Defund: Read more than just the headlines
July 22, 2020 • We can work it out • Fred Perkins
Waiting in grocery lines, I scan with amusement the covers of Enquirer-type tabloids. One in particular I remember. Farmer Jones in coveralls with a hayseed drooping from his mouth has an old fashioned double barrel shotgun leaning over his left shoulder. In his right hand he is holding up a ginormous grasshopper by the hind legs, its head nearly touching the ground. “Iowa Farmer Bags 50 lb. Hopper”, read the headline. This and other “tabloitorials” are hilarious. Does that nonsense really sell? Apparently yes, because it is still a mainstay. And few of us are immune to this approach.
Consider this example. Almost daily I read something about another “50 lb. hopper”—under the headline of “Defund the Police”—with mixed feelings, maybe 50% glee and 50% despair. Glee because it’s just so absurd, and tears because sometimes we take this buffoonery at headline value without ever once opening the records to search out the truth and the facts. As a good friend reminds me, we are too prone to readily accept anything, no matter how absurd, that substantiates our preconceived notions, and to automatically reject items that are not consistent with our picture. Maybe that’s why these things are so persuasive.
“Defund the Police,” as a catchphrase, arose following well documented instances of tragic police-civilian encounters. It is an unfortunate choice of words. Words matter, and “defund” has connotations of disband, abolish, do away with. That, of course, would result in utter chaos and lawlessness. Whoever coined the phrase may have had that in mind – it does fit nicely on posters.
Fortunately—and this is the piece that one has to open the book and read to uncover—none of our major parties nor mainstream viable candidates is advocating abolishing the police. Not one. Joe Biden, for example, has gone on verbal and written record to that effect. I haven’t heard the President actually state as much but I’m confident that he would never let this happen. Nevertheless, the news tabloids and even authority figures are replete with unsubstantiated accusations in one-liner sound-bytes to the contrary. And we buy them (literally and figuratively)!
Defund the police in sane circles is an initiative built around redefining roles and responsibilities, allocating dollars where they will do the most good, implementing additional and more specialized training, and finding better ways to tackle the root/core problems. Can law enforcement be improved? Yes, as can everything. Is now a good time? Yes. If we carry on as usual will things magically fix themselves? No.
Our police officers are asked to do it all. We require them to protect life and property through the enforcement of laws and regulations, proactively patrol assigned areas, respond to calls for police service, conduct preliminary and follow-up criminal and traffic investigations and interviews, among so much more. These heroes arrest and processes criminals, take command in emergencies, resolve violent altercations and domestic disputes, provide comfort in the face of tragedy, all while knowing and respecting the laws and exercising split second judgement in what and how much force to apply to achieve a safe and just outcome.
Nationally, police spending (inflation adjusted dollars) has increased three-fold since the 70s, according to the Urban Institute. As a percentage of general expenditures it’s a relatively constant 4%. More crime, more police? That’s an arms race we can’t keep up indefinitely.
One leg of “Defund the Police” is to free up officers to focus on core duties by backing them up with trained experts; e.g. social workers, addiction specialists, sexual assault response teams, child welfare advocates. Resorting to crime may be a back-end outcome of long-time abuse, neglect, entitlement, lack of accountability, broken families, poverty, and just plain bad individual choices. No one has all the answers, but this movement or initiative has as a stated objective to dig in and better understand root causes and do something about it—so our peace officers don’t have to. This may require additional budget, or reallocation of existing budget to other complementary efforts.
As illustrated by this example, we need to read beyond the sound-bytes and avoid the trap of embracing juicy tabloitorials just because they fit our favorite carefully constructed narratives.
Waiting in grocery lines, I scan with amusement the covers of Enquirer-type tabloids. One in particular I remember. Farmer Jones in coveralls with a hayseed drooping from his mouth has an old fashioned double barrel shotgun leaning over his left shoulder. In his right hand he is holding up a ginormous grasshopper by the hind legs, its head nearly touching the ground. “Iowa Farmer Bags 50 lb. Hopper”, read the headline. This and other “tabloitorials” are hilarious. Does that nonsense really sell? Apparently yes, because it is still a mainstay. And few of us are immune to this approach.
Consider this example. Almost daily I read something about another “50 lb. hopper”—under the headline of “Defund the Police”—with mixed feelings, maybe 50% glee and 50% despair. Glee because it’s just so absurd, and tears because sometimes we take this buffoonery at headline value without ever once opening the records to search out the truth and the facts. As a good friend reminds me, we are too prone to readily accept anything, no matter how absurd, that substantiates our preconceived notions, and to automatically reject items that are not consistent with our picture. Maybe that’s why these things are so persuasive.
“Defund the Police,” as a catchphrase, arose following well documented instances of tragic police-civilian encounters. It is an unfortunate choice of words. Words matter, and “defund” has connotations of disband, abolish, do away with. That, of course, would result in utter chaos and lawlessness. Whoever coined the phrase may have had that in mind – it does fit nicely on posters.
Fortunately—and this is the piece that one has to open the book and read to uncover—none of our major parties nor mainstream viable candidates is advocating abolishing the police. Not one. Joe Biden, for example, has gone on verbal and written record to that effect. I haven’t heard the President actually state as much but I’m confident that he would never let this happen. Nevertheless, the news tabloids and even authority figures are replete with unsubstantiated accusations in one-liner sound-bytes to the contrary. And we buy them (literally and figuratively)!
Defund the police in sane circles is an initiative built around redefining roles and responsibilities, allocating dollars where they will do the most good, implementing additional and more specialized training, and finding better ways to tackle the root/core problems. Can law enforcement be improved? Yes, as can everything. Is now a good time? Yes. If we carry on as usual will things magically fix themselves? No.
Our police officers are asked to do it all. We require them to protect life and property through the enforcement of laws and regulations, proactively patrol assigned areas, respond to calls for police service, conduct preliminary and follow-up criminal and traffic investigations and interviews, among so much more. These heroes arrest and processes criminals, take command in emergencies, resolve violent altercations and domestic disputes, provide comfort in the face of tragedy, all while knowing and respecting the laws and exercising split second judgement in what and how much force to apply to achieve a safe and just outcome.
Nationally, police spending (inflation adjusted dollars) has increased three-fold since the 70s, according to the Urban Institute. As a percentage of general expenditures it’s a relatively constant 4%. More crime, more police? That’s an arms race we can’t keep up indefinitely.
One leg of “Defund the Police” is to free up officers to focus on core duties by backing them up with trained experts; e.g. social workers, addiction specialists, sexual assault response teams, child welfare advocates. Resorting to crime may be a back-end outcome of long-time abuse, neglect, entitlement, lack of accountability, broken families, poverty, and just plain bad individual choices. No one has all the answers, but this movement or initiative has as a stated objective to dig in and better understand root causes and do something about it—so our peace officers don’t have to. This may require additional budget, or reallocation of existing budget to other complementary efforts.
As illustrated by this example, we need to read beyond the sound-bytes and avoid the trap of embracing juicy tabloitorials just because they fit our favorite carefully constructed narratives.
Swimming rodents and ‘this is not that’: Strange thoughts in a surreal reality
April 1, 2020 • From the Desk of the Editor • Sean Hales
As most of you, I expect, I’ve had a lot of thoughts and observations during this strange and unprecedented time, and I felt like sharing a few.
Rodent dreams
I pulled off the Forest Street exit from I-15 Friday after snapping a few photos of the drive-through coronavirus testing operation at Bear River Valley Hospital in Tremonton. I stopped, and had to wait to allow some traffic to pass on Forest Street.
As I waited, a saw some small, furry creature swimming in my direction in a pool of standing water. I found myself jealous of that water-traversing rodent. His life was certainly more carefree and joyous than mine, or that of anyone, really, as we face the peril and challenges wrought by humanity’s latest pitched battle against Mother Nature.
Of course, that was before an eagle swooped down, impaling the little creature in its taloned feet and soaring off for a well-earned meal.
Okay...that last part didn’t actually happen. I imagined it. I think it was my mind’s way of setting me straight.
See, we might be trying to slow and prevent the spread of a highly contagious and fairly deadly virus, but that virus is not actively hunting us. We’re not going to be pleasantly going about our business and all of a sudden be plucked from our desks or beds and eaten by the disease.
Heck, really, all we have to do is wash our hands; disinfect and sanitize often-touched surfaces; keep our fingers out of our face holes (noses, eyes and mouths; hint: You should be doing this anyway. It’s simply good manners); not cough or sneeze out into the open air; and stay far enough away from people that their mouth moisture can’t reach you, and we’ve pretty much won the battle, at least here in Utah, where we were able to see it coming and take measures earlier than other places.
Yeah. It’s that easy. Viruses are not sentient. They “go with the flow,” so to speak, and humans have a lot of power in directing that flow. It’s simply up to us to actually do it.
When I got back to the office, I washed and sanitized my hands, wiped down my desk and keyboard with disinfectant, restrained myself from picking my nose or biting my fingernails, and got to the awesome business of being human, and not a swimming rodent.
This is not that
Not long after Utah had confirmed it’s first several cases of coronavirus and toilet paper became the most valuable pupled-wood product on the face of the earth, I was told of a conversation that went something like this:
Person 1: Isn’t this crazy what’s going on with the toilet paper and stuff?
Person 2: I know. I’ve been preparing for this a long time, but mostly with guns.
Stop. Just stop. This is not that. The situation we are currently facing is not that situation for which you need a stockpile of weapons. This is simply a flu, albeit one that appears to be on a ‘roid rage rampage.
This is also not a situation where a person needs 648 million rolls of triple-ply or a year’s worth of canned Brussels sprouts (actually, Brussles sprouts were one of the two or three canned vegetables that people apparently refuse to hoard).
Everyone breathe. This is not that.
Our supply chains are intact; Procter and Gamble is still churning out product to clean your derrieres, the newly-christened essential service providers at grocery stores will be stocking shelves, and even if there were a stay-at-home order, we—within certain limits—would be able to go to the store and buy the things we need.
There is absolutely no need, as things stand now, to go all “Mad Max.”
It would also serve certain members of the U.S. Congress and Senate to take a step back, breathe deeply, maybe do that hands up, hands out thing Mr. Miagi taught Daniel in Karate Kid II, and realize that this thing is not that thing.
There was—and still is, I expect—concern in some corners about the coronavirus relief package offering too much unemployment. The argument is that we do not want to incentivize people against work by giving them more money than they could make working.
Right. Absolutely. As a rule, I completely concur. It would do no good for the government to give more money to the unemployed than the unemployed could make working. That makes total sense.
But this is not that. This situation is not welfare queens popping out kids for bigger AFDC checks, or ne’er-do-wells looking to get an Obamaphone. This situation is about helping people who had previously been gainfully employed and productive members of society before being displaced by a disaster that none of us had any control over, and who will more than likely go back to work as soon as they are able. This is simply a way to make sure those people have some financial security so they can return to the things they were doing before the coronavirus made it so they couldn’t.
The sooner we are all realize what this really is—a highly contagious bug that can be thwarted by some pretty simple measures, if we all buy in—and what it’s not, the better off we’ll all be.
As most of you, I expect, I’ve had a lot of thoughts and observations during this strange and unprecedented time, and I felt like sharing a few.
Rodent dreams
I pulled off the Forest Street exit from I-15 Friday after snapping a few photos of the drive-through coronavirus testing operation at Bear River Valley Hospital in Tremonton. I stopped, and had to wait to allow some traffic to pass on Forest Street.
As I waited, a saw some small, furry creature swimming in my direction in a pool of standing water. I found myself jealous of that water-traversing rodent. His life was certainly more carefree and joyous than mine, or that of anyone, really, as we face the peril and challenges wrought by humanity’s latest pitched battle against Mother Nature.
Of course, that was before an eagle swooped down, impaling the little creature in its taloned feet and soaring off for a well-earned meal.
Okay...that last part didn’t actually happen. I imagined it. I think it was my mind’s way of setting me straight.
See, we might be trying to slow and prevent the spread of a highly contagious and fairly deadly virus, but that virus is not actively hunting us. We’re not going to be pleasantly going about our business and all of a sudden be plucked from our desks or beds and eaten by the disease.
Heck, really, all we have to do is wash our hands; disinfect and sanitize often-touched surfaces; keep our fingers out of our face holes (noses, eyes and mouths; hint: You should be doing this anyway. It’s simply good manners); not cough or sneeze out into the open air; and stay far enough away from people that their mouth moisture can’t reach you, and we’ve pretty much won the battle, at least here in Utah, where we were able to see it coming and take measures earlier than other places.
Yeah. It’s that easy. Viruses are not sentient. They “go with the flow,” so to speak, and humans have a lot of power in directing that flow. It’s simply up to us to actually do it.
When I got back to the office, I washed and sanitized my hands, wiped down my desk and keyboard with disinfectant, restrained myself from picking my nose or biting my fingernails, and got to the awesome business of being human, and not a swimming rodent.
This is not that
Not long after Utah had confirmed it’s first several cases of coronavirus and toilet paper became the most valuable pupled-wood product on the face of the earth, I was told of a conversation that went something like this:
Person 1: Isn’t this crazy what’s going on with the toilet paper and stuff?
Person 2: I know. I’ve been preparing for this a long time, but mostly with guns.
Stop. Just stop. This is not that. The situation we are currently facing is not that situation for which you need a stockpile of weapons. This is simply a flu, albeit one that appears to be on a ‘roid rage rampage.
This is also not a situation where a person needs 648 million rolls of triple-ply or a year’s worth of canned Brussels sprouts (actually, Brussles sprouts were one of the two or three canned vegetables that people apparently refuse to hoard).
Everyone breathe. This is not that.
Our supply chains are intact; Procter and Gamble is still churning out product to clean your derrieres, the newly-christened essential service providers at grocery stores will be stocking shelves, and even if there were a stay-at-home order, we—within certain limits—would be able to go to the store and buy the things we need.
There is absolutely no need, as things stand now, to go all “Mad Max.”
It would also serve certain members of the U.S. Congress and Senate to take a step back, breathe deeply, maybe do that hands up, hands out thing Mr. Miagi taught Daniel in Karate Kid II, and realize that this thing is not that thing.
There was—and still is, I expect—concern in some corners about the coronavirus relief package offering too much unemployment. The argument is that we do not want to incentivize people against work by giving them more money than they could make working.
Right. Absolutely. As a rule, I completely concur. It would do no good for the government to give more money to the unemployed than the unemployed could make working. That makes total sense.
But this is not that. This situation is not welfare queens popping out kids for bigger AFDC checks, or ne’er-do-wells looking to get an Obamaphone. This situation is about helping people who had previously been gainfully employed and productive members of society before being displaced by a disaster that none of us had any control over, and who will more than likely go back to work as soon as they are able. This is simply a way to make sure those people have some financial security so they can return to the things they were doing before the coronavirus made it so they couldn’t.
The sooner we are all realize what this really is—a highly contagious bug that can be thwarted by some pretty simple measures, if we all buy in—and what it’s not, the better off we’ll all be.
‘Practice apocalypse’ exposes some deep cracks in our support, supply systems
Writer's Block • Nelson Phillips • March 18, 2020
Let’s set the record straight: COVID-19 isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse.
But for most of us living here in Box Elder County, this last week is the closest we’ve ever come to one.
It’s almost been like a practice apocalypse—a test run—and at this point, I don’t believe we’ve passed. Over the last several days multiple unsettling and alarming events have occurred, events which have eaten away at our confidence as citizens of this country, and of this county. It’s a hard truth to admit, but we were mistaken, or at least I was mistaken, in the belief that our little part of America was somehow different, somehow immune to the social upheavals infecting other parts of the country and world.
We’ve been encouraged to shutter ourselves in our homes, to practice “social distancing,” and not to venture out anywhere where there are groups larger than 20 people. We’ve been hearing news stories every single day about infection counts, what new rule is being implemented, what event is cancelled, what businesses will be shutting down…
Against that backdrop, it was announced on Friday that Box Elder schools would be closing for two weeks to try to stem spread. Upon hearing that news, panic-stricken people made a run on grocery stores, buying out bread, cereal, ground beef, eggs, butter, canned food, flour, rice, diapers, baby formula, basically anything that they could get their hands on, leaving empty shelves for the rest of us. This came on top of the toilet paper and disinfectant runs of the previous week that until now many had been making fun of.
And yet, there has not been a single case of the coronavirus diagnosed anywhere in the county. It’s not the virus that’s truly infecting us, my friends, it’s fear. And that fear stems from a lack of knowledge about what’s going on.
Once the run on the grocery stores began, wouldn’t it have been nice to hear from someone in an official position that there was no problem in our overall supply chain, that the shelves would soon be re-stocked, and that we just had to pull together and care for one another until then?
To its credit, Box Elder County Emergency Management did put out a social media post last Friday urging care, calm and restraint, but that’s been it. The entirety of the response from local government to help ease the panic-buying fears has thus far been one Facebook post on a page that relatively few subscribe to.
There have been no official statements from local elected officials saying that they are watching the situation, have been in contact with grocers, and could assure everyone that they are taking steps to ensure that the hoarding problem will be brought under control.
That would have made me feel at least a little better, how about you?
We at the News Journal have been trying for several days now to get statements on the hoarding situation from the grocery stores themselves, only to find that local managers have been prohibited by their corporations from speaking to the media—they couldn’t tell us anything at all—and not one corporate office has returned our calls. Would they have returned a mayor’s call, or a county commissioner’s call? Who knows?
As a conduit for public information, we in the local media are able to help “get the word out” regarding supply levels, policies and limits being implemented by the stores, something which actually help them as much as it does the public. During a crisis, especially one that leaves people with the fear that they won’t be able to get the food and supplies that they need in order to live, it’s the height of irresponsibility for grocery chains to refuse to communicate with the people they serve. It’s simply inexcusable, and that situation needs to be corrected.
As I wrote in the beginning of this column, this isn’t the apocalypse. The grocery situation is already beginning to show signs of easing as supply starts to catch up with the hoarders’ demand. Manufacturers like Procter & Gamble have released photos of multiple semis leaving their plants, laden with Charmin and other products. Associated Foods has also released photos of full warehouses loading household goods into their trucks.
But at the moment I’m not confident I’ll be able to get bread tomorrow, or even the flour, baking powder and yeast to make it. I’m not sure when stores will be open, or how many people they’ll let in at a time, or whether they’re limiting quantities yet.
A “heads up” from our local grocers would be nice.
Let’s set the record straight: COVID-19 isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse.
But for most of us living here in Box Elder County, this last week is the closest we’ve ever come to one.
It’s almost been like a practice apocalypse—a test run—and at this point, I don’t believe we’ve passed. Over the last several days multiple unsettling and alarming events have occurred, events which have eaten away at our confidence as citizens of this country, and of this county. It’s a hard truth to admit, but we were mistaken, or at least I was mistaken, in the belief that our little part of America was somehow different, somehow immune to the social upheavals infecting other parts of the country and world.
We’ve been encouraged to shutter ourselves in our homes, to practice “social distancing,” and not to venture out anywhere where there are groups larger than 20 people. We’ve been hearing news stories every single day about infection counts, what new rule is being implemented, what event is cancelled, what businesses will be shutting down…
Against that backdrop, it was announced on Friday that Box Elder schools would be closing for two weeks to try to stem spread. Upon hearing that news, panic-stricken people made a run on grocery stores, buying out bread, cereal, ground beef, eggs, butter, canned food, flour, rice, diapers, baby formula, basically anything that they could get their hands on, leaving empty shelves for the rest of us. This came on top of the toilet paper and disinfectant runs of the previous week that until now many had been making fun of.
And yet, there has not been a single case of the coronavirus diagnosed anywhere in the county. It’s not the virus that’s truly infecting us, my friends, it’s fear. And that fear stems from a lack of knowledge about what’s going on.
Once the run on the grocery stores began, wouldn’t it have been nice to hear from someone in an official position that there was no problem in our overall supply chain, that the shelves would soon be re-stocked, and that we just had to pull together and care for one another until then?
To its credit, Box Elder County Emergency Management did put out a social media post last Friday urging care, calm and restraint, but that’s been it. The entirety of the response from local government to help ease the panic-buying fears has thus far been one Facebook post on a page that relatively few subscribe to.
