Comments about ‘Go ahead and sign boundaries, ethics petitions’

I wholeheartedly agree with this letter

If you intend to vote for the initiative, assuming it gets 95,000 signatures, then by all means sign the petition.

Signing a petition so that others can vote for something for which you are opposed makes as much sense as campaigning for the opposite party - just so that they have a chance.

Anyone want to champion the cause of Satan so that Christ is not over-represented in Utah? It's the same logic.

If you truly think that five commission members, after receiving complaints from as few as three people about any elected official should have the power to drag that official's name through the mud until they finally get around to proving that the complainers were just a bunch of disgruntled citizens who wanted to harass a public official - then go for it.

We already saw what happens when a disgruntled citizen destroyed the bidding process for oil leases when he bid for leases for which he had no money to pay.

He did that intentionally to stop the system from working.

This initiative will allow vengeful citizens to do the same to legislators - keep them tied up with false and misleading ethics violations.

There was a common expression among those serving with the public trust, "Avoid the appearance of impropriety".

If you do not follow this mantra, you are subjected to petitions and other mechanisms expressing grievances. If you do not like this fact, I suggest that you avoid taking government positions of any kind.

I signed the petition, and you should too.

I saw were Stossal circulated a petition in New York, calling on the government to ban water. 80% of those aproached signed it. The public is easily duped.

Don’t sign either of these petitions. Bob Bernick seems to be condemning legislators for doing some of the very things that they are SUPPOSED to do. Bernick also admits that the petitions have problems, but says that we should vote for them anyway and then the legislature can fix the problems later!

Uh huh, riiiiiight. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid used the same logic to try to convince hesitant members of Congress to vote for Obamacare. Don’t vote to move to the next stage something that you don’t understand, folks. Both initiatives are bad ideas.

FINALLY... I have the DMN's permission to sign the petition. That's the approval I've been waiting for. Where's my pen!

No, really... If you haven't signed it already, was the DMN's approval all you needed to decide to do it?



I can see why people would sign the petition. We are frusterated. And I agree ethics reform is a good thing. But these rules seem so quirky and weird (read the bill... google "Utah ethics reform").

I think we can do better. I'm holding out for something simpler. I hope they don't think if it doesn't pass, it's because we don't want reform. This is just a goofy_bill full of confusing/vague jargon and rules.

For instance... The definition of "insider"...

“Insider” of a legislator includes (i) any relative of the legislator, (ii) any person in relation to whom the legislator is a control person, (iii) any person who is a controlling person in relation to a legislator, and (iv) any client of a legislator".

So basically if you have ANY relationship to a legislator (business, distant relative, acquiantance)... The rules apply to YOU?

I plead with you to sign both petitions. We are saddled with a legislature that draws its own electoral boundaries and "polices" its own (lack of) ethics. If you give a dollar to a legislator, there's no guarantee he won't use it to buy a boat! Since there's no upper limit on contributions, anybody with a fat wad of cash can buy a legislator! This is unconscionable. Please sign and vote for both initiatives!

The initiative doesn't do anything to ensure legislators are ethical. In fact, it uses a series of unethical provisions to harass elected officials. Witch hunts by poltical opponents are encouraged by the way that ethics complaints will be handled. Hearsay evidence can be used to prosecute. Elected officials are guilty until proven innocent (how do you prove something didn't happen?). The first 12 signers of the initiative get special lifetime rights to appoint the ethics commission should Democrat and Republican leadership not unanimously agree. There are no checks and balances by other branches of government. The initiative will essentially prohibit many in the private sector from even running for the legislature. It is a poorly written, overreaching initiative. It goes way too far.

How about we use the ethics controls we already have???

ie... VOTE OUT THE UNETHICAL REPRESENTATIVES!



We don't need a law that forces unethical people to act ethically IF... we commit to only elect people who we know and trust are ethical.

IF we make a mistake and elect someone who proves to NOT be ethical... there's always another election around the corner and another chance to throw him out and put in someone we think will be more ethical.

We don't really need this bill if you think about it. We just need to stay informed and vote!

I wish someone would ask me to sign it so I could laugh and walk away. If Bernick's for it, it's a bad idea.

