Deseret News | Herbert meets with backers of ethics initiative

Reader comments
Herbert meets with backers of ethics initiative

25,000 Pyramid | 1:39 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

Donny: Deceptive. Disingenuous. Hypocritical. Grandstanding.
Contestant: What are words that describe Kim Burningham and Alan Smith?
Donny: You got it! Congratulations!

Come on Governor | 4:46 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

Come on Gov. If you want to raise the ethics bar, do it. The people have spoken.

the truth is... | 5:12 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

political ethics is an oxymoron!

Comments continue below

Have to keep cake, but eat it | 1:17 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Herbert's just riding the fence.

If he backs the initative, he'll offend "free speech" conservatives, get reduced donations.

If he completely stonewalls the UEG, he could offend voters.

Situational prescription? Waffle

Herbert on the Right Track | 6:51 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

This citizens initiative is horrible -- it places a gross amount of power in the hands of 5 private citizens; they essentially become superpowered, with more power than a judge, the governor, or any public official. They stay there for life, which no accountability to voters.
Gov Herbert is a refreshing voice of reason in this whole debate. It appears he doesn't agree with the follies of this initiative, yet he is leading out by saying something has to be done. Good job Governor.

Stan the Man | 7:24 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Here's the thing that bothers me. The legislature and the buddies claim that parts of the ethics proposal are unconstitutional. If this is true why don't they challange it in court?

Micah | 9:43 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Stan the Man:

The issue with challenging the constitutionality of the intiative is that any challenge would not be entertained until the initiative became law. So, it would take passing the initiative into law, then a challenge, a lengthy and costly court battle, and then a decision as to whether any individual part of the initiative is unconstitutional. The remainder, by its own effect, would remain law.

The trouble I have with this initiative is that, not only does it provide five citizens with extraordinary power, it also provides for the sponsors of the legislation to appoint those five individuals (if the leadership cannot unanimously agree), and then those five individuals appoint an Executive Director.

The Executive Director then becomes, essentially, a special prosecutor with subpoena power - the scariest portion, however, is that the Executive Director takes his direction from the complainants. If the people bringing the ethics complaint desire a subpoena, they need but only ask for it, and the Executive Director is forced to give it.

The entire piece of legislation leaves the door open to witch hunts and media politics for political enemies.

Cyril H. Noble | 2:44 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

The Ethics petition might not be perfect, but it is a good start. Most citizens of Utah are on a set income with no perks attached, so the people we elect should be the same.

Pagan | 3:43 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

'Herbert meets with backers of ethics initiative'

The very same one's he was opposed to earlier.

If you have nothing to hide, why be against an ethics initiative?

rnoble | 3:55 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

ethics in government is currently highly expected and lowly seen---the ethical actions are the norm but because the norm, are not reported---the unethical action receives the publicity---the real issue is the pandering done in the name of lobbying---why would one give a trip unless one were trying to obtain favorable notice---the same is true of all gifting to non-family or non-close friends---are we really to the point that we would accept gifts from strangers just like we were taught by our mothers to avoid?---no amount of law is going to address this---and i don't think we should write up laws for every little thing---we should just publish the actions and in-actions and let the "informed" voter decide to retain or not---and blatant offenses are already addressed in existing law---if they really are bums throw them out but if they just disagree with me then give them a chance---

Gov goes through the motions | 6:17 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

This was obviously a meaningless meeting to the governor taken to counter those who complained that he came out against the ethics initiative without even speaking to its organizers.

I especially love Herbert's reason for not meeting with them--they didn't call him! Setting aside the claims by the organizers that they tried to set up a meeting (which would make sense since their goal in creating the initiative was to convince government representatives to support it), the governor's position indicates he doesn't feel it's his responsibility to educate himself on the issues!

Obviously his statements in this regard are disingenuous and he is just doing this for show. As a conservative I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt but he is showing himself to be an empty chocolate shell of a genuine representative of the people.

sick of the games | 9:03 a.m. Oct. 31, 2009

My guess is that "Herbert on the Right Track" is a state legislator. I see no way that placing some oversight "power" in the hands of agreed-upon board members, who must have three complaintants in order to take action, is any problem. It is certainly much better than the situation now where one legislator may accuse another of anything and get media attention without any third party validation. This legislation will give the "good people" in office the ability to have a clear line as to what is ethical and what is not. It gives them protection against false accusations and the initiative should be celebrated by them, unless of course they are only at the capital for purposes other than truly serving the public good...

The People punish bad behavior. | 11:19 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009

The question here is who can best ensure that legislators represent the people ethically: the people who elect them or an independent board? Who understands the interests of the people best?

With help of independent media, the people are the ones responsible to check bad behavior of legislators.

Unless the people participate in their own government, how will they be represented, especially when it comes to public funds and individual rights?

The right and responsibility of the people to hold their leaders accountable is threatened here with an unelected, appointed for life, untouchable board made of only 5 people.

The people cannot be manipulated by special interest as easily as a small board of 5 people, unelected, appointed for life, and not accountable to anyone else in the government. This initiative will destroy the UT constitution and our individual rights in this state.

Re: Gov goes through the motions | 12:40 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

I have found that one does not educate oneself about the so-called ethics initiative by talking to the sponsors. One does so by READING the actual initiative. Having studied the plain language of the initiative itself, I will tell you that the sponsors rarely cite the actual language of the initiative. If they do cite it, they take it out of context so that the real intent cannot be understood.

The Governor had the good sense to employ the one sure method of finding out what is IN the initiative. He studied the initiative itself. Not the smoke screen put up by the sponsors.

Good job Gov Herbert.

Re: People punish bad behavior | 12:44 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

There we go. Someone who understands that if lawmakers are misbehaving, there's already a disciplinary system in place. It's called an election cycle. We, the people, ARE the ethics commission.

Get active in your local politics, folks. If you're not willing to pay the price to cultivate influence, you shouldn't be surprised that the rest of us don't have much use for your unconstitutional "ethics" reform initiative.

Re: Sick of the games | 12:48 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

First, I agree with Herbert on the Right Track. And I'm NOT a legislator.

Secondly, you are spouting the talking points of the initiative sponsors...a sure-fire indicator that you have NOT read the initiative itself, but are relying on the sponsors' characterizations of the initiative.

My suggestion: Read the initiative or you're going to be somebody's pawn in the games you say you're sick of. And stop cricizing people who HAVE done their homework when you haven't bothered to do yours.

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.