There have been no official statements from local elected officials saying that they are watching the situation, have been in contact with grocers, and could assure everyone that they are taking steps to ensure that the hoarding problem will be brought under control.
That would have made me feel at least a little better, how about you?
We at the News Journal have been trying for several days now to get statements on the hoarding situation from the grocery stores themselves, only to find that local managers have been prohibited by their corporations from speaking to the media—they couldn’t tell us anything at all—and not one corporate office has returned our calls. Would they have returned a mayor’s call, or a county commissioner’s call? Who knows?
As a conduit for public information, we in the local media are able to help “get the word out” regarding supply levels, policies and limits being implemented by the stores, something which actually help them as much as it does the public. During a crisis, especially one that leaves people with the fear that they won’t be able to get the food and supplies that they need in order to live, it’s the height of irresponsibility for grocery chains to refuse to communicate with the people they serve. It’s simply inexcusable, and that situation needs to be corrected.
As I wrote in the beginning of this column, this isn’t the apocalypse. The grocery situation is already beginning to show signs of easing as supply starts to catch up with the hoarders’ demand. Manufacturers like Procter & Gamble have released photos of multiple semis leaving their plants, laden with Charmin and other products. Associated Foods has also released photos of full warehouses loading household goods into their trucks.
But at the moment I’m not confident I’ll be able to get bread tomorrow, or even the flour, baking powder and yeast to make it. I’m not sure when stores will be open, or how many people they’ll let in at a time, or whether they’re limiting quantities yet.
A “heads up” from our local grocers would be nice.
Utah has the medical cannabis program legislature wanted: burdensome and ineffective
From the Desk of the Editor • Sean Hales • March 11, 2020
The state’s medical cannabis program launched on Mar. 1, and by early assessments are that it stumbled, rather than soared, out of the starting gate.
There’s a nagging feeling that if not completely intentional, the program’s early flop was at least the result of design flaws, and that patients, physicians and cannabis producers have been caught in a lot of miscommunication, misunderstandings and a whole lot of red tape.
The biggest problem is a lack of patients with certified medical cannabis cards allowing them to obtain the product, the result of an unnecessarily overly-complicated and heavy-handed system could threaten the viability of cannabis pharmacies, and ultimately, producers.
Legislators had long been warned against trying to re-invent the wheel when it came to distribution policing for medical cannabis. After the original proposition was gutted and changed, the cracks started showing. Each patch of legislative putty to prevent the whole thing from crumbling is finally shaping the bill in the direction of the original proposal, but it hasn’t been pretty, and has been particularly difficult for patients who believed they had done all that was asked of them and are still walking away empty-handed from Utah’s “functioning” medical cannabis system.
Since the official online portal went live, the Utah Medical Cannabis Program has received over 1,200 applications. By Wednesday, March 4, only 60 had been approved, and a least 700 were awaiting certification, according to Rich Oborn, the program’s director. A wait is to be expected, according to the state health department. Adults 21 and older with qualifying conditions could see a wait time of up to two weeks, while the wait time for minors and adults without a qualifying condition could take up to 90 days, since those applications must be considered by the compassionate use board.
Dragonfly Wellness in Salt Lake City, the only facility to meet the State’s deadlines for compliance, reported that they had about 200 potential customers the first day, but only 16 had the appropriate state-authorized credentials. On the second day, only one qualified patient came in to make a purchase.
Pleas have been made for an amendment that would grant temporary purchasing power to those with a valid recommendation letter as they await certification for a medical cannabis card.
While other states have struggled with supplying enough medical cannabis for the needs of patients, Utah has created a gridlock where the one pharmacy able to successfully navigate the regulatory gauntlet has fully-stocked shelves and no customers.
It’s ridiculous that the products go unsold because of easily avoidable stumbling blocks that include the portal website crashing, ambiguous and confusing instructions, egregious requirements and fees, fees, fees, every step of the way.
One such requirement is that patients must establish an on-going care relationship with an authorized medical care provider, which, by definition, requires multiple visits each one of which will incur a cost.
After that, a patient must apply for a medical cannabis card ($15 fee to apply). If approved, there is a 30-day renewal ($5 fee). After that, there is a maintenance fee due every six months ($15).
All of this is necessary prior to any legal purchase of medical cannabis.
For minors or those too ill to use the medical card themselves, a caregiver who has been proven worthy card can be granted permission to purchase for the patient—for the low, low price of $66.25, followed by $14 every six months, on top of the $15 renewal fee for the medical cannabis card.
Medical providers must go through an application process, complete a four-hour training, and pay a $100 application fee that will allow them to “recommend” cannabis to a limited number of patients under their care. There is also a $50 renewal fee every two years for that privilege.
It appears that the state has designed a process so rigorous as to weed out all but the most needy and desperate patients, all while nickel-and-diming everyone involved to the greatest extent possible.
The buy-in to grow and sell medical cannabis also includes exorbitant fees, and comes with limits and stipulations that stand in stark opposition to other successful, established cannabis programs that not only help patients with an important alternative in the wake of a nationwide opioid epidemic, but that are buoying those state’s economies.
Those suffering from one of the qualifying medical conditions may seek the help of a qualified medical practitioner willing to give a recommendation, of which there is one in Box Elder County, three in Cache County and two in Weber County who are publicly listed. According to the state health department website, there are registered medical providers whose names do not appear on the department’s website “because they requested that their name not be posted publicly.”
Baby steps are being made with amendments to fix the problems legislators had previously been warned about, such as increasing the number of recommendations doctors can give, or getting rid of blister pack requirements, or legalizing the use of CBD (not THC) obtained outside of Utah.
Luckily, there is a resource for anyone who has questions (which seems to be just about everyone) about the state’s medical cannabis program at medicalcannabis.utah.gov. And in a minor improvement from just about everything else about the program, a citizen will only wait a maximum of seven days before getting a response.
The state’s medical cannabis program launched on Mar. 1, and by early assessments are that it stumbled, rather than soared, out of the starting gate.
There’s a nagging feeling that if not completely intentional, the program’s early flop was at least the result of design flaws, and that patients, physicians and cannabis producers have been caught in a lot of miscommunication, misunderstandings and a whole lot of red tape.
The biggest problem is a lack of patients with certified medical cannabis cards allowing them to obtain the product, the result of an unnecessarily overly-complicated and heavy-handed system could threaten the viability of cannabis pharmacies, and ultimately, producers.
Legislators had long been warned against trying to re-invent the wheel when it came to distribution policing for medical cannabis. After the original proposition was gutted and changed, the cracks started showing. Each patch of legislative putty to prevent the whole thing from crumbling is finally shaping the bill in the direction of the original proposal, but it hasn’t been pretty, and has been particularly difficult for patients who believed they had done all that was asked of them and are still walking away empty-handed from Utah’s “functioning” medical cannabis system.
Since the official online portal went live, the Utah Medical Cannabis Program has received over 1,200 applications. By Wednesday, March 4, only 60 had been approved, and a least 700 were awaiting certification, according to Rich Oborn, the program’s director. A wait is to be expected, according to the state health department. Adults 21 and older with qualifying conditions could see a wait time of up to two weeks, while the wait time for minors and adults without a qualifying condition could take up to 90 days, since those applications must be considered by the compassionate use board.
Dragonfly Wellness in Salt Lake City, the only facility to meet the State’s deadlines for compliance, reported that they had about 200 potential customers the first day, but only 16 had the appropriate state-authorized credentials. On the second day, only one qualified patient came in to make a purchase.
Pleas have been made for an amendment that would grant temporary purchasing power to those with a valid recommendation letter as they await certification for a medical cannabis card.
While other states have struggled with supplying enough medical cannabis for the needs of patients, Utah has created a gridlock where the one pharmacy able to successfully navigate the regulatory gauntlet has fully-stocked shelves and no customers.
It’s ridiculous that the products go unsold because of easily avoidable stumbling blocks that include the portal website crashing, ambiguous and confusing instructions, egregious requirements and fees, fees, fees, every step of the way.
One such requirement is that patients must establish an on-going care relationship with an authorized medical care provider, which, by definition, requires multiple visits each one of which will incur a cost.
After that, a patient must apply for a medical cannabis card ($15 fee to apply). If approved, there is a 30-day renewal ($5 fee). After that, there is a maintenance fee due every six months ($15).
All of this is necessary prior to any legal purchase of medical cannabis.
For minors or those too ill to use the medical card themselves, a caregiver who has been proven worthy card can be granted permission to purchase for the patient—for the low, low price of $66.25, followed by $14 every six months, on top of the $15 renewal fee for the medical cannabis card.
Medical providers must go through an application process, complete a four-hour training, and pay a $100 application fee that will allow them to “recommend” cannabis to a limited number of patients under their care. There is also a $50 renewal fee every two years for that privilege.
It appears that the state has designed a process so rigorous as to weed out all but the most needy and desperate patients, all while nickel-and-diming everyone involved to the greatest extent possible.
The buy-in to grow and sell medical cannabis also includes exorbitant fees, and comes with limits and stipulations that stand in stark opposition to other successful, established cannabis programs that not only help patients with an important alternative in the wake of a nationwide opioid epidemic, but that are buoying those state’s economies.
Those suffering from one of the qualifying medical conditions may seek the help of a qualified medical practitioner willing to give a recommendation, of which there is one in Box Elder County, three in Cache County and two in Weber County who are publicly listed. According to the state health department website, there are registered medical providers whose names do not appear on the department’s website “because they requested that their name not be posted publicly.”
Baby steps are being made with amendments to fix the problems legislators had previously been warned about, such as increasing the number of recommendations doctors can give, or getting rid of blister pack requirements, or legalizing the use of CBD (not THC) obtained outside of Utah.
Luckily, there is a resource for anyone who has questions (which seems to be just about everyone) about the state’s medical cannabis program at medicalcannabis.utah.gov. And in a minor improvement from just about everything else about the program, a citizen will only wait a maximum of seven days before getting a response.
Brigham City’s ‘Brazen Burglar’ still laying low, despite rumors
Writer's Block • Nelson Phillips • September 18, 2019
According to police, the hooded Brigham City burglar who was caught on home security video a few weeks ago has been laying low, but that hasn’t prevented continued panic and fear in some quarters.
On Monday the News Journal received an anonymous e-mail stating that the burglar was still very active in the northeast section of town, recently breaking into a home with two teenage girls present.
“This may be one of the biggest crime stories in the city’s history. Why is the News Journal not doing more than one article over a month ago?” wrote the sender, who wished to stay anonymous out of fear of retribution from the alleged criminal. “Now another this week in the same zone. A break in, inside the home with two teenage daughters but he was scared off quickly. The family says the doors were locked. How long until there is a rape or murder? Brazen criminals like this worsen with each crime.”
The News Journal requested from the sender details, names, and other information that could be verified. While awaiting a reply, we also contacted Lieutenant Tony Ferderber of the Brigham City Police Department, providing him with the sender’s claims.
“We have no burglaries, home or residential, that we can tie to the previous string that this individual is talking about,” said Ferderber. When asked about home invasions, such as the one with two teenage girls as described by the e-mailer, Ferderber replied, “No, the e-mail is extremely incorrect.”
Eventually the anonymous e-mailer contacted us again.
“We DO NOT want our name or location out for obvious reasons,” he or she wrote. “This criminal is ruthless.” The writer suggested that the police as well as the News Journal had dropped the ball. It was suggested that police should have officers hidden in the area to catch anyone looking out of place in the early morning hours.
After asking again for facts that could be verified, even stating that no names would be published, the e-mailer stopped responding.
That’s how it works, though, isn’t it? A rumor gets started, becoming more dire and dangerous each time it’s retold, until a car burglar becomes a maniacal rapist-murderer, and anyone out at night becomes “a terrorist.”
And traveling perfume salesmen are using knockout gas in their bottles. And nefarious characters are putting expensive illicit drugs in Halloween candy (because they have money to burn, evidently), and high school students are lacing gummy bears with heroin…
Should we be worried when we hear of a burglary spree, a legitimate one that’s been verified, where the guy breaks into occupied homes? Yes. It should make all of us a little more aware, and a little more cautious, locking our car and house doors, and checking on our loved ones before we go to bed.
But should we live in fear? No. The fact of the matter is, while there are bad people, they are really and truly a rarity.
Having worked this beat for more than six years now, I’ve gotten to know Brigham City well. I love the town. The people here are good people. My experience with local law enforcement, and I’ve had a lot of it (on the job, thank you), is that we’ve got some fine officers here who really care. If there’s a threat to the community, they aren’t going to sit on their hands, or rest on their laurels. They’ll do some things in the open, and much more that’s not seen.
But all of us have to do our part too. And that doesn’t include passing on rumors. It includes getting to know our neighbors, and looking out for one another. It includes reporting things that seem off. And it includes taking some responsibility for our own safety.
If any of you have news tips that can be verified and followed up on, please contact me. If it’s a good story that falls in line with what we do at the News Journal, I’ll be all over it.
According to police, the hooded Brigham City burglar who was caught on home security video a few weeks ago has been laying low, but that hasn’t prevented continued panic and fear in some quarters.
On Monday the News Journal received an anonymous e-mail stating that the burglar was still very active in the northeast section of town, recently breaking into a home with two teenage girls present.
“This may be one of the biggest crime stories in the city’s history. Why is the News Journal not doing more than one article over a month ago?” wrote the sender, who wished to stay anonymous out of fear of retribution from the alleged criminal. “Now another this week in the same zone. A break in, inside the home with two teenage daughters but he was scared off quickly. The family says the doors were locked. How long until there is a rape or murder? Brazen criminals like this worsen with each crime.”
The News Journal requested from the sender details, names, and other information that could be verified. While awaiting a reply, we also contacted Lieutenant Tony Ferderber of the Brigham City Police Department, providing him with the sender’s claims.
“We have no burglaries, home or residential, that we can tie to the previous string that this individual is talking about,” said Ferderber. When asked about home invasions, such as the one with two teenage girls as described by the e-mailer, Ferderber replied, “No, the e-mail is extremely incorrect.”
Eventually the anonymous e-mailer contacted us again.
“We DO NOT want our name or location out for obvious reasons,” he or she wrote. “This criminal is ruthless.” The writer suggested that the police as well as the News Journal had dropped the ball. It was suggested that police should have officers hidden in the area to catch anyone looking out of place in the early morning hours.
After asking again for facts that could be verified, even stating that no names would be published, the e-mailer stopped responding.
That’s how it works, though, isn’t it? A rumor gets started, becoming more dire and dangerous each time it’s retold, until a car burglar becomes a maniacal rapist-murderer, and anyone out at night becomes “a terrorist.”
And traveling perfume salesmen are using knockout gas in their bottles. And nefarious characters are putting expensive illicit drugs in Halloween candy (because they have money to burn, evidently), and high school students are lacing gummy bears with heroin…
Should we be worried when we hear of a burglary spree, a legitimate one that’s been verified, where the guy breaks into occupied homes? Yes. It should make all of us a little more aware, and a little more cautious, locking our car and house doors, and checking on our loved ones before we go to bed.
But should we live in fear? No. The fact of the matter is, while there are bad people, they are really and truly a rarity.
Having worked this beat for more than six years now, I’ve gotten to know Brigham City well. I love the town. The people here are good people. My experience with local law enforcement, and I’ve had a lot of it (on the job, thank you), is that we’ve got some fine officers here who really care. If there’s a threat to the community, they aren’t going to sit on their hands, or rest on their laurels. They’ll do some things in the open, and much more that’s not seen.
But all of us have to do our part too. And that doesn’t include passing on rumors. It includes getting to know our neighbors, and looking out for one another. It includes reporting things that seem off. And it includes taking some responsibility for our own safety.
If any of you have news tips that can be verified and followed up on, please contact me. If it’s a good story that falls in line with what we do at the News Journal, I’ll be all over it.
Elected officials need to make decisions, not punt
Our Opinion • September 11, 2019
Recent conversations with Brigham City officials revealed that Mayor Tyler Vincent has decided to hold Truth in Taxation every year for the remainder of his term, and that City Administrator Jason Roberts will recommend the same policy to future mayors.
To be clear, holding Truth in Taxation does not mean a city is obligated to raise taxes. Truth in Taxation must be held anytime a taxing entity is considering deviating from the Certified Tax Rate established by the county. This policy will allow the council to be more nimble in responding to both the city’s budgetary needs and ever-shifting property values.
We applaud the decision and see it as Vincent and other city officials learning the hard lesson taught them this year from previous councils “kicking the can,” which resulted in a 69% tax hike this year.
However, we don’t feel the city council learned the larger lesson from this year, which isn’t just about tax increases, but about making difficult decisions they were elected to make.
Specifically is the council’s decision to abandon a proposed $5 million recreation center.
We appreciate the sentiment expressed by Councilmember Tom Peterson when he said, “A lot of the points that were brought up, we really did take to heart. I don’t want the citizens to think that we don’t listen.”
It’s a particularly relevant statement right now. The Utah State Legislature has all but undone two voter-approved initiatives, and is considering doing the same to a third. Citizens have reason and a certain amount of right to expect that they will be fairly represented by their representative government.
But we think there’s a difference between the legislature gutting and overturning voter-approved initiatives, and the city council punting hard decisions, especially ones for which it already knows the answer.
And this is not only our opinion. Mr. Peterson expressed something similar immediately following his comments about listening to residents.
“We do have a need that we have to figure out how to solve,” Peterson said.
We can’t help but feel the reticence of this council to incite the ire of those opposed to the recreation center is the same type of reluctance exhibited by previous councils that resulted in this year’s original proposed tax increase of 111%. The increase—which justifiably shocked and outraged residents—was the result of near two decades’ worth of city councils avoiding the inevitable backlash that comes from any tax increase. Fearing the “torch and pitchfork” crowd, previous councils punted the issue. Those chickens finally came home to roost when the outcry over such a sizable tax increase forced the city to abandon the portion of the increase earmarked for the recreation center.
Just like the action—or more accurately, inaction—of previous councils, this, too, feels willfully short-sighted simply for the sake of political expediency.
Councilmember DJ Bott said at a pubic hearing regarding the tax increase, “I really think that we’d be better served in partnering up as a community with something that serves the entire community, which is the school district, in something like this.”
The cost to taxpayers can hardly be considered the primary reason for such a statement. Given the needs for office space to house the city’s Community Activities and Services Department staff, and courts for basketball, volleyball and other indoor programming, the cost for such a building is unlikely to change. When the city proposed a cooperative effort for such a facility to the school district earlier this year, the city’s cost didn’t change from the $5 million price tag. Any savings from a partnership would mostly come from sharing ongoing operational costs for utilities.
As we see it, the real major benefit from partnership would come in the form of public support and consensus such a partnership would generate, but we don’t consider improved optics a reasonable consideration for backing off the project, especially since city officials have been so vocal about the urgent need for the facility.
Make no mistake: the city will construct a recreation center in the near future. There are very high levels of participation in the city’s recreation programs—some programs are capped and turning away residents who want to participate due to a lack of space. Also, even if the school district provides the city an extension on the lease for the Bunderson Center, that building will never meet the all the needs of the recreation department, not to mention the cost of operating and maintaining the aging school building could easily be considered a more significant waste of taxpayer resources than building a facility that would better serve the city’s needs.
On more than one occasion city officials made these arguments as they tried to drum up support for the recreation center. We believe abandoning the project can only mean one of two things: Either the situation isn’t as dire as has been presented, or they failed to have the courage of their convictions in the face of adversity.
Of course, it doesn’t help that the council had little in the way of support at public hearings about the issue; that they were put on an island, so to speak, to face the opposition alone, when chatter in other corners indicate that there was plenty of support for the proposal.
As much as we need leaders who will make the difficult decisions, we need citizens from all sides engaging in the process. That’s how but the best decisions for the community as a whole will be made.
Recent conversations with Brigham City officials revealed that Mayor Tyler Vincent has decided to hold Truth in Taxation every year for the remainder of his term, and that City Administrator Jason Roberts will recommend the same policy to future mayors.
To be clear, holding Truth in Taxation does not mean a city is obligated to raise taxes. Truth in Taxation must be held anytime a taxing entity is considering deviating from the Certified Tax Rate established by the county. This policy will allow the council to be more nimble in responding to both the city’s budgetary needs and ever-shifting property values.
We applaud the decision and see it as Vincent and other city officials learning the hard lesson taught them this year from previous councils “kicking the can,” which resulted in a 69% tax hike this year.
