizens who would better serve part time to represent the people. That's democracy at its best rather than the likes of Curtis, Brown, etc. who are there to represent themeselves and their business partners. I would rather vote for a Democrate!!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.