Reader comments
All party caucuses should be open to public, Shurtleff says

..the AG is wrong on this one. The caucuses are conduction party business, not the people's business. If the party wants to take whatever voter disapproval (if any) their actions generate that is their business. The voters can vote them out if they don't approve. This is "nanny state" interference.

It is the people's business. They are not discussions about who the party wants to run for an office or other "party" business. The discussions center on the bills being considered and who support or doesn't support. Let a school board hold a closed meeting on a subject where they want to gauge support among members and take other members to the "woodshed" if they don't do what the leadership wants and the media would be all over it. Legislative party leadership is just exercising their muscle. Another example of the "Golden Rule", he who has the gold (re: power) rules.

Considering that legislation is basically conducted in these closed caucuses given the super-majority of the Republican Party, they are NOT "party meetings."

If the Senators are discussing bills that affect me, they it should be discussed in public. If they are discussing litigation or property acquisition, then close the meeting.

If they are simply finding out who is going to vote one way or another on a particular bill, open it up. Hold them accountable so that I can make an informed vote to make change. (Which I intend to do this year...all incumbents out regardless of party.) I want a fresh look at what Utah is doing.

Much is made of the GOP status of majority, and that therefore their caucus is very influential. I wonder: if the GOP had a 51% majority, would the concern still be there? What if they were a 49% minority?

To many people this seems to be another way to vent frustration about being in the minority.

I am perplexed at the AG's stance on this, but like the congressional leader, one wonders why the AG doesn't make all his meetings public. And frankly, all this makes me that much more grateful for the checks and balances built into our governments by the wise founding fathers. Our exec. is plenty strong, as is our legislature.

To those concerned that the GOP legislature has too much influence, the answer isn't an end-run on the system. It's getting your message out and persuading people that you can do better.

Where has Shurtleff been the last 8 years of his term of office? It's not as if closed caucuses are a new idea. Why didn't he make this pitch before the current legislative session? Looks like an election ploy to me.

Don't Republican house members hold open caucuses? Why is the Senate above that?

Perhaps the AG is using this as a way to win votes. He's up for election this year, and is being challenged by Jean Hill.

I am a Republican and firmly believe that these meetings should be open. There is only one reason that they are closed and that is that they don't want anyone else to know that they are talking about.

If they are doing the people's business, the people have the right to know what is being discussed.

I do find it interesting that the AG as chosen this particular time to make this announcement.

This sounds like a fun set-up! Party time, excellent! The political season is just heating up, I'll tell ya what!

the peoples business is conducted when the votes are cast. if you don't like the way your representatives vote then you can elect someone else. you don't have an inherent right to follow them around 24-7, and shouldn't feel the need to. in a representative form of govt you elect people to take care of business and judge the results. grow up.