However, we don’t feel the city council learned the larger lesson from this year, which isn’t just about tax increases, but about making difficult decisions they were elected to make.
Specifically is the council’s decision to abandon a proposed $5 million recreation center.
We appreciate the sentiment expressed by Councilmember Tom Peterson when he said, “A lot of the points that were brought up, we really did take to heart. I don’t want the citizens to think that we don’t listen.”
It’s a particularly relevant statement right now. The Utah State Legislature has all but undone two voter-approved initiatives, and is considering doing the same to a third. Citizens have reason and a certain amount of right to expect that they will be fairly represented by their representative government.
But we think there’s a difference between the legislature gutting and overturning voter-approved initiatives, and the city council punting hard decisions, especially ones for which it already knows the answer.
And this is not only our opinion. Mr. Peterson expressed something similar immediately following his comments about listening to residents.
“We do have a need that we have to figure out how to solve,” Peterson said.
We can’t help but feel the reticence of this council to incite the ire of those opposed to the recreation center is the same type of reluctance exhibited by previous councils that resulted in this year’s original proposed tax increase of 111%. The increase—which justifiably shocked and outraged residents—was the result of near two decades’ worth of city councils avoiding the inevitable backlash that comes from any tax increase. Fearing the “torch and pitchfork” crowd, previous councils punted the issue. Those chickens finally came home to roost when the outcry over such a sizable tax increase forced the city to abandon the portion of the increase earmarked for the recreation center.
Just like the action—or more accurately, inaction—of previous councils, this, too, feels willfully short-sighted simply for the sake of political expediency.
Councilmember DJ Bott said at a pubic hearing regarding the tax increase, “I really think that we’d be better served in partnering up as a community with something that serves the entire community, which is the school district, in something like this.”
The cost to taxpayers can hardly be considered the primary reason for such a statement. Given the needs for office space to house the city’s Community Activities and Services Department staff, and courts for basketball, volleyball and other indoor programming, the cost for such a building is unlikely to change. When the city proposed a cooperative effort for such a facility to the school district earlier this year, the city’s cost didn’t change from the $5 million price tag. Any savings from a partnership would mostly come from sharing ongoing operational costs for utilities.
As we see it, the real major benefit from partnership would come in the form of public support and consensus such a partnership would generate, but we don’t consider improved optics a reasonable consideration for backing off the project, especially since city officials have been so vocal about the urgent need for the facility.
Make no mistake: the city will construct a recreation center in the near future. There are very high levels of participation in the city’s recreation programs—some programs are capped and turning away residents who want to participate due to a lack of space. Also, even if the school district provides the city an extension on the lease for the Bunderson Center, that building will never meet the all the needs of the recreation department, not to mention the cost of operating and maintaining the aging school building could easily be considered a more significant waste of taxpayer resources than building a facility that would better serve the city’s needs.
On more than one occasion city officials made these arguments as they tried to drum up support for the recreation center. We believe abandoning the project can only mean one of two things: Either the situation isn’t as dire as has been presented, or they failed to have the courage of their convictions in the face of adversity.
Of course, it doesn’t help that the council had little in the way of support at public hearings about the issue; that they were put on an island, so to speak, to face the opposition alone, when chatter in other corners indicate that there was plenty of support for the proposal.
As much as we need leaders who will make the difficult decisions, we need citizens from all sides engaging in the process. That’s how but the best decisions for the community as a whole will be made.
Tax increase: I don’t like it either, but I understand the reason for it
From the Desk of the Editor • July 10, 2019 • Sean Hales
Let’s face it, no one likes giving money to government year, after year, after year. If there is a more onerous, irritating thing in this life than taxes, I’m not sure what it is.
Except, maybe, paying more taxes.
So does it annoy me that Brigham City is seeking an increase in property taxes. Again, no one likes paying money to government, and we like paying more money even less.
But simply being annoyed or upset at a thing does not make it wrong or unnecessary. I get annoyed when I visit a doctor, or have to have my car repaired; anytime I have to spend money on things I’d rather not I develop an angry twitch in my eye. But there are consequences if I don’t. An extended illness or disease, or serious vehicular malfunction, could cost me a lot more down the road.
Brigham City’s proposed tax increase is much the same thing. Not increasing taxes doesn’t make the need go away, it will just hurt that much more when it becomes impossible to ignore. Unfortunately, that is exactly what previous administrations have done over the years, finding creative funding methods—such as using utility profits to fund general fund operations—rather than deal with an unpopular and politically detrimental tax increase. While researching two stories published last week about the proposed increase, Box Elder County Auditor Tom Kotter wrote me in an email, “It begs the question of why did they [Brigham City] wait 18 years? I think people make the [Truth in Taxation] hearings into some type of boogey man. Sadly, governments will put them off as long as possible. I think they [Truth in Taxation hearings] are not done frequently not for the wellbeing of the public, but so that the policy makers can be re-elected.”
In the course of researching last week’s stories, I came to the opinion that Brigham City’s elected officials and administrators should be congratulated for the way they have managed the city’s finances over the years. Without occasional tax increases, a city only has a choice to reduce services. Governments are just as subject to inflationary forces as you or I, and financial experts largely agree that the increased revenue that comes with growth rarely covers the increased costs to the city the growth incurs. Over the last 18 years, while facing the dual burden of growth and inflation, the city has been able to avoid a tax increase while continuing to provide high-levels of service and programs.
They have avoided that in large part by using transfers from the utility fund. I understand the concern with the practice and with the philosophical differences of opinion about it. I asked city officials directly if residents are being gouged to fund irresponsible spending, and what the consequences would be of abandoning the practice.
When compared to utility rates in surrounding communities, Brigham City is more than competitive, which some may argue proves that residents are not being overcharged. Others, however, would say that the profit generated by those funds is proof that residents are paying too much. City officials admitted that they could reduce utility fees, but without a reciprocal reduction in services, residents would face a nearly 500% increase in taxes to cover the costs.
In which case, the ultimate question would be, what services could be cut to avoid a tax increase?
Ostensibly, the proposed tax increase is to help address what city officials say are critical staffing shortages in the police and fire departments. The increases to fire and police take up more than half of the proposed $1,088,281 increase. Sure, it would be possible to reduce services in some areas and use the savings to pay for the increases in the police and fire departments, but which programs or services should be cut?
According to information provided by City Administrator Jason Roberts, “There are no programs approved in the City Budget that are considered unnecessary at the current time.”
The city’s parks take the largest subsidy of any city department, followed by the senior center, and only nearly completely cutting the next lowest three programs on the subsidy totem pole—recreation, museum and swimming pool—would provide the city the necessary revenue to cover the increase to police and fire. Also, the cutting of any service or program would also come with costs, questions and consequences that would need to be carefully analyzed before taking action.
The bottom two programs subsidized by taxpayer funds are the cemetery and golf course. A cemetery could be considered as much of an essential service as police, fire or roads, and the golf course has largely been in the black—i.e., turning a profit—with the exception of the last couple of years when the irrigation system started failing.
Furthermore, the city’s parks and recreational opportunities have been broadly cited as a not-insignificant consideration by companies considering locating here, and have positive impacts on city sales tax revenue that cannot be easily identified or categorized.
As I researched and wrote last week’s stories, I struggled with pretty significant cognitive dissonance. The part of me that didn’t want to pay more taxes, versus the other, which didn’t want to consider the consequences to our senior citizens or youth and their parents who would be impacted by any program cuts.
Certainly, I wouldn’t be willing to go to either group and tell them I don’t want to pay for the programs they benefit from, and that previous generations of Brigham City residents have agreed to provide to make this city the great place it is.
Let’s face it, no one likes giving money to government year, after year, after year. If there is a more onerous, irritating thing in this life than taxes, I’m not sure what it is.
Except, maybe, paying more taxes.
So does it annoy me that Brigham City is seeking an increase in property taxes. Again, no one likes paying money to government, and we like paying more money even less.
But simply being annoyed or upset at a thing does not make it wrong or unnecessary. I get annoyed when I visit a doctor, or have to have my car repaired; anytime I have to spend money on things I’d rather not I develop an angry twitch in my eye. But there are consequences if I don’t. An extended illness or disease, or serious vehicular malfunction, could cost me a lot more down the road.
Brigham City’s proposed tax increase is much the same thing. Not increasing taxes doesn’t make the need go away, it will just hurt that much more when it becomes impossible to ignore. Unfortunately, that is exactly what previous administrations have done over the years, finding creative funding methods—such as using utility profits to fund general fund operations—rather than deal with an unpopular and politically detrimental tax increase. While researching two stories published last week about the proposed increase, Box Elder County Auditor Tom Kotter wrote me in an email, “It begs the question of why did they [Brigham City] wait 18 years? I think people make the [Truth in Taxation] hearings into some type of boogey man. Sadly, governments will put them off as long as possible. I think they [Truth in Taxation hearings] are not done frequently not for the wellbeing of the public, but so that the policy makers can be re-elected.”
In the course of researching last week’s stories, I came to the opinion that Brigham City’s elected officials and administrators should be congratulated for the way they have managed the city’s finances over the years. Without occasional tax increases, a city only has a choice to reduce services. Governments are just as subject to inflationary forces as you or I, and financial experts largely agree that the increased revenue that comes with growth rarely covers the increased costs to the city the growth incurs. Over the last 18 years, while facing the dual burden of growth and inflation, the city has been able to avoid a tax increase while continuing to provide high-levels of service and programs.
They have avoided that in large part by using transfers from the utility fund. I understand the concern with the practice and with the philosophical differences of opinion about it. I asked city officials directly if residents are being gouged to fund irresponsible spending, and what the consequences would be of abandoning the practice.
When compared to utility rates in surrounding communities, Brigham City is more than competitive, which some may argue proves that residents are not being overcharged. Others, however, would say that the profit generated by those funds is proof that residents are paying too much. City officials admitted that they could reduce utility fees, but without a reciprocal reduction in services, residents would face a nearly 500% increase in taxes to cover the costs.
In which case, the ultimate question would be, what services could be cut to avoid a tax increase?
Ostensibly, the proposed tax increase is to help address what city officials say are critical staffing shortages in the police and fire departments. The increases to fire and police take up more than half of the proposed $1,088,281 increase. Sure, it would be possible to reduce services in some areas and use the savings to pay for the increases in the police and fire departments, but which programs or services should be cut?
According to information provided by City Administrator Jason Roberts, “There are no programs approved in the City Budget that are considered unnecessary at the current time.”
The city’s parks take the largest subsidy of any city department, followed by the senior center, and only nearly completely cutting the next lowest three programs on the subsidy totem pole—recreation, museum and swimming pool—would provide the city the necessary revenue to cover the increase to police and fire. Also, the cutting of any service or program would also come with costs, questions and consequences that would need to be carefully analyzed before taking action.
The bottom two programs subsidized by taxpayer funds are the cemetery and golf course. A cemetery could be considered as much of an essential service as police, fire or roads, and the golf course has largely been in the black—i.e., turning a profit—with the exception of the last couple of years when the irrigation system started failing.
Furthermore, the city’s parks and recreational opportunities have been broadly cited as a not-insignificant consideration by companies considering locating here, and have positive impacts on city sales tax revenue that cannot be easily identified or categorized.
As I researched and wrote last week’s stories, I struggled with pretty significant cognitive dissonance. The part of me that didn’t want to pay more taxes, versus the other, which didn’t want to consider the consequences to our senior citizens or youth and their parents who would be impacted by any program cuts.
Certainly, I wouldn’t be willing to go to either group and tell them I don’t want to pay for the programs they benefit from, and that previous generations of Brigham City residents have agreed to provide to make this city the great place it is.
Lock them up (your doors, of course)
Over the past year, especially over the past month, there has been a worrying uptick in the number of auto burglaries that are happening in Box Elder communities.
The Tremonton Police Department issued a social media alert in late May, saying there has been a rash of vehicle burglaries in both Brigham City and Tremonton, asking people to be vigilant, and to lock their vehicles. The Brigham City Police Department has been posting statistics which show each time a vehicle burglary is reported, currently up to 21 since the end of April.
According to police, a lot of the issue stems from Weber County troublemakers coming north for easy targets. Box Elder residents tend to be more trusting, and perhaps a little naïve, with some even regarding leaving their homes and cars unlocked as something to take pride in.
I’m with you in spirit, guys, it would be great to live in a world where everyone looks out for everyone else, and we all have a sense of decency and honor. But the world doesn’t work like that. I’m not sure it ever really did.
As our population grows—and more to the point, as our drug problem grows—the more criminals there will be. Maybe not percentage wise, but in sheer numbers there will be more.
A little over a year ago I did an interview with the late Brigham City Police Department Assistant Chief Dennis Vincent, who told me that we need to lose our “small-town” mindset when it comes to crime.
“First off, you have to lock your stuff,” he said. “We’re no longer living in an environment where you can leave your cars unlocked, or your houses unlocked.” Unlocked doors with valuables out in plain view are an invitation to thieves, he explained. “Bad guys are all over crimes of opportunity. We’ve really been telling people this for years, lock your stuff up, and don’t leave valuables laying out where they can be seen.”
That’s good advice from a good man, and really it’s just common sense. If someone is supporting a meth habit, and they see a camera or a purse in the front seat of an unlocked vehicle, in their mind that’s their next high. Many would be physically unable to resist the temptation.
Also, criminals are notoriously lazy. They’ll go for the easy score nearly every time. Unfortunately, many of us are lazy too, and fail to take easy precautions that would make the criminal move on to an easier target. I don’t know about you, but if a crook is going to steal from me I want to make him earn it.
Other than locked doors and keeping valuables out of sight, I honestly believe one of the best deterrents against crime are close neighborhoods. If you know your neighbors, and they know you, when someone is out of place they’ll stick out like a sore thumb. For the last 22 years I’ve been blessed with some of the best neighbors anyone could ask for. We’ve cared for each other’s children, collected mail and fed the pets when one or the other of us is gone, and just looked out for each other.
Another great suggestion is installing outdoor cameras. Doorbell cameras and security cameras catch more than the UPS guy, and have become an invaluable tool for law enforcement as well as a strong deterrent to crime.
If you can’t afford an outdoor camera, fake it. Get a dummy camera, or order a cheap sign that says your property is under video surveillance; any seed of doubt or worry you can place in the thief’s mind will make them move on.
In my experience, most of them really aren’t very bright.
The Tremonton Police Department issued a social media alert in late May, saying there has been a rash of vehicle burglaries in both Brigham City and Tremonton, asking people to be vigilant, and to lock their vehicles. The Brigham City Police Department has been posting statistics which show each time a vehicle burglary is reported, currently up to 21 since the end of April.
According to police, a lot of the issue stems from Weber County troublemakers coming north for easy targets. Box Elder residents tend to be more trusting, and perhaps a little naïve, with some even regarding leaving their homes and cars unlocked as something to take pride in.
I’m with you in spirit, guys, it would be great to live in a world where everyone looks out for everyone else, and we all have a sense of decency and honor. But the world doesn’t work like that. I’m not sure it ever really did.
As our population grows—and more to the point, as our drug problem grows—the more criminals there will be. Maybe not percentage wise, but in sheer numbers there will be more.
A little over a year ago I did an interview with the late Brigham City Police Department Assistant Chief Dennis Vincent, who told me that we need to lose our “small-town” mindset when it comes to crime.
“First off, you have to lock your stuff,” he said. “We’re no longer living in an environment where you can leave your cars unlocked, or your houses unlocked.” Unlocked doors with valuables out in plain view are an invitation to thieves, he explained. “Bad guys are all over crimes of opportunity. We’ve really been telling people this for years, lock your stuff up, and don’t leave valuables laying out where they can be seen.”
That’s good advice from a good man, and really it’s just common sense. If someone is supporting a meth habit, and they see a camera or a purse in the front seat of an unlocked vehicle, in their mind that’s their next high. Many would be physically unable to resist the temptation.
Also, criminals are notoriously lazy. They’ll go for the easy score nearly every time. Unfortunately, many of us are lazy too, and fail to take easy precautions that would make the criminal move on to an easier target. I don’t know about you, but if a crook is going to steal from me I want to make him earn it.
Other than locked doors and keeping valuables out of sight, I honestly believe one of the best deterrents against crime are close neighborhoods. If you know your neighbors, and they know you, when someone is out of place they’ll stick out like a sore thumb. For the last 22 years I’ve been blessed with some of the best neighbors anyone could ask for. We’ve cared for each other’s children, collected mail and fed the pets when one or the other of us is gone, and just looked out for each other.
Another great suggestion is installing outdoor cameras. Doorbell cameras and security cameras catch more than the UPS guy, and have become an invaluable tool for law enforcement as well as a strong deterrent to crime.
If you can’t afford an outdoor camera, fake it. Get a dummy camera, or order a cheap sign that says your property is under video surveillance; any seed of doubt or worry you can place in the thief’s mind will make them move on.
In my experience, most of them really aren’t very bright.
Dedicated volunteers kept Golden Spike history alive for 68 years
May 8, 2019 • Sarah Yates • Guest Perspective
What was it the engines said
Pilots touching head to head
Facing on a single track
Half a world behind each back?
—Bret Harte
Perhaps the locomotives had no words, but the men who built and financed the transcontinental railroad had plenty of them, enough to wax eloquently at the original Golden Spike ceremony on May 10, 1869, at Promontory, Utah Territory.
Five generations of spectators have heard those words, thanks to a gradually changing volunteer cast that has presented an on-site annual reenactment of that historic occasion, going back to the days of the concrete obelisk set in a barren field. Both the cast and the script have evolved through years, but the guys in the top hats will be on hand to make history come alive again this year for the 150th anniversary of the Driving of the Golden Spike.
It is a tradition rooted in a dedicated cast; roles portrayed in sickness and health, rain or shine, despite blown-away mustaches, flying cinders and perspiration beneath black wool clothing.
A few observances were held in the 83 years after completion of the transcontinental railway, but the first on-site scripted reenactment took place near the small obelisk at Promontory on May 10, 1952.
According to its author, Marie Thorne Jeppson, the first reenactment was presented by the Box Elder County Camp of Daughters of Utah Pioneers on April 4, 1947, in Salt Lake City during Utah’s centennial year. Her sources were a manuscript by local historian Bernice Gibbs Anderson and an account from a Union Pacific Railroad history.
The first public reenactment was in 1951 when Brigham City observed the centennial of its settlement. Mrs. Jeppson wrote and directed a Peach Days pageant presented at Rees Pioneer Park, and driving of the golden spike was included as a vignette with its script shortened to 12 minutes. This was the script used up until 1969.
In 1952 the Brigham City Chamber of Commerce decided to make the reenactment an annual event at Promontory Summit in response to Mrs. Anderson’s continual efforts to bring official government recognition to the site. A crowd of 300, swelled by busloads of Navajo students from the Intermountain Indian School, witnessed that first reenactment. Present for the occasion was one Box Elder County pioneer, Minnie Campion, who attended the original ceremony as a child.
Bernice G. Anderson chaired the annual celebrations, assisted by the Golden Spike Association, formed both to promote the programs and efforts to gain national status for the site. The first victory came in 1957 when seven acres donated by the Union Pacific Railroad were set aside for a national historic site.
The programs continued annually at the obelisk—sometimes with cardboard or wooden locomotives added to the set—and became a tradition. There were rainy days when chairs sank into the mud and windy days when hats and mustaches flew off into the sagebrush.
As the show went on, so did efforts to create a national historic site, with full designation granted in 1965. Plans were drawn up by the U.S. National Park Service for a visitor center, to be opened as part of a huge centennial celebration in 1969.
Working with park historians, Mrs. Jeppson created a new script to make sure it was as historically accurate as possible. The number of characters doubled to include others who were part of the original ceremony. It was designed to fit into 27 minutes recorded by the telegrapher between the first message and the telegraphed “DONE” at the end of the ceremony.
Although there was some talk of bringing in a professional cast, local actors were again in the spotlight. And what a spotlight! An estimated 30,000 people from across the nation and world attended the celebration.
In 1979 there was special excitement. Gone were the vintage engines which had flanked the annual reenactment for a decade, but present were two colorful replica steam locomotives, specially created to represent the originals.