I wish it was that easy to “just vote the bums out,” why do we still have issues. You can say what you want about the Greg Hughes situation, but some of the charges were very serious. And what did we get, a standoff based on the political parties in the ethics committee. In my opinion there should have been an independent criminal investigation, the charges were that serious.

Even if you know of something the about a legislator the current system doesn’t work.

The other thing is it may or not be that easy to vote people out. Most of the decisions are made at the party level. I think Senator Bennett has done a great job, but if some the ”party” members get there way and defeat him in the convention I may not get a chance to vote for him. How many people are there that are “discouraged” from running against an incumbent by the party officials.

What's up with the Des. News?
Again, the "Ethics Initiative" is not a democratic piece of "legislation".
The initiative would establish a 5 person unelected and undisolvable committee vested with the power to CHOOSE whom we, the public could vote for.
Government by "committee" is NOT a Democracy.
We, the people, have been complacent but, we're awakening. 21 pages of "ETHICS" which puts power in hands of Gang of 5 is NOT a democracy.
READ IT...study it. If government by committee is your choice..ok. Sign NOTHING you haven't read or do not comprehend.
POWER GRAB by the authors of this initiative..not for me.

Manny, apparently you don't read Bernick often enough. He is experienced and usually right on target. In fact, he is the best thing that the Deseret News has. Manny, you are not well informed. Bernick's perspective once again is correct, asnd he understands all the implications of the legislative process whether that process starts with the legisature or the public.

The system is not perfect. I can't tell you how many times I have stood in the voting booth and felt cheated, having no real option but to vote for someone that someone else had picked for me. Sometimes, I've written in a name, knowing that my vote really didn't count, other times, I've voted for the lessor of two evils.

The problem, of course, is that the ballot box is the last step of many steps. People who sit on their 'couch' and wait until election day arrives are far too late to make a difference. If we want good, ethical, upstanding people to be elected, we have to start early - like RIGHT NOW. We have to voice our opinions - like RIGHT NOW. We have to tell those who are running what we will accept and what we will not accept - like RIGHT NOW.

Many people now serving are good people who had no idea that we were serious when we sent emails or asked them to consider our views. Now we'll have to turn them out of office.

An ethics committee is NOT the solution. Informed voters are the solution.

The independent ethics commission (which is already found in at least 40 other states) is comprised of members both parties must agree to. Should they try to thumb their nose at the process there is a provision for the sponsors of the petition to appoint members. This provision is a key element to making sure that the legislature doesn't simply blockade the process of establishing the commission.

Second, the commission must throw out bogus complaints. Complaints are handled on their merits.

Third, the commission doesn't have the constitutional authority of enforcement. They make their recommendation to the legislature who must then make an up-or-down determination of a course of action.

Fourth, Nadine's assertion that the commission can arbitrarily pick and choose who can or can't run for office is completely inaccurate. The initiative says that if you are a paid lobbyist then you have to resign before taking office as a legislator. Simple enough.

Fifth, there is much more in the initiative than the commission (notwithstanding its importance). Campaign finance reform and a code of conduct similar to what most corporations already have established are key elements of the initiative.

Re: “To Manny | 2:18”: Yes, Bob Bernick is experienced and intelligent. But periodically he also comes across as arrogant and condescending toward those who are not as “enlightened” as he is. This attitude shows through not only in some of his opinion columns, but also in some of his “news” articles. I think he’s wrong on this issue. Both petitions are bad ideas.

I find it very interesting that Bob Bernick and Terry Wood are speaking out on legislative ethics, which is a very hot issue in the state. It is my understanding that a reporter should put his personal biases away and report the news in the most unbiased fashion he can. It is hypocritical for a reporter to bash legislative ethics as he violates his own.

Re: Hypocritical: Yes a reporter, writing a piece in the news section of the paper, should be as objective as humanly possible and present the news in the "most unbiased fashion he can." However, a columnist, writing a piece appearing in the editorial section, is not held to the same standard. Editorials and columns are the writers opinion. That is what Bernick gave readers in this article--his opinion--and there is nothing hypocritical about it. Terry Wood is no longer a reporter. As a member of society, he too, is entitled to give an opinion without being called a hypocrite.