The 125th anniversary event in 1994 again brought a huge crowd, with thousands of history and railroad buffs, government and railroad officials and visitors from around the world. It was all there, the fancy words, the eloquent prayer and, of course, the missed strike of the spike by railroad officials.
A special year for the cast was 2001, as they noted the 50th anniversary of the reenactment itself. And, true to the script, both railroad officials missed the spike. “We made quite a show of that,” said 93-year-old Sam Gordon, who portrayed Leland Stanford, “I don’t have to try, I can miss her real good.”
Gordon was one of at least six cast members who had been in the 1969 cast, noted Delone Glover, Golden Spike Association president, who had stepped into Bernice Anderson’s leadership role. The others were Gus Burbank, John Stewart, Richard Felt, J. Wayne Johnson and Butch Moyes, who had taken an interest in the characters they portrayed.
One of those cast members, Richard Felt, performed in the 100th and 125th anniversary events, and will be part of the 150th anniversary cast. Not only that, he is pictured on-site as a child next to his mother, Lillian Felt, in her Indian costume in the early 1950s.
A beard-growing contest landed him the Harkness role in 1969, when he was asked to fill a vacancy since he already had a beard. “Interesting enough,” he said. “I found out later that Harkness didn’t have a beard.”
In more ways than one, the reenactment cast is a family. Some members represent succeeding generations of early cast members. And 68 years of reenactments couldn’t have taken place without that glue and dedication of volunteers, both men and women, who gave of their time and talents to keep those eloquent words alive.
What was it the engines said
Pilots touching head to head
Facing on a single track
Half a world behind each back?
—Bret Harte
Perhaps the locomotives had no words, but the men who built and financed the transcontinental railroad had plenty of them, enough to wax eloquently at the original Golden Spike ceremony on May 10, 1869, at Promontory, Utah Territory.
Five generations of spectators have heard those words, thanks to a gradually changing volunteer cast that has presented an on-site annual reenactment of that historic occasion, going back to the days of the concrete obelisk set in a barren field. Both the cast and the script have evolved through years, but the guys in the top hats will be on hand to make history come alive again this year for the 150th anniversary of the Driving of the Golden Spike.
It is a tradition rooted in a dedicated cast; roles portrayed in sickness and health, rain or shine, despite blown-away mustaches, flying cinders and perspiration beneath black wool clothing.
A few observances were held in the 83 years after completion of the transcontinental railway, but the first on-site scripted reenactment took place near the small obelisk at Promontory on May 10, 1952.
According to its author, Marie Thorne Jeppson, the first reenactment was presented by the Box Elder County Camp of Daughters of Utah Pioneers on April 4, 1947, in Salt Lake City during Utah’s centennial year. Her sources were a manuscript by local historian Bernice Gibbs Anderson and an account from a Union Pacific Railroad history.
The first public reenactment was in 1951 when Brigham City observed the centennial of its settlement. Mrs. Jeppson wrote and directed a Peach Days pageant presented at Rees Pioneer Park, and driving of the golden spike was included as a vignette with its script shortened to 12 minutes. This was the script used up until 1969.
In 1952 the Brigham City Chamber of Commerce decided to make the reenactment an annual event at Promontory Summit in response to Mrs. Anderson’s continual efforts to bring official government recognition to the site. A crowd of 300, swelled by busloads of Navajo students from the Intermountain Indian School, witnessed that first reenactment. Present for the occasion was one Box Elder County pioneer, Minnie Campion, who attended the original ceremony as a child.
Bernice G. Anderson chaired the annual celebrations, assisted by the Golden Spike Association, formed both to promote the programs and efforts to gain national status for the site. The first victory came in 1957 when seven acres donated by the Union Pacific Railroad were set aside for a national historic site.
The programs continued annually at the obelisk—sometimes with cardboard or wooden locomotives added to the set—and became a tradition. There were rainy days when chairs sank into the mud and windy days when hats and mustaches flew off into the sagebrush.
As the show went on, so did efforts to create a national historic site, with full designation granted in 1965. Plans were drawn up by the U.S. National Park Service for a visitor center, to be opened as part of a huge centennial celebration in 1969.
Working with park historians, Mrs. Jeppson created a new script to make sure it was as historically accurate as possible. The number of characters doubled to include others who were part of the original ceremony. It was designed to fit into 27 minutes recorded by the telegrapher between the first message and the telegraphed “DONE” at the end of the ceremony.
Although there was some talk of bringing in a professional cast, local actors were again in the spotlight. And what a spotlight! An estimated 30,000 people from across the nation and world attended the celebration.
In 1979 there was special excitement. Gone were the vintage engines which had flanked the annual reenactment for a decade, but present were two colorful replica steam locomotives, specially created to represent the originals.
The 125th anniversary event in 1994 again brought a huge crowd, with thousands of history and railroad buffs, government and railroad officials and visitors from around the world. It was all there, the fancy words, the eloquent prayer and, of course, the missed strike of the spike by railroad officials.
A special year for the cast was 2001, as they noted the 50th anniversary of the reenactment itself. And, true to the script, both railroad officials missed the spike. “We made quite a show of that,” said 93-year-old Sam Gordon, who portrayed Leland Stanford, “I don’t have to try, I can miss her real good.”
Gordon was one of at least six cast members who had been in the 1969 cast, noted Delone Glover, Golden Spike Association president, who had stepped into Bernice Anderson’s leadership role. The others were Gus Burbank, John Stewart, Richard Felt, J. Wayne Johnson and Butch Moyes, who had taken an interest in the characters they portrayed.
One of those cast members, Richard Felt, performed in the 100th and 125th anniversary events, and will be part of the 150th anniversary cast. Not only that, he is pictured on-site as a child next to his mother, Lillian Felt, in her Indian costume in the early 1950s.
A beard-growing contest landed him the Harkness role in 1969, when he was asked to fill a vacancy since he already had a beard. “Interesting enough,” he said. “I found out later that Harkness didn’t have a beard.”
In more ways than one, the reenactment cast is a family. Some members represent succeeding generations of early cast members. And 68 years of reenactments couldn’t have taken place without that glue and dedication of volunteers, both men and women, who gave of their time and talents to keep those eloquent words alive.
Despite campaign weariness, some moments of election season were enjoyable
November 7, 2018 • Nelson Phillips • Writer's Block
If I never see one more “Mia Love is Marie Antoinette” or “Ben McAdams is Satan” ad on television, it will be way too soon.
I’m so sick of it. Just let me watch my beloved Hawaii Five-O in peace, please. Just for an hour, let me retreat into my fantasy world, where public servants like McGarrett and Danno are personally flawed but ultimately heroic characters.
By the time this column is published the election will be over, although the votes may not have all been tallied yet. If any races are close, we may need to wait until Friday to get the official results. But at least I won’t have to hear from “McLovin” (McAdams and Love) every 15 minutes that my TV or radio is on.
I do have to admit, though, that some parts of this election have been enjoyable, at least as far as my job is concerned. I really enjoyed meeting many of the candidates that came to Box Elder County to campaign. Mitt Romney was a pleasure to speak with, even though I got him a little perturbed at me by asking him why he chose to run in Utah. His opponent, Jenny Wilson, was a class act and I thoroughly enjoyed speaking with her, even though she and I disagree on a lot. I can relate to Rob Bishop as a fellow purveyor of snark, and I get a real kick out of him, even though we also disagree on a lot as well. Bishop’s opponent, Lee Castillo, is probably one of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet.
I have a high opinion of the local candidates, all of whom I truly believe are trying to do what they feel is best for our county and its people, and all of whom I strongly disagree with on some issues, like Proposition 2 and some of Utah’s more unique liquor laws. (Also, guys, vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking, and can save smoker’s lives.)
Maybe it’s just my generation, but I came of age in an era where you disagreed with your opponents on many things, but realized they were good people who were interested in good outcomes, and at the end of the day would work together with you toward common goals. Think Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil.
I still see some of that locally. I see a lot less of it as you progress to statewide and national positions. The problem right now is that the extreme left wing and extreme right wing of national American politics actually hate each other, and see each other as sub-human. Another problem is that the extremes on both sides seem to be growing.
I blame a lot of that on President Trump. He has lowered the level of discourse in our country with a thin-skinned petulance that I could never have imagined from the leader of the free world.
But it takes two to tango; Trump is not Hitler, a man who murdered 6 million people, but to listen to the American left today you’d think he was worse.
It’s insane. We all know that McLovin is Hitler.
If I never see one more “Mia Love is Marie Antoinette” or “Ben McAdams is Satan” ad on television, it will be way too soon.
I’m so sick of it. Just let me watch my beloved Hawaii Five-O in peace, please. Just for an hour, let me retreat into my fantasy world, where public servants like McGarrett and Danno are personally flawed but ultimately heroic characters.
By the time this column is published the election will be over, although the votes may not have all been tallied yet. If any races are close, we may need to wait until Friday to get the official results. But at least I won’t have to hear from “McLovin” (McAdams and Love) every 15 minutes that my TV or radio is on.
I do have to admit, though, that some parts of this election have been enjoyable, at least as far as my job is concerned. I really enjoyed meeting many of the candidates that came to Box Elder County to campaign. Mitt Romney was a pleasure to speak with, even though I got him a little perturbed at me by asking him why he chose to run in Utah. His opponent, Jenny Wilson, was a class act and I thoroughly enjoyed speaking with her, even though she and I disagree on a lot. I can relate to Rob Bishop as a fellow purveyor of snark, and I get a real kick out of him, even though we also disagree on a lot as well. Bishop’s opponent, Lee Castillo, is probably one of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet.
I have a high opinion of the local candidates, all of whom I truly believe are trying to do what they feel is best for our county and its people, and all of whom I strongly disagree with on some issues, like Proposition 2 and some of Utah’s more unique liquor laws. (Also, guys, vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking, and can save smoker’s lives.)
Maybe it’s just my generation, but I came of age in an era where you disagreed with your opponents on many things, but realized they were good people who were interested in good outcomes, and at the end of the day would work together with you toward common goals. Think Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil.
I still see some of that locally. I see a lot less of it as you progress to statewide and national positions. The problem right now is that the extreme left wing and extreme right wing of national American politics actually hate each other, and see each other as sub-human. Another problem is that the extremes on both sides seem to be growing.
I blame a lot of that on President Trump. He has lowered the level of discourse in our country with a thin-skinned petulance that I could never have imagined from the leader of the free world.
But it takes two to tango; Trump is not Hitler, a man who murdered 6 million people, but to listen to the American left today you’d think he was worse.
It’s insane. We all know that McLovin is Hitler.
Academy Conference Center faces challenges, but finding solutions, success will be worth the effort
August 29, 2018 • David Walker • Guest Perspective
In Apollo 13 vernacular, when Gene Krantz coined the phrase “Failure is not an option,” it wasn’t a rose colored statement about current circumstances.
The component failure that defined the Apollo 13 mission was a disaster and everybody knew it. What followed was both remarkable and inspiring. Let’s hope it is also instructive.
There’s no sugarcoating the challenges faced with the Academy Conference Center and the two failed restaurants associated with it. Especially challenging is the prospect of persuading a new restaurateur to make a third attempt, given the history and licensing issues at this location.
What we need now is not a rearward looking assessment of all the mistakes made—and there were plenty. Instead we need a forward looking, creative, practical, and economically feasible path forward to bring this facility to profitability, even a breakeven status would be acceptable in the short term.
From our perspective, as a Main Street organization engaged in economic development, we have a lot going for us. We have a remarkably intact historic district named less than a year ago by Architectural Magazine as one of the 15 most beautiful historic downtowns in the United States. We have leakage (an economic measure of local money spent outside of our city) in the restaurant category approaching $4 million annually. We have Utah’s Famous Fruit Way (think local food movement) which begins or ends depending on direction of travel, in downtown. And we have a city leadership team committed to re-configuring Main Street in downtown to a more pedestrian friendly, safe, and attractive destination.
Historic Downtown Brigham City is all in with respect to Academy Square. We look forward to being part of a constructive dialogue with the city, local merchants, potential investors, and any interested citizens who are passionate about this amazing community of which we are part.
Unlike the Apollo 13 Spacecraft and crew, Academy Square is not going to burn up on re-entry, if we fail to get it right.
Let’s all work toward a safe and successful reentry.
In Apollo 13 vernacular, when Gene Krantz coined the phrase “Failure is not an option,” it wasn’t a rose colored statement about current circumstances.
The component failure that defined the Apollo 13 mission was a disaster and everybody knew it. What followed was both remarkable and inspiring. Let’s hope it is also instructive.
There’s no sugarcoating the challenges faced with the Academy Conference Center and the two failed restaurants associated with it. Especially challenging is the prospect of persuading a new restaurateur to make a third attempt, given the history and licensing issues at this location.
What we need now is not a rearward looking assessment of all the mistakes made—and there were plenty. Instead we need a forward looking, creative, practical, and economically feasible path forward to bring this facility to profitability, even a breakeven status would be acceptable in the short term.
From our perspective, as a Main Street organization engaged in economic development, we have a lot going for us. We have a remarkably intact historic district named less than a year ago by Architectural Magazine as one of the 15 most beautiful historic downtowns in the United States. We have leakage (an economic measure of local money spent outside of our city) in the restaurant category approaching $4 million annually. We have Utah’s Famous Fruit Way (think local food movement) which begins or ends depending on direction of travel, in downtown. And we have a city leadership team committed to re-configuring Main Street in downtown to a more pedestrian friendly, safe, and attractive destination.
Historic Downtown Brigham City is all in with respect to Academy Square. We look forward to being part of a constructive dialogue with the city, local merchants, potential investors, and any interested citizens who are passionate about this amazing community of which we are part.
Unlike the Apollo 13 Spacecraft and crew, Academy Square is not going to burn up on re-entry, if we fail to get it right.
Let’s all work toward a safe and successful reentry.
Freedom of the Press: Under attack
August 22, 2018 • Brian Allfrey • Utah Press Association Executive Director
When will it stop?
The last few years have seen an unprecedented attack against the freedom of the press and those who tirelessly work to protect our freedoms.
Known as the Fourth Estate, the press has the essential responsibility to inform the populace of the functionality of its democracy. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of a free press when they established the First Amendment.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In 2018, high ranking members of our government—from all branches—now attack and condemn the press and journalists who play such a vital role in our democracy. They are called names such as “liars,” and their work sullied by the label “fake news” by politicians who don’t agree with them. Our government enacts punitive tariffs that are a very serious threat to immediate future of many newspapers. Journalists now face the most imposing landscape and most perilous career path than in any other time in the history of this great nation.
In October 1996, Fox News entered the 24-hour cable news business. In an attempt to differentiate themselves from their competitors, they hired Republican Party media consultant Roger Ailes to run the network. They figured that if they were to base their programming from the conservative viewpoint, they could potentially capture 50 percent of the viewership. CNN countered by moving their programming to the liberal viewpoint, and broadcast journalism started to die.
The war for ratings and advertising dollars in a vicious 24-hour news cycle turned these powerful networks into entertainment companies, not news outlets. They have more in common with Howard Stern than they do with Walter Cronkite. Fueled by corporate greed, many other national media outlets have dropped the ethics of unbiased reporting and followed down the same path.
The damage done to journalism is drastic, but not irreparable. These media entertainment companies are not the source of true journalism in America. They produce entertainment designed to get ratings, not to tell the public the truth.
At the same time, the exploding emergence of social media has enabled everyone to say anything that they want without fear of real repercussion. Instead of working together to solve the problems faced by society, we choose to hide behind digital identities and fight with anyone who has a different viewpoint than our own. We are no different than our politicians, shouting at anyone and everyone that doesn’t agree with us, and approving of everyone that does. As a society, we have lost our ability to peacefully disagree and then find a common ground from which to work a solution. We have been polarized into right and left and radicalized in our thoughts and actions by the false security of digital anonymity.
Additionally, social media is flooded with posts that are created to intentionally deceive the public in thinking they are legitimate news stories. Click bait to generate advertising revenue are shared thousands of times over by social media users who cannot distinguish this trash from legitimate, credible news. Social media is flooded with actual “fake news” that most people cannot detect as fake. All of this makes our country a powder keg, ready to explode.
Bipartisan testimony of 20 Congressional members last month before the International Trade Commission in opposition to tariffs on Canadian imported newsprint is a good indicator that not all our government leaders are attacking newspapers. They fought to reduce or eliminate tariffs put in place that are driving the cost of newsprint and squeezing the profit margins of newspapers across the country. These men and women know the importance of community newspapers and their imperiled status in modern culture. They know the men and women who work at the local paper are most definitely not the enemy—nor the problem.
In today’s society, where the “wicked media” is hurled relentlessly on Twitter or cable news channels, real journalists get amalgamated into a cynical act of political theater that’s threatening to the very fabric of democracy.
As a nation, we are beginning to give a collective shoulder shrug to the fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. In a Quinnipac University poll released on Aug. 14, 26 percent of voters polled say the news media is the enemy of the people. However, 51 percent of Republican voters say the news media is the enemy of the people rather than an important part of democracy.
These are dangerous times, and we’ve got to snap out of it.
Thomas Jefferson—who had a notably tempestuous relationship with the press—was a president who still often rose to defend it.
He once wrote while serving in Paris as Minister to France: “The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution…Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
We’ve got to accept that not all news is happy or affirming. We’re not always going to get what we want.
We have to support local journalism and the vital role they play, even when we disagree with them. Support your local newspaper, buy a print or digital subscription; place an advertisement. When you disagree, share your opinion civilly with the newspaper. Let’s change the discussion taking place in our country today.
If we’re unwilling to accept news that upsets us, or if we’re indifferent to differing views simply because we don’t want to deal with them, we’re essentially giving up on the notion we can ever truly be “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Today more than ever, we should be supporting journalism, and freedom of the press. We all need to do our part to safeguard this basic freedom. Support your local newspaper today.
When will it stop?
The last few years have seen an unprecedented attack against the freedom of the press and those who tirelessly work to protect our freedoms.
Known as the Fourth Estate, the press has the essential responsibility to inform the populace of the functionality of its democracy. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of a free press when they established the First Amendment.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In 2018, high ranking members of our government—from all branches—now attack and condemn the press and journalists who play such a vital role in our democracy. They are called names such as “liars,” and their work sullied by the label “fake news” by politicians who don’t agree with them. Our government enacts punitive tariffs that are a very serious threat to immediate future of many newspapers. Journalists now face the most imposing landscape and most perilous career path than in any other time in the history of this great nation.
In October 1996, Fox News entered the 24-hour cable news business. In an attempt to differentiate themselves from their competitors, they hired Republican Party media consultant Roger Ailes to run the network. They figured that if they were to base their programming from the conservative viewpoint, they could potentially capture 50 percent of the viewership. CNN countered by moving their programming to the liberal viewpoint, and broadcast journalism started to die.
The war for ratings and advertising dollars in a vicious 24-hour news cycle turned these powerful networks into entertainment companies, not news outlets. They have more in common with Howard Stern than they do with Walter Cronkite. Fueled by corporate greed, many other national media outlets have dropped the ethics of unbiased reporting and followed down the same path.
The damage done to journalism is drastic, but not irreparable. These media entertainment companies are not the source of true journalism in America. They produce entertainment designed to get ratings, not to tell the public the truth.
At the same time, the exploding emergence of social media has enabled everyone to say anything that they want without fear of real repercussion. Instead of working together to solve the problems faced by society, we choose to hide behind digital identities and fight with anyone who has a different viewpoint than our own. We are no different than our politicians, shouting at anyone and everyone that doesn’t agree with us, and approving of everyone that does. As a society, we have lost our ability to peacefully disagree and then find a common ground from which to work a solution. We have been polarized into right and left and radicalized in our thoughts and actions by the false security of digital anonymity.
Additionally, social media is flooded with posts that are created to intentionally deceive the public in thinking they are legitimate news stories. Click bait to generate advertising revenue are shared thousands of times over by social media users who cannot distinguish this trash from legitimate, credible news. Social media is flooded with actual “fake news” that most people cannot detect as fake. All of this makes our country a powder keg, ready to explode.
Bipartisan testimony of 20 Congressional members last month before the International Trade Commission in opposition to tariffs on Canadian imported newsprint is a good indicator that not all our government leaders are attacking newspapers. They fought to reduce or eliminate tariffs put in place that are driving the cost of newsprint and squeezing the profit margins of newspapers across the country. These men and women know the importance of community newspapers and their imperiled status in modern culture. They know the men and women who work at the local paper are most definitely not the enemy—nor the problem.
In today’s society, where the “wicked media” is hurled relentlessly on Twitter or cable news channels, real journalists get amalgamated into a cynical act of political theater that’s threatening to the very fabric of democracy.
As a nation, we are beginning to give a collective shoulder shrug to the fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. In a Quinnipac University poll released on Aug. 14, 26 percent of voters polled say the news media is the enemy of the people. However, 51 percent of Republican voters say the news media is the enemy of the people rather than an important part of democracy.
These are dangerous times, and we’ve got to snap out of it.
Thomas Jefferson—who had a notably tempestuous relationship with the press—was a president who still often rose to defend it.
He once wrote while serving in Paris as Minister to France: “The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution…Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
We’ve got to accept that not all news is happy or affirming. We’re not always going to get what we want.
We have to support local journalism and the vital role they play, even when we disagree with them. Support your local newspaper, buy a print or digital subscription; place an advertisement. When you disagree, share your opinion civilly with the newspaper. Let’s change the discussion taking place in our country today.
If we’re unwilling to accept news that upsets us, or if we’re indifferent to differing views simply because we don’t want to deal with them, we’re essentially giving up on the notion we can ever truly be “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Today more than ever, we should be supporting journalism, and freedom of the press. We all need to do our part to safeguard this basic freedom. Support your local newspaper today.
After primaries, Utah elections just an exercise in political theater
Writer's Block • July 11, 2018 • Nelson Phillips
Even though the 2018 mid-term elections are still four months away, most of the real questions anyone had were answered at the June 26 primary, or shortly thereafter as late-mailed ballots were counted.
Nearly all the rest, from now until Nov. 6, is just an exercise in political theater, where we collectively pretend the outcomes aren’t assured, while knowing that the outcomes are assured.
For those new to politics, or those who are newly transplanted to Box Elder County, here’s a hint: In November the Republican candidate will win by a large, almost laughable margin.
So let me be the first to officially congratulate Commissioner Jeff Scott, State Representative Joel Ferry, State Representative Lee Perry, State Senator Scott Sandall, Congressman Rob Bishop, and Senator Mitt Romney for their victories in four months.
While I’m at it, let’s congratulate Commissioner Jeff Hadfield, and the new Weber County Sheriff Ryan Arbon (currently chief of police in Perry). Both are running unopposed, having vanquished their fellow Republican challengers last month.
Honestly, I don’t have anything against these guys, at least the local ones. I know them all, and most are actually great people. I just sometimes wish I had an actual choice.
I’m not a Republican, you see, so in actuality I have no say in who is elected to county and state offices. In Utah, the Republican Party has a closed system, one in which you must be a registered Republican in order to participate in caucuses and primaries. The Democrats have an open system where anyone can vote, but so what? It’s not like it matters.
Before you go off thinking that I’m part of the “liberal media,” no, I’m not a Democrat either. I know, respect, and even like many Democrats, but… no.
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats could win in Utah, though. I remember Congressman Gunn McKay, and everyone seemed to love Governor Scott Matheson. If these guys were running today, who knows? They may have gotten my vote. I’m not exactly sure what happened to turn Republicans into saints and Democrats into sinners in Utah, but I do know that it’s probably wrong. And I suspect it has a lot more to do with both national parties straying from the center and playing to the extremes, painting candidates from the other side as demons from hell, when they’re actually just people.
When I interviewed Democratic senatorial candidate Jenny Wilson a few weeks back, I really, honestly liked her as a person. She was forthright and charming. And her values aren’t that far off from anyone else’s in Box Elder County. Does that mean I agree with her on all the issues? No. But she’s no demon. I don’t think her opponent is a demon either (unless being a demon would help win an election).
No, the only real questions waiting to be answered in November are the initiatives.
From the looks of it, Proposition 2 (medical marijuana) may well pass in spite of all the roadblocks opponents have thrown up. I fully expect additional roadblocks to be thrown up after it passes, because, let’s face it, the powers that be don’t like to lose.
Proposition 3, medicaid expansion, might pass. People in Utah want to help those who can’t afford insurance, but also don’t like tax increases. This would increase sales taxes by 0.15 of a percent, and provide medicaid coverage to those families living at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($33,948 for a family of four).
Proposition 4 would set up a seven-member commission to re-draw the brazenly gerrymandered Utah legislative districts, giving more representation to communities by drawing districts along natural and municipal/county lines, rather than slicing areas up to give one party advantage. In practice, were this initiative to pass, we’d see a Democrat probably win one of Utah’s four House seats. But shouldn’t the Democrats in Salt Lake County be properly represented? Shouldn’t we all be?
Speaking of proper representation, one last thing: Why are county offices partisan? I don’t care if my sheriff, auditor, clerk or commissioner is a Republican or a Democrat. If their loyalties lie with what’s best for the county, what difference does it make? And shouldn’t those of us who choose not to have an “R” next to our names get to vote for local officials?
We exclude a lot of good people when we play party politics. Let’s all just stop playing.
Even though the 2018 mid-term elections are still four months away, most of the real questions anyone had were answered at the June 26 primary, or shortly thereafter as late-mailed ballots were counted.
Nearly all the rest, from now until Nov. 6, is just an exercise in political theater, where we collectively pretend the outcomes aren’t assured, while knowing that the outcomes are assured.
For those new to politics, or those who are newly transplanted to Box Elder County, here’s a hint: In November the Republican candidate will win by a large, almost laughable margin.
So let me be the first to officially congratulate Commissioner Jeff Scott, State Representative Joel Ferry, State Representative Lee Perry, State Senator Scott Sandall, Congressman Rob Bishop, and Senator Mitt Romney for their victories in four months.
While I’m at it, let’s congratulate Commissioner Jeff Hadfield, and the new Weber County Sheriff Ryan Arbon (currently chief of police in Perry). Both are running unopposed, having vanquished their fellow Republican challengers last month.
Honestly, I don’t have anything against these guys, at least the local ones. I know them all, and most are actually great people. I just sometimes wish I had an actual choice.
I’m not a Republican, you see, so in actuality I have no say in who is elected to county and state offices. In Utah, the Republican Party has a closed system, one in which you must be a registered Republican in order to participate in caucuses and primaries. The Democrats have an open system where anyone can vote, but so what? It’s not like it matters.
Before you go off thinking that I’m part of the “liberal media,” no, I’m not a Democrat either. I know, respect, and even like many Democrats, but… no.
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats could win in Utah, though. I remember Congressman Gunn McKay, and everyone seemed to love Governor Scott Matheson. If these guys were running today, who knows? They may have gotten my vote. I’m not exactly sure what happened to turn Republicans into saints and Democrats into sinners in Utah, but I do know that it’s probably wrong. And I suspect it has a lot more to do with both national parties straying from the center and playing to the extremes, painting candidates from the other side as demons from hell, when they’re actually just people.
When I interviewed Democratic senatorial candidate Jenny Wilson a few weeks back, I really, honestly liked her as a person. She was forthright and charming. And her values aren’t that far off from anyone else’s in Box Elder County. Does that mean I agree with her on all the issues? No. But she’s no demon. I don’t think her opponent is a demon either (unless being a demon would help win an election).
No, the only real questions waiting to be answered in November are the initiatives.
From the looks of it, Proposition 2 (medical marijuana) may well pass in spite of all the roadblocks opponents have thrown up. I fully expect additional roadblocks to be thrown up after it passes, because, let’s face it, the powers that be don’t like to lose.
Proposition 3, medicaid expansion, might pass. People in Utah want to help those who can’t afford insurance, but also don’t like tax increases. This would increase sales taxes by 0.15 of a percent, and provide medicaid coverage to those families living at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($33,948 for a family of four).
Proposition 4 would set up a seven-member commission to re-draw the brazenly gerrymandered Utah legislative districts, giving more representation to communities by drawing districts along natural and municipal/county lines, rather than slicing areas up to give one party advantage. In practice, were this initiative to pass, we’d see a Democrat probably win one of Utah’s four House seats. But shouldn’t the Democrats in Salt Lake County be properly represented? Shouldn’t we all be?
Speaking of proper representation, one last thing: Why are county offices partisan? I don’t care if my sheriff, auditor, clerk or commissioner is a Republican or a Democrat. If their loyalties lie with what’s best for the county, what difference does it make? And shouldn’t those of us who choose not to have an “R” next to our names get to vote for local officials?
We exclude a lot of good people when we play party politics. Let’s all just stop playing.
Was Baltimore tragedy a one-off? I’m not sure
From the Desk of the Editor • July 4, 2018 • Sean Hales
I was out of the office last week when a man, carrying a gun on his hip, came into the News Journal office to speak to me about a column I wrote regarding Box Elder County’s contentious primary election season.
His timing wasn’t the best: I was sure my column would upset a few people and headlines across the nation the day before told the story of a mass shooting at a Baltimore news paper.
Luckily, the man only wanted to tell me how heart-felt and genuine my column was. Even though he didn’t agree with everything I said, he thanked me for it. He also thanked me for my work, the service this news paper provides for the community, and to offer his help if anyone ever threatened anyone at the newspaper.
What struck me was how real his offer had become. I’m aware that journalism can be dangerous. If we do our job right, there will be times that we will upset the wrong people. Sometimes what we do isn’t fun or pretty, but it is almost always important. Reporters and editors have been jailed or killed, but I always assumed that was in some far-flung corner of the earth with less respect for the value of the facts or human life.
I wish I could convince myself that what happened in Baltimore is a one-off; a person who was unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions, and instead blamed the messenger, and took what he saw as justice into his own hands.
In a different time, I could have.
Unfortunately, I live in a time where being a journalist and reporter is vilified from the very highest levels of our society and government; a time where we are seen in certain circles as “the enemy,” and the only time we do anything right or worthwhile is when our work corresponds with that particular person’s worldview.
And I’m struggling to compartmentalize the tragedy in Baltimore—the death of five of my professional peers—from the vitriolic rhetoric that seems to constantly fill the airwaves and internet about “the media,” which has, somehow, become specifically derogatory, despite being broad and ambiguous in its use.
I’m sad, but no more so than anytime something like this happens in America, which seems to be more and more frequent.
I can’t come up with any good answers. I just know I wish it would all stop.
I was out of the office last week when a man, carrying a gun on his hip, came into the News Journal office to speak to me about a column I wrote regarding Box Elder County’s contentious primary election season.
His timing wasn’t the best: I was sure my column would upset a few people and headlines across the nation the day before told the story of a mass shooting at a Baltimore news paper.
Luckily, the man only wanted to tell me how heart-felt and genuine my column was. Even though he didn’t agree with everything I said, he thanked me for it. He also thanked me for my work, the service this news paper provides for the community, and to offer his help if anyone ever threatened anyone at the newspaper.
What struck me was how real his offer had become. I’m aware that journalism can be dangerous. If we do our job right, there will be times that we will upset the wrong people. Sometimes what we do isn’t fun or pretty, but it is almost always important. Reporters and editors have been jailed or killed, but I always assumed that was in some far-flung corner of the earth with less respect for the value of the facts or human life.
I wish I could convince myself that what happened in Baltimore is a one-off; a person who was unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions, and instead blamed the messenger, and took what he saw as justice into his own hands.
In a different time, I could have.
Unfortunately, I live in a time where being a journalist and reporter is vilified from the very highest levels of our society and government; a time where we are seen in certain circles as “the enemy,” and the only time we do anything right or worthwhile is when our work corresponds with that particular person’s worldview.
And I’m struggling to compartmentalize the tragedy in Baltimore—the death of five of my professional peers—from the vitriolic rhetoric that seems to constantly fill the airwaves and internet about “the media,” which has, somehow, become specifically derogatory, despite being broad and ambiguous in its use.
I’m sad, but no more so than anytime something like this happens in America, which seems to be more and more frequent.
I can’t come up with any good answers. I just know I wish it would all stop.
Anger and frustration on the campaign trail 2018
From the Desk of the Editor • June 27, 2018 • Sean Hales
I struggled trying begin this column. I was conflicted over what I was feeling versus how I wanted my words to come across, and I was getting nowhere.
So, let’s just start with how I’m feeling.
I’m angry and frustrated.
In my line of work I’m used to being called a liar. I’m used to being accused of being biased or having an agenda. I understand why, and seldom hold a grudge against people who feel slighted in such a way. I understand that when faced with an uncomfortable truth, people will often blame the messenger. People also tend to project their own biases into what they read, and have been trained to assume every news story is accusing someone of something—even if no judgement is stated or implied—rather than see a news story as simply providing information to readers.
So being called a liar, or biased, over a story published last week regarding campaign financial disclosures in the Box Elder County Commission race isn’t a big deal—I get it.
What I am angry and frustrated about is the behavior of people on both sides of this campaign. Neither side can claim to have clean hands in terms of how they’ve behaved.
The truly unfortunate thing is that the most innocent parties in all of it are likely the candidates themselves—Jeff Scott and Jeff Hadfield and challengers Charley Young and Jon Adams—even though I don’t think they are completely blameless.
Who I am angry and frustrated at are those actors behind the scenes, like Randy Moulding and Phil Adams who each donated $10,000 in May to a Salt Lake City-area based political action committee that was established in June, had only two donations, and that spent nearly all of that money on the campaigns of Young and Jon Adams. It was unnecessary and muddied the waters. If Moulding and Phil Adams have interests they feel would be better represented by different elected officials, they have every right to support them however they choose, but the path they took raises significant and legitimate questions.
I am angry and frustrated at those opposed to Young’s and Jon Adams’ campaigns, who created a video that was creatively and selectively edited to misrepresent those candidates. The edited video made it look like Young and Jon Adams were trying to hide or deny in-kind campaign contributions from the PAC, even though they admitted accepting donations of signs and flyers at the same meeting at which the video in question was made. In the interest of fairness, Jon Adams and Young created the problem by not being up-front and transparent about the in-kind donations in the first place, and by claiming at any point that they financed their campaigns themselves.
Furthermore, while it is unknown to what extent sitting county commissioner Stan Summers was involved, I do know that the video in question was sent to the News Journal by Tim Munns—one of the men listed as paying for production of the video—who forwarded an email Summers sent to him that contained the video. Beyond issuing official endorsements for candidates or casting a ballot, I’m not sure it’s a good idea for a sitting elected official who is not facing an election to be involved in the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of a political campaign.
While I’m at it, I am also significantly annoyed by the current commissioners for taking credit for the state of the county’s debt and jobs created by businesses during their terms. I’m sorry, gentlemen, but simply meeting the debt obligations generated by previous commissions and meeting the bare minimum of your responsibility as elected officials does not deserve any accolades. You’d be better off campaigning that you’re the more worthy candidate because you have incredible luck; to wit, you were lucky enough to be in office when those debts were paid off as scheduled.
As for the jobs, well, I hope we’re all aware that the creation of jobs has a lot of moving parts, the most significant of which is an economy that allows for business growth, something in which local county commissions play little role.
I’m also angry and frustrated about vote-by-mail, which creates a logistic nightmare in terms of keeping people informed leading up to an election. There was probably a significant amount of the electorate who cast their ballot before the campaign finance disclosures were released, and there is little time for candidates to respond about what might be in those disclosures.
I’m angry and frustrated myself, but also for the candidates.
And I am angry and frustrated that all of it is the result—either directly or indirectly—of a battle about landfills; turning neighbors and friends into enemies so a few people can turn garbage into money.
It’s shameful.
Of course, maybe I’m too naïve and hopeful that we can be better when this is simply what politics in America has become, even here in Box Elder County.
I struggled trying begin this column. I was conflicted over what I was feeling versus how I wanted my words to come across, and I was getting nowhere.
So, let’s just start with how I’m feeling.
I’m angry and frustrated.
In my line of work I’m used to being called a liar. I’m used to being accused of being biased or having an agenda. I understand why, and seldom hold a grudge against people who feel slighted in such a way. I understand that when faced with an uncomfortable truth, people will often blame the messenger. People also tend to project their own biases into what they read, and have been trained to assume every news story is accusing someone of something—even if no judgement is stated or implied—rather than see a news story as simply providing information to readers.
So being called a liar, or biased, over a story published last week regarding campaign financial disclosures in the Box Elder County Commission race isn’t a big deal—I get it.
What I am angry and frustrated about is the behavior of people on both sides of this campaign. Neither side can claim to have clean hands in terms of how they’ve behaved.
The truly unfortunate thing is that the most innocent parties in all of it are likely the candidates themselves—Jeff Scott and Jeff Hadfield and challengers Charley Young and Jon Adams—even though I don’t think they are completely blameless.
Who I am angry and frustrated at are those actors behind the scenes, like Randy Moulding and Phil Adams who each donated $10,000 in May to a Salt Lake City-area based political action committee that was established in June, had only two donations, and that spent nearly all of that money on the campaigns of Young and Jon Adams. It was unnecessary and muddied the waters. If Moulding and Phil Adams have interests they feel would be better represented by different elected officials, they have every right to support them however they choose, but the path they took raises significant and legitimate questions.
I am angry and frustrated at those opposed to Young’s and Jon Adams’ campaigns, who created a video that was creatively and selectively edited to misrepresent those candidates. The edited video made it look like Young and Jon Adams were trying to hide or deny in-kind campaign contributions from the PAC, even though they admitted accepting donations of signs and flyers at the same meeting at which the video in question was made. In the interest of fairness, Jon Adams and Young created the problem by not being up-front and transparent about the in-kind donations in the first place, and by claiming at any point that they financed their campaigns themselves.
Furthermore, while it is unknown to what extent sitting county commissioner Stan Summers was involved, I do know that the video in question was sent to the News Journal by Tim Munns—one of the men listed as paying for production of the video—who forwarded an email Summers sent to him that contained the video. Beyond issuing official endorsements for candidates or casting a ballot, I’m not sure it’s a good idea for a sitting elected official who is not facing an election to be involved in the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of a political campaign.
While I’m at it, I am also significantly annoyed by the current commissioners for taking credit for the state of the county’s debt and jobs created by businesses during their terms. I’m sorry, gentlemen, but simply meeting the debt obligations generated by previous commissions and meeting the bare minimum of your responsibility as elected officials does not deserve any accolades. You’d be better off campaigning that you’re the more worthy candidate because you have incredible luck; to wit, you were lucky enough to be in office when those debts were paid off as scheduled.
As for the jobs, well, I hope we’re all aware that the creation of jobs has a lot of moving parts, the most significant of which is an economy that allows for business growth, something in which local county commissions play little role.
I’m also angry and frustrated about vote-by-mail, which creates a logistic nightmare in terms of keeping people informed leading up to an election. There was probably a significant amount of the electorate who cast their ballot before the campaign finance disclosures were released, and there is little time for candidates to respond about what might be in those disclosures.
I’m angry and frustrated myself, but also for the candidates.
And I am angry and frustrated that all of it is the result—either directly or indirectly—of a battle about landfills; turning neighbors and friends into enemies so a few people can turn garbage into money.
It’s shameful.
Of course, maybe I’m too naïve and hopeful that we can be better when this is simply what politics in America has become, even here in Box Elder County.
Fire department user fees: This is not how it’s supposed to work
Our Perspective • May 16, 2018
There was a time where if a person had a fire, accident or other emergency, they simply called 911 and the appropriate first responders would show up, remedy the situation, and return to their station. The victim of the accident or fire didn’t have to worry about receiving a bill in the mail that their insurance might, or might not cover.
Those days are effectively over in Brigham City after the city approved rules last month allowing billing of insurance companies—and in some cases, self-insured businesses and residents directly—for responses to accidents, fires, or other calls for service.
While the city has said they will not force residents to pay the charges out-of-pocket, there are plenty of questions that accompany the new policy, and a certain amount of unknowns—including, what is the possible impact on residents’ insurance rates?—all of which paint a picture of residents being caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between the fire department and insurance companies for their hard-earned money.
This is not the way to fund emergency services. It lacks transparency and accountability and could amount to the fire department “double dipping,” depending on how you feel about the Free Public Services Doctrine.
Prior to 20 years ago, there was rather broad adherence to the Free Public Services Doctrine, a common law doctrine stating that services to remedy public health or safety hazards are already paid for by taxpayer contributions. The second half of the doctrine provides a broad exception to the doctrine if a state has laws authorizing recovery of those costs. The practice of charging these fees is not consistent throughout the nation, with some states generally allowing the service fees, other states allowing only for hazardous material spills, and others outlawing billing non-residents.
The idea of billing insurance companies for fire or emergency services is relatively new. According to a story in the Claims Journal, an insurance industry trade publication, fire departments started billing insurance about 20 years ago, but that was limited to major hazardous materials cleanups that required more man hours and equipment than a normal traffic accident or house fire.
The U.S. Constitution, which lays out principles that should apply at the local as well as national level, talks about “providing for the common defense” and “protecting the general welfare.” It gives Congress the power to levy taxes to meet those goals. If you apply those ideas to the local level, Brigham City should maintain a fire department and ambulance services to provide for the common defense against fire and to protect the welfare of our residents. And the legislative body, the Brigham City Council, needs to step up and levy the taxes or impose a fee necessary to fulfill these basic government functions.
The case that Brigham City residents are being “double-dipped” by the city for fire services gains some credibility when considering the city’s agreement to supply Perry City with fire and ambulance services. Perry City taxpayers fund a $19,000 “standby fee” to Brigham City (that cost will increase to $21,000 next year). In the event of a call for service, the user costs will be passed on to the resident, similar to the costs for which Brigham City will now bill residents’ insurance. Brigham City’s fire and ambulance budget for 2018-2019 is $2,456,802, and as indicated by Brigham City Finance Director Derek Oyler, those who pay taxes and for utilities in Brigham City cover the lion’s share of that amount.
We find it offensive to the basic principals of America’s social contract to apply “personal accountability” philosophies to fire and other emergency situations. The idea behind police and fire services is that a community bands together and pools their resources to help each other in situations that are too big, or too much of a threat to public health and safety, for one individual, one family or one business to handle on it’s own.
To be fair, Brigham City does have a significant jurisdiction that includes two major roadways—I-15 and 1100 South leading to Logan—and city crews have to respond to accidents on those roads that often involve people who do not live, or pay taxes, in Brigham City. Responding to those calls amounts to providing a service with no compensation. Billing insurance companies in those cases seems completely reasonable in order to recoup costs.
We also think courts should have latitude to require restitution for malicious criminal activity.
The way we see it is this: the city opted for a back-door, user-fee, approach to generate more funds rather than an unpopular tax increase. The current administration says the city will not go after residents for the costs if insurance won’t pay, but what happens in 10, 15, or 20 years, when the city is faced with the same problem? Will the administration at that time choose to abandon the city’s current position rather than increase taxes? If so, what kind of out-of-pocket costs would residents face? Under Utah law, the city has every right to go after residents for those fees. In cases where residents have challenged the fees, courts across the nation have always found in favor of the government, unless the government did not have proper statutory authority to charge the fees.
In our opinion, it’s not a scenario worth testing.
One way or another, residents—either individually or communally—will end up footing the bill, but by increasing taxes to fund the fire department, the process remains transparent and equal. The city should be accountable to the people to show why, and how much, is needed for a service that we all benefit from, even if not directly. And, in the future, if the city faces the same situation, the city should have to go to the citizens again and make its case.
It’s how our system is supposed to work to fund these types of government services.
There was a time where if a person had a fire, accident or other emergency, they simply called 911 and the appropriate first responders would show up, remedy the situation, and return to their station. The victim of the accident or fire didn’t have to worry about receiving a bill in the mail that their insurance might, or might not cover.
Those days are effectively over in Brigham City after the city approved rules last month allowing billing of insurance companies—and in some cases, self-insured businesses and residents directly—for responses to accidents, fires, or other calls for service.
While the city has said they will not force residents to pay the charges out-of-pocket, there are plenty of questions that accompany the new policy, and a certain amount of unknowns—including, what is the possible impact on residents’ insurance rates?—all of which paint a picture of residents being caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between the fire department and insurance companies for their hard-earned money.
This is not the way to fund emergency services. It lacks transparency and accountability and could amount to the fire department “double dipping,” depending on how you feel about the Free Public Services Doctrine.
Prior to 20 years ago, there was rather broad adherence to the Free Public Services Doctrine, a common law doctrine stating that services to remedy public health or safety hazards are already paid for by taxpayer contributions. The second half of the doctrine provides a broad exception to the doctrine if a state has laws authorizing recovery of those costs. The practice of charging these fees is not consistent throughout the nation, with some states generally allowing the service fees, other states allowing only for hazardous material spills, and others outlawing billing non-residents.
The idea of billing insurance companies for fire or emergency services is relatively new. According to a story in the Claims Journal, an insurance industry trade publication, fire departments started billing insurance about 20 years ago, but that was limited to major hazardous materials cleanups that required more man hours and equipment than a normal traffic accident or house fire.
The U.S. Constitution, which lays out principles that should apply at the local as well as national level, talks about “providing for the common defense” and “protecting the general welfare.” It gives Congress the power to levy taxes to meet those goals. If you apply those ideas to the local level, Brigham City should maintain a fire department and ambulance services to provide for the common defense against fire and to protect the welfare of our residents. And the legislative body, the Brigham City Council, needs to step up and levy the taxes or impose a fee necessary to fulfill these basic government functions.
The case that Brigham City residents are being “double-dipped” by the city for fire services gains some credibility when considering the city’s agreement to supply Perry City with fire and ambulance services. Perry City taxpayers fund a $19,000 “standby fee” to Brigham City (that cost will increase to $21,000 next year). In the event of a call for service, the user costs will be passed on to the resident, similar to the costs for which Brigham City will now bill residents’ insurance. Brigham City’s fire and ambulance budget for 2018-2019 is $2,456,802, and as indicated by Brigham City Finance Director Derek Oyler, those who pay taxes and for utilities in Brigham City cover the lion’s share of that amount.
We find it offensive to the basic principals of America’s social contract to apply “personal accountability” philosophies to fire and other emergency situations. The idea behind police and fire services is that a community bands together and pools their resources to help each other in situations that are too big, or too much of a threat to public health and safety, for one individual, one family or one business to handle on it’s own.
To be fair, Brigham City does have a significant jurisdiction that includes two major roadways—I-15 and 1100 South leading to Logan—and city crews have to respond to accidents on those roads that often involve people who do not live, or pay taxes, in Brigham City. Responding to those calls amounts to providing a service with no compensation. Billing insurance companies in those cases seems completely reasonable in order to recoup costs.
We also think courts should have latitude to require restitution for malicious criminal activity.
The way we see it is this: the city opted for a back-door, user-fee, approach to generate more funds rather than an unpopular tax increase. The current administration says the city will not go after residents for the costs if insurance won’t pay, but what happens in 10, 15, or 20 years, when the city is faced with the same problem? Will the administration at that time choose to abandon the city’s current position rather than increase taxes? If so, what kind of out-of-pocket costs would residents face? Under Utah law, the city has every right to go after residents for those fees. In cases where residents have challenged the fees, courts across the nation have always found in favor of the government, unless the government did not have proper statutory authority to charge the fees.
In our opinion, it’s not a scenario worth testing.
One way or another, residents—either individually or communally—will end up footing the bill, but by increasing taxes to fund the fire department, the process remains transparent and equal. The city should be accountable to the people to show why, and how much, is needed for a service that we all benefit from, even if not directly. And, in the future, if the city faces the same situation, the city should have to go to the citizens again and make its case.
It’s how our system is supposed to work to fund these types of government services.
We are all different and might disagree, and that’s okay
Writer's Block • Nelson Phillips • April 18, 2018
At the News Journal we generally have a meeting on Thursday morning, where our small staff gets together to plan out what’s going to appear in the following Wednesday’s paper.
As far as meetings go, it’s usually pretty interesting and informative. We discuss the issues of the day, what issues we feel need to be addressed, and how we’re going to fairly address them. Believe it or not, in our newsroom fairness actually matters. That doesn’t mean we don’t each have our own opinions on the news of the day, however.
Journalists are people, with our own individual experiences, thoughts and feelings that combine to inform our opinions. In the meeting that happens after the Thursday meeting, opinions are often aired, sometimes passionately. As we all have different perspectives and opinions on numerous topics, I find myself agreeing with my coworkers on many things, but disagreeing with them on others.
And that’s OK.
Even during the heat of battle, I realize that my coworkers are intelligent, good people with good hearts, people who want the best for themselves, their families and friends, our community and our country. I believe they feel the same about me. People of good intellect, character and conscience can disagree on the issues, passionately and even heatedly, while remaining good people and good friends, still worthy of mutual love and respect.
Besides, uniformity of thought is boring.
When I write a news article, I try to deliver the relevant facts as I perceive them, often including expert testimony on a subject to add context that helps to better frame an issue. I strive very hard to be both accurate and fair in my news reporting, without editorializing.
As we’re a small paper with limited resources, from time to time I also get to write an opinion piece. Sometimes that piece comes in the form of an editorial, expressing the combined thoughts of our staff on a given topic. Sometimes it comes in the form of a column, like this one, expressing my own thoughts and feelings.
Opinion pieces aren’t meant to be news, even though they can present facts that could be considered newsworthy. Opinion pieces are meant to provoke thought and discussion, making people decide whether they agree or disagree with the writer.
When I write an opinion column, I’m looking for a reaction. Tell me why I’m wrong, or tell me why you you think I’m right. Send me an email (nphillips@benewsjournal.com), or write a letter to the editor (editor@benewsjournal.com), and express your own thoughts.
I’m a grown-up, and I can take dissenting views. I actually respect people willing to voice them—just ask my wife.
What I don’t and cannot respect are when disagreements are aired in an uncivil manner, attacking the messenger instead of the message, or when attempts are made to censor the writer.
Those two instances are, in my opinion, un-American.
At the News Journal we generally have a meeting on Thursday morning, where our small staff gets together to plan out what’s going to appear in the following Wednesday’s paper.
As far as meetings go, it’s usually pretty interesting and informative. We discuss the issues of the day, what issues we feel need to be addressed, and how we’re going to fairly address them. Believe it or not, in our newsroom fairness actually matters. That doesn’t mean we don’t each have our own opinions on the news of the day, however.
Journalists are people, with our own individual experiences, thoughts and feelings that combine to inform our opinions. In the meeting that happens after the Thursday meeting, opinions are often aired, sometimes passionately. As we all have different perspectives and opinions on numerous topics, I find myself agreeing with my coworkers on many things, but disagreeing with them on others.
And that’s OK.
Even during the heat of battle, I realize that my coworkers are intelligent, good people with good hearts, people who want the best for themselves, their families and friends, our community and our country. I believe they feel the same about me. People of good intellect, character and conscience can disagree on the issues, passionately and even heatedly, while remaining good people and good friends, still worthy of mutual love and respect.
Besides, uniformity of thought is boring.
When I write a news article, I try to deliver the relevant facts as I perceive them, often including expert testimony on a subject to add context that helps to better frame an issue. I strive very hard to be both accurate and fair in my news reporting, without editorializing.
As we’re a small paper with limited resources, from time to time I also get to write an opinion piece. Sometimes that piece comes in the form of an editorial, expressing the combined thoughts of our staff on a given topic. Sometimes it comes in the form of a column, like this one, expressing my own thoughts and feelings.
Opinion pieces aren’t meant to be news, even though they can present facts that could be considered newsworthy. Opinion pieces are meant to provoke thought and discussion, making people decide whether they agree or disagree with the writer.
When I write an opinion column, I’m looking for a reaction. Tell me why I’m wrong, or tell me why you you think I’m right. Send me an email (nphillips@benewsjournal.com), or write a letter to the editor (editor@benewsjournal.com), and express your own thoughts.
I’m a grown-up, and I can take dissenting views. I actually respect people willing to voice them—just ask my wife.
What I don’t and cannot respect are when disagreements are aired in an uncivil manner, attacking the messenger instead of the message, or when attempts are made to censor the writer.
Those two instances are, in my opinion, un-American.
Utah to seek fair payment for federally-controlled lands
Report from the Legislature • District 29 Representative Lee Perry • March 7, 2018
Members of both parties in the House and Senate are on the same page when it comes to calling on the federal government to honor promises made to Utahns regarding public lands in the state.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 allows the federal government to hold our public lands under federal control in perpetuity, which was a major policy shift at the time. With nearly 70 percent of Utah owned and controlled by the federal government, many communities, especially in rural areas, are deprived of tax revenue to fund schools and other essential government services.
Recognizing the substantial burden placed on local governments and communities without the ability to levy property taxes, Congress established the Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program as a substitute for that lost revenue.
The payments, as defined by “in lieu,” should be of equal value; however, federal PILT payments to Utah are nowhere near the tax revenue the state and local communities would generate from the land. PILT is often referred to as pennies in lieu of taxes. Two months of state property tax on less than 30 percent of our land is the equivalent of about 20 years of PILT payments on 67 percent of our land.
This tax break to the federal government is directly felt by Utahns to the tune of billions of dollars each year. It’s time for the federal government to honor its promise.
HCR19: Regarding the Impact of Federal Lands on the State Education System, urges Congress to pass legislation requiring “PILT payments to be a fair and steady source of revenue.”
Another bill, HB357: Evaluating Tax Revenue Foregone from Federally Controlled Lands, authorizes the Commission on Federalism to determine what property tax revenue would be on lands under federal control. The commission would then coordinate with Utah’s federal delegation to secure the full payment in lieu of taxes. The purpose of this bill is merely to make Utah’s counties, municipalities and school districts whole from lost tax revenue, as the federal government promised to do when it decided in 1976 to retain in perpetuity more than 66 percent of Utah’s lands.
Both bills unanimously passed the House and Senate on Feb. 22 and await the governor’s signature.
Opioid warning labels
The Legislature is considering HB399: Opioid Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments, that would require a warning label and informational pamphlet to be distributed when an opiate is prescribed.
According to the bill’s sponsor, his son was prescribed opioids for pain relief after having his wisdom teeth removed. The bottle warned about the potential for the drug to cause upset stomach, but had nothing about the risks of dependence or addiction.
The representative had his son take Tylenol instead, but patients may not be aware of how dangerous opioids are, which can lead to tragedy. According to the Utah Department of Health, 80 percent of people who are addicted to heroin nationwide first became hooked on a prescription drug.
HB399 would require warning labels on the bottles that say, “Caution: Opioid. Risk of overdose and addiction,” as well as other language approved by the Department of Health. This bill would also require a brochure to be displayed that educates patients on the risk of dependency and addiction, methods of storage and disposal, alternative options for pain management, the benefits of and how to obtain naloxone and resources for the patient or family if they believe the patient has a substance abuse disorder.
Traffic amendments
The House Transportation Committee passed HB416: Traffic Flow Amendments, which allows drivers on highways with a speed limit of 55 MPH or less to proceed through a red light if the driver comes to a complete stop and determines no other vehicles are near the intersection, and no pedestrians or bicyclists are attempting to cross the street.
Numerous safety concerns have been expressed and we will try to look at those as this bill moves forward.
My bills
HB229: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments passed the House and Senate.
HB311, a retirement amendment bill designed to allow retired law enforcement officers to return to work in rural areas that are facing staffing shortages quicker than the current one-year rule, did not pass the Senate committee since they felt the fiscal impact was too high and agencies should just pay current officers more to retain them.
HB373: Waste Management Amendments, is on hold to see if the funding needed for technology will be available. The bill would allow the Waste Management Division of the Department of Environmental Quality to implement technology to promote efficiency and transparency, and make sure every landfill is inspected more regularly.
It is great hearing from the people of House District 29 and how I can best represent your needs. Contact me at: leeperry@le.uath.gov or leeperryutah.com.
Members of both parties in the House and Senate are on the same page when it comes to calling on the federal government to honor promises made to Utahns regarding public lands in the state.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 allows the federal government to hold our public lands under federal control in perpetuity, which was a major policy shift at the time. With nearly 70 percent of Utah owned and controlled by the federal government, many communities, especially in rural areas, are deprived of tax revenue to fund schools and other essential government services.
Recognizing the substantial burden placed on local governments and communities without the ability to levy property taxes, Congress established the Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program as a substitute for that lost revenue.
The payments, as defined by “in lieu,” should be of equal value; however, federal PILT payments to Utah are nowhere near the tax revenue the state and local communities would generate from the land. PILT is often referred to as pennies in lieu of taxes. Two months of state property tax on less than 30 percent of our land is the equivalent of about 20 years of PILT payments on 67 percent of our land.
This tax break to the federal government is directly felt by Utahns to the tune of billions of dollars each year. It’s time for the federal government to honor its promise.
HCR19: Regarding the Impact of Federal Lands on the State Education System, urges Congress to pass legislation requiring “PILT payments to be a fair and steady source of revenue.”
Another bill, HB357: Evaluating Tax Revenue Foregone from Federally Controlled Lands, authorizes the Commission on Federalism to determine what property tax revenue would be on lands under federal control. The commission would then coordinate with Utah’s federal delegation to secure the full payment in lieu of taxes. The purpose of this bill is merely to make Utah’s counties, municipalities and school districts whole from lost tax revenue, as the federal government promised to do when it decided in 1976 to retain in perpetuity more than 66 percent of Utah’s lands.
Both bills unanimously passed the House and Senate on Feb. 22 and await the governor’s signature.
Opioid warning labels
The Legislature is considering HB399: Opioid Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments, that would require a warning label and informational pamphlet to be distributed when an opiate is prescribed.
According to the bill’s sponsor, his son was prescribed opioids for pain relief after having his wisdom teeth removed. The bottle warned about the potential for the drug to cause upset stomach, but had nothing about the risks of dependence or addiction.
The representative had his son take Tylenol instead, but patients may not be aware of how dangerous opioids are, which can lead to tragedy. According to the Utah Department of Health, 80 percent of people who are addicted to heroin nationwide first became hooked on a prescription drug.
HB399 would require warning labels on the bottles that say, “Caution: Opioid. Risk of overdose and addiction,” as well as other language approved by the Department of Health. This bill would also require a brochure to be displayed that educates patients on the risk of dependency and addiction, methods of storage and disposal, alternative options for pain management, the benefits of and how to obtain naloxone and resources for the patient or family if they believe the patient has a substance abuse disorder.
Traffic amendments
The House Transportation Committee passed HB416: Traffic Flow Amendments, which allows drivers on highways with a speed limit of 55 MPH or less to proceed through a red light if the driver comes to a complete stop and determines no other vehicles are near the intersection, and no pedestrians or bicyclists are attempting to cross the street.
Numerous safety concerns have been expressed and we will try to look at those as this bill moves forward.
My bills
HB229: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments passed the House and Senate.
HB311, a retirement amendment bill designed to allow retired law enforcement officers to return to work in rural areas that are facing staffing shortages quicker than the current one-year rule, did not pass the Senate committee since they felt the fiscal impact was too high and agencies should just pay current officers more to retain them.
HB373: Waste Management Amendments, is on hold to see if the funding needed for technology will be available. The bill would allow the Waste Management Division of the Department of Environmental Quality to implement technology to promote efficiency and transparency, and make sure every landfill is inspected more regularly.
It is great hearing from the people of House District 29 and how I can best represent your needs. Contact me at: leeperry@le.uath.gov or leeperryutah.com.
Suicide prevention remains a legislative priority in Utah
Report from the Legislature • District 29 Representative Lee Perry • February 28, 2018
Over the past seven years, the Utah Legislature has passed 15 bills addressing suicide and continues to make its prevention a priority.
Lawmakers are currently considering several new measures to address the issue further, two of which—HB 41: Mental Health Crisis Line Amendments, and HB 42: Medicaid Waiver for Mental Health Crisis Services—have already passed the House. HB 41 creates a 24/7 state-wide crisis line staffed by specially trained first responders in mental and behavioral health. HB 42 seeks Medicaid waivers for certain mental health crisis resources, including intervention by a mobile crisis outreach team.
On Feb. 20, the Suicide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by Rep. Steve Eliason and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox, presented their recommendations to address the growing suicide crisis in Utah. These recommendations include improving crisis response, reducing risk factors and enhancing protective measures.
A number of effective programs can be used and/or expanded to meet these goals, including mental health first aid training, peer-to-peer programs, public awareness messaging and the gun safety program, “Is Your Safety On,” which has distributed over 40,000 gun locks since 2017. They also noted that a crucial part of suicide prevention is ensuring children feel cared for and loved.
While there is no single solution to this complex issue, the task force believes these steps are taking us in the right direction to help raise public awareness and, ultimately, reduce the number of suicides in our state.
Those suffering, and who maybe having thought of self-harm can call the National Suicide Hotline at 1-800-273-8255.
Post-employment restrictions
Utah is an employment-at-will state, where a worker can be fired or choose to leave employment for almost any reason. Under such circumstances, it makes little sense for employers to be permitted to compel their employees, especially those without access to proprietary information, to sign non-compete agreements as a condition of employment and limit their ability to work in the future.
Two years ago, Rep. Mike Schultz attempted to ban these post-employment restrictions, and passed a bill that limited their length to one year. This year, he chose to focus on an industry where abuses seem to be most pervasive: the media.
In a recent committee meeting, media employers stated that without non-competes, their employees would be considered simply “chattel” and “widgets” and many claimed credit for the talents and personalities of those who work for them. The bill sponsor has received over 75 documented stories of non-compete abuse from media employees who have asked for anonymity for fear of retribution.
Some low-wage workers, even when let go from their contracts by the employer, have been held to non-compete clauses and forced to either move or work in a field outside of their training and expertise. This does nothing to create a stronger, more dynamic market and it places a significant, and unfair, burden on the worker.
Interestingly, while the print media has covered this legislation, broadcast media has not. We have heard that they have been strongly discouraged from mentioning it in their newscasts.
Print media seldom—if ever—uses non-competes, while those in broadcast media use them extensively, from on-camera talent to producers and cameramen. This brings up a serious First Amendment concern in what is meant to be the marketplace of ideas, and is evidence of the importance of not stifling media voices and allowing the free-flow of workers in the field.
HB 241, Post-employment Restrictions Amendments, passed the Utah House of Representatives with 62 of 75 votes in favor, and now moves on to the Senate for consideration.
My legislation
HB 229: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments has passed the House and Senate committee and is waiting to be passed by Senate The bill would equalize health insurance benefits for state officers’ widows and families with city and county law enforcement. HB 311 would allow rural law enforcement agencies to hire retired police officers prior to a year, as is currently the rule. This bill passed the House floor this week and is now in the Senate.
HB 373: Waste Management Amendments, passed committee this week and will hopefully be heard on the house floor this week. This bill would require the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste Management to implement technology to promote efficiency and transparency and make sure every landfill is inspected more regularly.
Other activity
I was honored on Friday by the Utah Firefighters Caucus along with two other legislators with Legislator of the Year Awards. I was chosen along with my Democratic House colleague, Carol Moss, and Senator Daniel Thatcher for our efforts in protecting firefighters on behalf of public safety.
Also, on Feb. 16, the House of Representatives honored Utah’s fallen soldiers the entire House body stood and observed a moment of silence to commemorate the soldiers and the sacrifice they and their families have made for our country.
With the end of the session quickly approaching we will continue to look at locking up the budget for the next year. Utah’s economy continues to grow. Revised consensus revenue estimates were released on Wednesday, Feb. 21, projecting a total of $508 million in new ongoing general fund and education fund revenues.
Over the past seven years, the Utah Legislature has passed 15 bills addressing suicide and continues to make its prevention a priority.
Lawmakers are currently considering several new measures to address the issue further, two of which—HB 41: Mental Health Crisis Line Amendments, and HB 42: Medicaid Waiver for Mental Health Crisis Services—have already passed the House. HB 41 creates a 24/7 state-wide crisis line staffed by specially trained first responders in mental and behavioral health. HB 42 seeks Medicaid waivers for certain mental health crisis resources, including intervention by a mobile crisis outreach team.
On Feb. 20, the Suicide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by Rep. Steve Eliason and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox, presented their recommendations to address the growing suicide crisis in Utah. These recommendations include improving crisis response, reducing risk factors and enhancing protective measures.
A number of effective programs can be used and/or expanded to meet these goals, including mental health first aid training, peer-to-peer programs, public awareness messaging and the gun safety program, “Is Your Safety On,” which has distributed over 40,000 gun locks since 2017. They also noted that a crucial part of suicide prevention is ensuring children feel cared for and loved.
While there is no single solution to this complex issue, the task force believes these steps are taking us in the right direction to help raise public awareness and, ultimately, reduce the number of suicides in our state.
Those suffering, and who maybe having thought of self-harm can call the National Suicide Hotline at 1-800-273-8255.
Post-employment restrictions
Utah is an employment-at-will state, where a worker can be fired or choose to leave employment for almost any reason. Under such circumstances, it makes little sense for employers to be permitted to compel their employees, especially those without access to proprietary information, to sign non-compete agreements as a condition of employment and limit their ability to work in the future.
Two years ago, Rep. Mike Schultz attempted to ban these post-employment restrictions, and passed a bill that limited their length to one year. This year, he chose to focus on an industry where abuses seem to be most pervasive: the media.
In a recent committee meeting, media employers stated that without non-competes, their employees would be considered simply “chattel” and “widgets” and many claimed credit for the talents and personalities of those who work for them. The bill sponsor has received over 75 documented stories of non-compete abuse from media employees who have asked for anonymity for fear of retribution.
Some low-wage workers, even when let go from their contracts by the employer, have been held to non-compete clauses and forced to either move or work in a field outside of their training and expertise. This does nothing to create a stronger, more dynamic market and it places a significant, and unfair, burden on the worker.
Interestingly, while the print media has covered this legislation, broadcast media has not. We have heard that they have been strongly discouraged from mentioning it in their newscasts.
Print media seldom—if ever—uses non-competes, while those in broadcast media use them extensively, from on-camera talent to producers and cameramen. This brings up a serious First Amendment concern in what is meant to be the marketplace of ideas, and is evidence of the importance of not stifling media voices and allowing the free-flow of workers in the field.
HB 241, Post-employment Restrictions Amendments, passed the Utah House of Representatives with 62 of 75 votes in favor, and now moves on to the Senate for consideration.
My legislation
HB 229: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments has passed the House and Senate committee and is waiting to be passed by Senate The bill would equalize health insurance benefits for state officers’ widows and families with city and county law enforcement. HB 311 would allow rural law enforcement agencies to hire retired police officers prior to a year, as is currently the rule. This bill passed the House floor this week and is now in the Senate.
HB 373: Waste Management Amendments, passed committee this week and will hopefully be heard on the house floor this week. This bill would require the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste Management to implement technology to promote efficiency and transparency and make sure every landfill is inspected more regularly.
Other activity
I was honored on Friday by the Utah Firefighters Caucus along with two other legislators with Legislator of the Year Awards. I was chosen along with my Democratic House colleague, Carol Moss, and Senator Daniel Thatcher for our efforts in protecting firefighters on behalf of public safety.
Also, on Feb. 16, the House of Representatives honored Utah’s fallen soldiers the entire House body stood and observed a moment of silence to commemorate the soldiers and the sacrifice they and their families have made for our country.
With the end of the session quickly approaching we will continue to look at locking up the budget for the next year. Utah’s economy continues to grow. Revised consensus revenue estimates were released on Wednesday, Feb. 21, projecting a total of $508 million in new ongoing general fund and education fund revenues.
Citizens and government would benefit if candidates had to earn the office
Guest Perspective • Box Elder County Democratic Party Leadership • February 21, 2018
With the election filing period approaching, we want to express our right to the democratic process of electing our representatives, and also remind readers that there are many opportunities to serve in this community.
There are few exceptions that would exclude an adult resident from running for office, and we would like to take the time to encourage more residents to consider running for elected positions to give voice to our citizens. As residents of Box Elder County, we would love to see a full slate of candidates for every open position on the ballot during the general election this fall. In order to make that happen, intent must be filed with the county clerk between March 9 and 15.
Our current county leadership is exclusively made up of members of the Republican party, due in large part to the caucus-style primary system. We believe that unaffiliated, independent and Democratic Party members may feel excluded from the closed primary process espoused by the Republican Party, which requires registered voters to declare membership to that party in order to vote in the primary election.
As such, many Republican candidates run unopposed by other parties for positions such as clerk, recorder, auditor or sheriff. There may be multiple would-be candidates within that party, but the outcome of their primary in an unopposed race becomes the person who ultimately lands the position. Meaning that only registered Republicans truly get to weigh in on who fills the seat unless they are opposed by candidates from other parties in the general election.
In the spirit of the democratic process, we would like to encourage more options on that ballot. The duties of any of those positions are completely unrelated to party affiliation, but due to current county regulations, party affiliation is required. We feel as though these positions might be better served with a little competition to earn the position.
On a national level, the interest in government service has surged to levels unseen in recent history, and we are hoping that election filing this year in Box Elder County reflects that desire to improve our local community. Brainstorming sessions and solutions to issues can often be found by looking outside the status quo and inviting new ideas and new voices.
If you, or someone you know, would be interested in finding out more about the opportunities to serve in an elected position, the Box Elder Democrats would like to help. We hope that our priorities for improving the quality of life for all residents and the ability to exercise our freedom of choice will have strong representation in the general election, and the time to start those efforts is now. If these ideals and a desire for change and growth are on your mind, we encourage your participation. We will support you through the process, from filing through campaigning.
We feel it’s our responsibility to urge good people to offer themselves as a choice for our new county leadership in 2018. Let’s give the citizens of Box Elder County a choice this November. Let us choose you.
We would also like to invite registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters to join us on Tuesday, March 20, at 6 p.m. at the County Fairgrounds in the Museum Building for our 2018 caucus and convention. For more information or to contact us, send an email to BoxElderDemocrats@gmail.com.
With the election filing period approaching, we want to express our right to the democratic process of electing our representatives, and also remind readers that there are many opportunities to serve in this community.
There are few exceptions that would exclude an adult resident from running for office, and we would like to take the time to encourage more residents to consider running for elected positions to give voice to our citizens. As residents of Box Elder County, we would love to see a full slate of candidates for every open position on the ballot during the general election this fall. In order to make that happen, intent must be filed with the county clerk between March 9 and 15.
Our current county leadership is exclusively made up of members of the Republican party, due in large part to the caucus-style primary system. We believe that unaffiliated, independent and Democratic Party members may feel excluded from the closed primary process espoused by the Republican Party, which requires registered voters to declare membership to that party in order to vote in the primary election.
As such, many Republican candidates run unopposed by other parties for positions such as clerk, recorder, auditor or sheriff. There may be multiple would-be candidates within that party, but the outcome of their primary in an unopposed race becomes the person who ultimately lands the position. Meaning that only registered Republicans truly get to weigh in on who fills the seat unless they are opposed by candidates from other parties in the general election.
In the spirit of the democratic process, we would like to encourage more options on that ballot. The duties of any of those positions are completely unrelated to party affiliation, but due to current county regulations, party affiliation is required. We feel as though these positions might be better served with a little competition to earn the position.
On a national level, the interest in government service has surged to levels unseen in recent history, and we are hoping that election filing this year in Box Elder County reflects that desire to improve our local community. Brainstorming sessions and solutions to issues can often be found by looking outside the status quo and inviting new ideas and new voices.
If you, or someone you know, would be interested in finding out more about the opportunities to serve in an elected position, the Box Elder Democrats would like to help. We hope that our priorities for improving the quality of life for all residents and the ability to exercise our freedom of choice will have strong representation in the general election, and the time to start those efforts is now. If these ideals and a desire for change and growth are on your mind, we encourage your participation. We will support you through the process, from filing through campaigning.
We feel it’s our responsibility to urge good people to offer themselves as a choice for our new county leadership in 2018. Let’s give the citizens of Box Elder County a choice this November. Let us choose you.
We would also like to invite registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters to join us on Tuesday, March 20, at 6 p.m. at the County Fairgrounds in the Museum Building for our 2018 caucus and convention. For more information or to contact us, send an email to BoxElderDemocrats@gmail.com.
State needs to hold opioid makers accountable for deaths in the name of profits
Report from the Legislature • District 29 Representative Lee Perry • January 31, 2018
One of the topics the legislature has been working on is a study of opioids in the wake of a deadly epidemic that has spread throughout the nation.
The Utah Legislature is considering a resolution that calls upon the Attorney General to take legal action against prescription opioid manufacturers, based on allegations of deceptive marketing practices used by manufacturers and distributors. On average, 24-25 Utahns die each month from opioid overdoses. Utah ranked fourth in the nation for drug overdose deaths, an average of six per week in 2014.
These horrid statistics are more than just numbers; they represent the loss of human lives.
Measures are being taken in Utah to help combat the crisis, but we need to work to change the practices of companies that threaten the safety of our residents for their own financial gain.
Sixteen states, dozens of local jurisdictions and Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Washington and Weber counties have already filed separate lawsuits against prescription opioid manufacturers to seek damages for the public costs of the opioid crisis.
However, joining a multi-state lawsuit with a myriad of other states does not allow us to adequately represent the needs and losses of Utah victims, and won’t necessarily lead to a change in business practices by these companies. A joint resolution of the House and Senate calls upon Utah’s attorney general’s office to file a separate lawsuit against companies whose practices and products have harmed Utahns. The goal is to change prescribing practices and put a stop to the rising rate of overdose deaths, maximize a settlement to help reimburse the state for expenses associated with opioid abuse, and hold accountable those whose actions created this destruction.
As for bills I have sponsored, HB13: Peer Counseling for Fire, EMS and Police has passed the both the Senate and the House and is now awaiting the Governor’s signature to become law. The bill will help protect confidential counseling occurring between first responders and trained, certified peers about the horrors they often experience on the job. HB29: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments has passed the House and Senate committee and will hopefully pass the senate floor in the next week. The bill would equalize health insurance benefits for the widows and families of state officers with those of local law enforcement. HB311 would allow rural law enforcement agencies to hire retired police officers who feel like they can work in law enforcement for a few years in a more rural setting. It passed committee and is awaiting floor debate in the house. HB373, a bill that would require the waste management division of the department of environmental quality to implement technology to promote efficiencies and transparency.
We want people to know that state dollars dedicated to education have grown at historic levels, since 2015. Education clearly is, and has been, a priority for the legislature, so much so that in the past three years, K-12 funding has increased by more than $800 million – nearly 20 percent. In addition, the past two years, education spending accounted for the most significant portion of new money appropriated by the legislature.
This year is no exception; we will continue to prioritize education funding and aspire to do it without increasing taxes. Bill HB299 aims to dedicate approximately $700 million to public schools over the next 3-4 years, and do it in a way that directly and positively impacts teacher pay. This legislation would also prioritize funding for improved teacher training, metrics to ensure children meet reading standards by third grade and technology in the classroom.
The legislature’s trauma-informed legislative workgroup is working on HB177, which would enable and assist victims of crime. Under the current system, victims are often re-traumatized by their experiences with the criminal justice system, and the goal is to reduce the likelihood of re-victimization, leading to fewer accumulative adverse childhood experiences, less behavioral risk-taking, fewer negative health impacts and a reduction in state spending on healthcare. All that increases the likelihood that victims will engage with the criminal justice system in the future and in turn, enables improved healing and coping skills by connecting victims with available resources.
Please feel free to let me know how I can represent your interests during the next 15 days. My email is leeperry@le.uath.gov or leeperryutah.com.
One of the topics the legislature has been working on is a study of opioids in the wake of a deadly epidemic that has spread throughout the nation.
The Utah Legislature is considering a resolution that calls upon the Attorney General to take legal action against prescription opioid manufacturers, based on allegations of deceptive marketing practices used by manufacturers and distributors. On average, 24-25 Utahns die each month from opioid overdoses. Utah ranked fourth in the nation for drug overdose deaths, an average of six per week in 2014.
These horrid statistics are more than just numbers; they represent the loss of human lives.
Measures are being taken in Utah to help combat the crisis, but we need to work to change the practices of companies that threaten the safety of our residents for their own financial gain.
Sixteen states, dozens of local jurisdictions and Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, Washington and Weber counties have already filed separate lawsuits against prescription opioid manufacturers to seek damages for the public costs of the opioid crisis.
However, joining a multi-state lawsuit with a myriad of other states does not allow us to adequately represent the needs and losses of Utah victims, and won’t necessarily lead to a change in business practices by these companies. A joint resolution of the House and Senate calls upon Utah’s attorney general’s office to file a separate lawsuit against companies whose practices and products have harmed Utahns. The goal is to change prescribing practices and put a stop to the rising rate of overdose deaths, maximize a settlement to help reimburse the state for expenses associated with opioid abuse, and hold accountable those whose actions created this destruction.
As for bills I have sponsored, HB13: Peer Counseling for Fire, EMS and Police has passed the both the Senate and the House and is now awaiting the Governor’s signature to become law. The bill will help protect confidential counseling occurring between first responders and trained, certified peers about the horrors they often experience on the job. HB29: Surviving Spouse Insurance Death Benefit Amendments has passed the House and Senate committee and will hopefully pass the senate floor in the next week. The bill would equalize health insurance benefits for the widows and families of state officers with those of local law enforcement. HB311 would allow rural law enforcement agencies to hire retired police officers who feel like they can work in law enforcement for a few years in a more rural setting. It passed committee and is awaiting floor debate in the house. HB373, a bill that would require the waste management division of the department of environmental quality to implement technology to promote efficiencies and transparency.
We want people to know that state dollars dedicated to education have grown at historic levels, since 2015. Education clearly is, and has been, a priority for the legislature, so much so that in the past three years, K-12 funding has increased by more than $800 million – nearly 20 percent. In addition, the past two years, education spending accounted for the most significant portion of new money appropriated by the legislature.
This year is no exception; we will continue to prioritize education funding and aspire to do it without increasing taxes. Bill HB299 aims to dedicate approximately $700 million to public schools over the next 3-4 years, and do it in a way that directly and positively impacts teacher pay. This legislation would also prioritize funding for improved teacher training, metrics to ensure children meet reading standards by third grade and technology in the classroom.
The legislature’s trauma-informed legislative workgroup is working on HB177, which would enable and assist victims of crime. Under the current system, victims are often re-traumatized by their experiences with the criminal justice system, and the goal is to reduce the likelihood of re-victimization, leading to fewer accumulative adverse childhood experiences, less behavioral risk-taking, fewer negative health impacts and a reduction in state spending on healthcare. All that increases the likelihood that victims will engage with the criminal justice system in the future and in turn, enables improved healing and coping skills by connecting victims with available resources.
Please feel free to let me know how I can represent your interests during the next 15 days. My email is leeperry@le.uath.gov or leeperryutah.com.
Mental health support measures pass house in first week
Report from the Legislature • District 29 Representative Lee Perry • January 31, 2018
Since last session, we have worked hard on a bill to help law enforcement, fire fighters and EMS workers meet with specially trained peers when they are involved in traumatic events to help process the experiences and deal with them. The bill, named Peer Counseling for First Responders, passed the Utah House on Monday with unanimous vote. It will be heard in the Senate and hopefully move to the governor’s desk.
On Friday, the House passed HB 41: Mental Health Crisis Line Amendments, which creates a 24/7 state-wide crisis line staffed by trained responders for mental and behavioral health; and HB 42: Medicaid Waiver for Mental Health Crisis Services, which seeks a Medicaid waiver for certain mental health crisis resources, including intervention by a mobile crisis outreach team. Both bills will be a resource to everyone in Utah, but will hopefully have a greater impact in our community.
Suicides are on the rise nationwide, and Utah is no exception. The legislature has made addressing suicide a priority, and we continue to strive to make resources available in every community across the state.
Over the past seven years, the Legislature has worked on over 15 bills addressing suicide prevention. Among other things, the state has been highly successful with its SafeUT app. This app and other crisis services have enabled over 65,000 individuals in Utah to seek help in times of crisis over the past 18 months.
The state also recently assembled a Teen Suicide Prevention Task Force comprised of stakeholders from business, education, local churches and healthcare, led by Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and Representative Steve Eliason. The task force has been assigned to bring a suicide prevention plan to the Legislature by February of this year.
The Legislature will continue to work to ensure that those battling hopelessness don’t have to do it alone.
Committee assignments
I continue to serve as the chairman of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee as well as on the Government Operations and Retirement and Independent Entities budget and standing committees. I will also continue to serve on the budget committee for Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality departments.
During the Interim we dug deep into various areas of the departments’ budgets and have found some places to save tax payer dollars. I was assigned the Department of Environmental Quality director’s office and waste management, and we have found some ways to cut costs and improve operations, which we are working on this session.
Air Quality
Air quality is an important issue in our state, especially along the Wasatch Front. Since 2014, the Utah Legislature has successfully passed almost 40 air quality bills, which is more than the previous 100 years combined. The impact of this work can be seen in the fact that year-over-year, our air is consistently cleaner, even while our population continues to grow.
Ninety-five percent of the time our air quality is very good according to Bryce Bird, Director of the Utah Division of Air Quality; however, we are hit hard when natural inversions occur, trapping pollution in the valley.
While we have worked diligently to institute policies that will help clean the air, vehicle emissions are by far the leading contributor, at nearly 50 percent. Industry accounts for only 13 percent of the pollutants in our valley, so the bulk of the problem will need to be solved by each of us, as individuals. The best way for us to help combat this problem is for each of us to choose to drive less when our valley is experiencing an inversion.
We continue to make more progress on this issue every year and this year will be no exception.
Stay connected
The House of Representatives offers access to live and previous coverage of proceedings and committee hearings from the legislative website. You can view the current session, search the archive of past sessions, track bills, read proposed legislation and more at le.utah.gov.
You can follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to stay connected to what is happening, get a behind the scenes look and receive daily updates. You can also contact me at house.utah.gov.
It is great hearing from the people of House District 29 as to what your concerns and issues are important to you and how I can best represent your needs as your State Representative. The pace picks up from here so please feel free to check the legislatures web site and let us know how we can represent your best interests during the next 38 days.
Since last session, we have worked hard on a bill to help law enforcement, fire fighters and EMS workers meet with specially trained peers when they are involved in traumatic events to help process the experiences and deal with them. The bill, named Peer Counseling for First Responders, passed the Utah House on Monday with unanimous vote. It will be heard in the Senate and hopefully move to the governor’s desk.
On Friday, the House passed HB 41: Mental Health Crisis Line Amendments, which creates a 24/7 state-wide crisis line staffed by trained responders for mental and behavioral health; and HB 42: Medicaid Waiver for Mental Health Crisis Services, which seeks a Medicaid waiver for certain mental health crisis resources, including intervention by a mobile crisis outreach team. Both bills will be a resource to everyone in Utah, but will hopefully have a greater impact in our community.
Suicides are on the rise nationwide, and Utah is no exception. The legislature has made addressing suicide a priority, and we continue to strive to make resources available in every community across the state.
Over the past seven years, the Legislature has worked on over 15 bills addressing suicide prevention. Among other things, the state has been highly successful with its SafeUT app. This app and other crisis services have enabled over 65,000 individuals in Utah to seek help in times of crisis over the past 18 months.
The state also recently assembled a Teen Suicide Prevention Task Force comprised of stakeholders from business, education, local churches and healthcare, led by Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and Representative Steve Eliason. The task force has been assigned to bring a suicide prevention plan to the Legislature by February of this year.
The Legislature will continue to work to ensure that those battling hopelessness don’t have to do it alone.
Committee assignments
I continue to serve as the chairman of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee as well as on the Government Operations and Retirement and Independent Entities budget and standing committees. I will also continue to serve on the budget committee for Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality departments.
During the Interim we dug deep into various areas of the departments’ budgets and have found some places to save tax payer dollars. I was assigned the Department of Environmental Quality director’s office and waste management, and we have found some ways to cut costs and improve operations, which we are working on this session.
Air Quality
Air quality is an important issue in our state, especially along the Wasatch Front. Since 2014, the Utah Legislature has successfully passed almost 40 air quality bills, which is more than the previous 100 years combined. The impact of this work can be seen in the fact that year-over-year, our air is consistently cleaner, even while our population continues to grow.
Ninety-five percent of the time our air quality is very good according to Bryce Bird, Director of the Utah Division of Air Quality; however, we are hit hard when natural inversions occur, trapping pollution in the valley.
While we have worked diligently to institute policies that will help clean the air, vehicle emissions are by far the leading contributor, at nearly 50 percent. Industry accounts for only 13 percent of the pollutants in our valley, so the bulk of the problem will need to be solved by each of us, as individuals. The best way for us to help combat this problem is for each of us to choose to drive less when our valley is experiencing an inversion.
We continue to make more progress on this issue every year and this year will be no exception.
Stay connected
The House of Representatives offers access to live and previous coverage of proceedings and committee hearings from the legislative website. You can view the current session, search the archive of past sessions, track bills, read proposed legislation and more at le.utah.gov.
You can follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to stay connected to what is happening, get a behind the scenes look and receive daily updates. You can also contact me at house.utah.gov.
It is great hearing from the people of House District 29 as to what your concerns and issues are important to you and how I can best represent your needs as your State Representative. The pace picks up from here so please feel free to check the legislatures web site and let us know how we can represent your best interests during the next 38 days.
Crews, community deserve thanks for difficult recovery of missing plane
Guest Perspective • Sheriff Kevin Potter • January 24, 2018
As you may know, plane, N4395R, disappeared from radar on Dec. 29, 2017. The bodies were recovered after an extensive search and dive operations on Saturday, Jan. 13, 2018. The story of the search and recovery, and the role county employees, county volunteers and cooperating agencies played between those dates is something residents need to know.
The search started with the Civil Air Patrol covering air space above 1000 feet and the state helicopter covering below 1,000. In addition, Box Elder Sheriff’s Office (BESO) Search and Rescue was conducting a ground search by foot, ATV or vehicle and State Park boats on the lake looking for debris. This was done for three straight days. Crew members celebrated News Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, several anniversaries and spouses birthdays, during the search. They never complained and put the feelings of the pilots’ family above their own.
The missing pilots’ family and the club they flew with, searched every day with us. The pilot associations put over a dozen airplanes in the air every day, doing grid searches or following tips. In addition, the family put together information that lead us to believe the plane was in the lake. Understanding the entire north arm of the Great Salt Lake cannot be grid searched, they were able to pinpoint the most likely area; a family that should be in disarray and barely able to function was instead planning, organizing and searching. Their work paid off as the plane was found in that area.
During the water operation, the expertise of the Box Elder Scuba team in side scan sonar and grid searching is the reason the airplane was found.
However, the area was too large for BESO only, the Division of Natural Resources’ (DNR) helped out. DNR Lt. Eric Stucki, who had been with us since day one looking for surface debris, was asked to supply boats and operators for the grid search. Boats were pulled out of other state parks marinas, or winter storage, to help. Lt. Stucki made sure we had what we needed, no matter the consequences to DNR. The remoteness of the area—a three-hour round trip drive from Brigham City and 120-mile round trip for boats from the Great Salt Lake Marina—and no services meant everything had to be brought to the site.
The harsh conditions of the north arm cannot be exaggerated; the cold and salinity levels in the north arm are hard on boats, motors and people. After only a few hours on the water, the boats have to be pulled and the motors flushed with fresh water. At least four motors went out completely. Divers who go in have to be decontaminated just like when dealing with hazardous materials. We simply could not have operated in the North Arm without the state boats and their expertise of the lake.
A special thank you goes to Don’s Auto and Marina in Smithfield. The pontoon boat’s motor went out during the search on Friday, Jan. 5, at 4 p.m. It was badly needed to continue covering the grid the next day. Don’s Marina didn’t even get the boat until closing time but they worked all night to have a new engine installed and ready for the next morning. Also, making a major purchase on short notice is normally against county policy, except in an emergency like this. Sheriff’s secretary Barbara Hereford and County Auditor Tom Kotter jumped through all the hoops to make it happen.
Knowing Weber County has a boat in Pineview, I called Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson to ask for help in the search. That one short phone call got me the lieutenant over Weber Search and Rescue, for as long as we needed him, as well as a boat, several deputies, the dive team and a variety of other volunteer help. The Weber team had amazing knowledge and ending up making the recovery dive when the plane was found. They practiced on a similar plane, learning the seatbelt and door latch operations and mastered them blindfolded and upside down.
By now, a significant command post was needed to support the operation. Box Elder County Emergency Manager Mark Millett was in charge of organizing the command post and making sure the operation was done under proper incident command protocols. Fire Marshall Corey Barton and assistant Fire Marshal Tiffine wore multiple hats as they provided hot food every day, medical services, and fresh water to flush the boat motors and to decontaminate the divers. County road employee Curtis Packer brought fuel for the boats every day and assisted in keeping a command post trailer running and warm with fresh radios for those coming off the water. BESO detectives worked on the boats every day and are responsible for the body recovery and death investigation. I had multiple comments from the outside agencies that the command post was organized, well run and had the best food of anywhere they had been.
On Jan. 13 the hard work of over a dozen agencies and hundreds of hours of searching, paid off when a Weber diver was able to recover the bodies. I had been briefing the families after each day’s operations and you have no idea how good it felt to make the call that we had recovered their loved ones.
I thank everyone involved who made this recovery possible. It wouldn’t have happened without everyone doing their part. I especially want to thank those volunteers from both counties search and rescue and scuba teams. They aren’t just volunteering their time; they miss work, or close their business, to help us. With monthly trainings and meetings and buying most of their own equipment, it costs them money to be a volunteer. We are blessed to live in an area filled with these type of volunteers. Those volunteers and great partnerships with the state and Weber County, made this recovery possible.
As you may know, plane, N4395R, disappeared from radar on Dec. 29, 2017. The bodies were recovered after an extensive search and dive operations on Saturday, Jan. 13, 2018. The story of the search and recovery, and the role county employees, county volunteers and cooperating agencies played between those dates is something residents need to know.
The search started with the Civil Air Patrol covering air space above 1000 feet and the state helicopter covering below 1,000. In addition, Box Elder Sheriff’s Office (BESO) Search and Rescue was conducting a ground search by foot, ATV or vehicle and State Park boats on the lake looking for debris. This was done for three straight days. Crew members celebrated News Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, several anniversaries and spouses birthdays, during the search. They never complained and put the feelings of the pilots’ family above their own.
The missing pilots’ family and the club they flew with, searched every day with us. The pilot associations put over a dozen airplanes in the air every day, doing grid searches or following tips. In addition, the family put together information that lead us to believe the plane was in the lake. Understanding the entire north arm of the Great Salt Lake cannot be grid searched, they were able to pinpoint the most likely area; a family that should be in disarray and barely able to function was instead planning, organizing and searching. Their work paid off as the plane was found in that area.
During the water operation, the expertise of the Box Elder Scuba team in side scan sonar and grid searching is the reason the airplane was found.
However, the area was too large for BESO only, the Division of Natural Resources’ (DNR) helped out. DNR Lt. Eric Stucki, who had been with us since day one looking for surface debris, was asked to supply boats and operators for the grid search. Boats were pulled out of other state parks marinas, or winter storage, to help. Lt. Stucki made sure we had what we needed, no matter the consequences to DNR. The remoteness of the area—a three-hour round trip drive from Brigham City and 120-mile round trip for boats from the Great Salt Lake Marina—and no services meant everything had to be brought to the site.
The harsh conditions of the north arm cannot be exaggerated; the cold and salinity levels in the north arm are hard on boats, motors and people. After only a few hours on the water, the boats have to be pulled and the motors flushed with fresh water. At least four motors went out completely. Divers who go in have to be decontaminated just like when dealing with hazardous materials. We simply could not have operated in the North Arm without the state boats and their expertise of the lake.
A special thank you goes to Don’s Auto and Marina in Smithfield. The pontoon boat’s motor went out during the search on Friday, Jan. 5, at 4 p.m. It was badly needed to continue covering the grid the next day. Don’s Marina didn’t even get the boat until closing time but they worked all night to have a new engine installed and ready for the next morning. Also, making a major purchase on short notice is normally against county policy, except in an emergency like this. Sheriff’s secretary Barbara Hereford and County Auditor Tom Kotter jumped through all the hoops to make it happen.
Knowing Weber County has a boat in Pineview, I called Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson to ask for help in the search. That one short phone call got me the lieutenant over Weber Search and Rescue, for as long as we needed him, as well as a boat, several deputies, the dive team and a variety of other volunteer help. The Weber team had amazing knowledge and ending up making the recovery dive when the plane was found. They practiced on a similar plane, learning the seatbelt and door latch operations and mastered them blindfolded and upside down.
By now, a significant command post was needed to support the operation. Box Elder County Emergency Manager Mark Millett was in charge of organizing the command post and making sure the operation was done under proper incident command protocols. Fire Marshall Corey Barton and assistant Fire Marshal Tiffine wore multiple hats as they provided hot food every day, medical services, and fresh water to flush the boat motors and to decontaminate the divers. County road employee Curtis Packer brought fuel for the boats every day and assisted in keeping a command post trailer running and warm with fresh radios for those coming off the water. BESO detectives worked on the boats every day and are responsible for the body recovery and death investigation. I had multiple comments from the outside agencies that the command post was organized, well run and had the best food of anywhere they had been.
On Jan. 13 the hard work of over a dozen agencies and hundreds of hours of searching, paid off when a Weber diver was able to recover the bodies. I had been briefing the families after each day’s operations and you have no idea how good it felt to make the call that we had recovered their loved ones.
I thank everyone involved who made this recovery possible. It wouldn’t have happened without everyone doing their part. I especially want to thank those volunteers from both counties search and rescue and scuba teams. They aren’t just volunteering their time; they miss work, or close their business, to help us. With monthly trainings and meetings and buying most of their own equipment, it costs them money to be a volunteer. We are blessed to live in an area filled with these type of volunteers. Those volunteers and great partnerships with the state and Weber County, made this recovery possible.
Despite best efforts, justice sometimes prevails
Writer's Block • Nelson Phillips • September 6, 2017
First District Court Judge Brandon Maynard issued a ruling last week that, at least in one specific case, righted a wrong that’s been long-enshrined in U.S. immigration law.
That wrong, which mandates the permanent deportation of legal resident aliens for specific felonies or crimes of “moral turpitude,” doesn’t allow for any discretion whatsoever from federal immigration judges. Circumstances of the cases can’t be taken into account. Family hardships can’t be taken into account. The rehabilitation and redemption of the defendants, many of whom have been here for decades, can’t be taken into account. The law as it stands is black and white, yes or no, leaving no room whatsoever for discretion or mercy.
Without mercy, can there truly be any real justice? And if judges can’t use at least some discretion in applying the law, why do we have judges in the first place? Zero tolerance equals zero humanity, zero common sense.
The saga of Wiltje (Wilfred) Kroeger, detailed in several stories in the News Journal over the past three months, brought these questions to the forefront in my mind, and in the minds of several others. Kroeger had immigrated to Brigham City from the Netherlands with his parents in the 80s. Arriving here when he was 10-years-old, he grew up in Brigham City, attended local schools, and was well known (and evidently well-liked) by his peers.
When Kroeger was in his early 20s, as is the case with too many other young people, he made the mistake of getting involved with drugs. In 1997 during that “dark period” in his life, on two occasions Kroeger gave away a small portion of his personal stash to someone who had asked him for it. Unknown to him at the time, that person had been working with the police, and Kroeger was arrested and charged with two second-degree felony counts of distribution. A plea bargain was struck with prosecutor Jon Bunderson, and on the advice of his court-appointed lawyer, Kroeger pleaded guilty. He did his time in the Box Elder County Jail, being released early for good behavior. He faithfully completed three years of probation, paid his fines, and moved on with his life. He never again used drugs, and was never again in trouble with the law.
In the years that followed, Kroeger built a career with ABC Construction, a national company with job sites all over America. He worked his way up from being a laborer to becoming one of only 10 superintendents with that company. He married, and became a father of two girls. He bought a home, went to soccer games, and took family vacations.
It was returning home from one of those vacations, a 2015 family outing in Mexico, that started his world unraveling again. Because he was traveling on a Dutch passport, immigration officials at Salt Lake International Airport ran a background check when he re-entered the country. The two distribution convictions turned up, and Kroeger was detained. After several hearings he was eventually ordered to leave the country no later than Aug. 25 by Judge David Anderson, one of the Salt Lake District immigration judges for the U.S. Department of Justice. Anderson had no choice as the convictions were on record, and he had no discretion.
Kroeger said he was not aware of the immigration consequences of taking the plea deal twenty years earlier, nor had his lawyer at the time made him aware.
As I was covering the story, every single person I spoke with, from County Attorney Steve Hadfield to regular people on the street, thought that Kroeger’s imminent deportation was a travesty. Thousands of people signed a petition, both online and on paper, asking Hadfield to reduce the original charges so that Kroeger could stay. Hadfield said his office couldn’t make the charges go away, because they had happened, but agreed he would help in any way he could without misrepresenting the facts or compromising the integrity of his office.
One day before Kroeger was scheduled to leave, First District Court Judge Brandon Maynard granted a motion by Kroeger attorney Adam Crayk to vacate Kroeger’s convictions on the grounds that he had “ineffective counsel” at the original trial. Judge Maynard cited a 2017 Supreme Court precedent for his decision, Lee vs. United States, which held that a defendant must be made aware of any immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
True to his word, in court Hadfield did not actively oppose the motion, in my opinion giving Kroeger’s team tacit support to fight something he had earlier called an “injustice.” It should also be noted that, according to Kroeger, Maynard himself researched and found the precedent he relied upon to vacate Kroeger’s conviction.
When we released the news that Kroeger would get to stay in Brigham City on the News Journal’s Facebook page, we soon had thousands of hits on the story, just under 29,000 as of this writing, with hundreds of people leaving comments. Not a single one was negative. Justice had prevailed, forgiveness and redemption had ruled the day. Kroeger, his family and friends were elated, as was a sizable chunk of Box Elder County.
Although I was personally happy to see a positive resolution to the problem facing this local family, as was everyone else in our newsroom, I couldn’t help but wonder about the other people in similar situations whose stories haven’t turned out so well.
Just recently in July, Plain City residents Bill and Suzanne Whitlock, owners of Roylie’s Cafe, were sent back to England over a technical mistake on their visa application. In August West Valley City resident Aufanua Manusina, a husband and father of four children, was deported back to Samoa over a misdemeanor charge from 2007. There are countless other stories of lives being turned upside down, and families being separated, because our immigration laws seem to value cold mechanical technicalities over people.
In America, we want good, honest, hardworking people to stay and help make our communities better places. Yes, we believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that laws need to be just, and their application tempered with mercy and compassion for those who deserve it. The land of someone’s birth should make no difference in that, whether it be Utah, Great Britain, Samoa, the Netherlands or Mexico.
Immigration judges, and all judges, really, need to be able to use discretion when deciding on cases that can rip apart families. It’s time the Congress of the United States reformed the law, giving them that power.
First District Court Judge Brandon Maynard issued a ruling last week that, at least in one specific case, righted a wrong that’s been long-enshrined in U.S. immigration law.
That wrong, which mandates the permanent deportation of legal resident aliens for specific felonies or crimes of “moral turpitude,” doesn’t allow for any discretion whatsoever from federal immigration judges. Circumstances of the cases can’t be taken into account. Family hardships can’t be taken into account. The rehabilitation and redemption of the defendants, many of whom have been here for decades, can’t be taken into account. The law as it stands is black and white, yes or no, leaving no room whatsoever for discretion or mercy.
Without mercy, can there truly be any real justice? And if judges can’t use at least some discretion in applying the law, why do we have judges in the first place? Zero tolerance equals zero humanity, zero common sense.
The saga of Wiltje (Wilfred) Kroeger, detailed in several stories in the News Journal over the past three months, brought these questions to the forefront in my mind, and in the minds of several others. Kroeger had immigrated to Brigham City from the Netherlands with his parents in the 80s. Arriving here when he was 10-years-old, he grew up in Brigham City, attended local schools, and was well known (and evidently well-liked) by his peers.
When Kroeger was in his early 20s, as is the case with too many other young people, he made the mistake of getting involved with drugs. In 1997 during that “dark period” in his life, on two occasions Kroeger gave away a small portion of his personal stash to someone who had asked him for it. Unknown to him at the time, that person had been working with the police, and Kroeger was arrested and charged with two second-degree felony counts of distribution. A plea bargain was struck with prosecutor Jon Bunderson, and on the advice of his court-appointed lawyer, Kroeger pleaded guilty. He did his time in the Box Elder County Jail, being released early for good behavior. He faithfully completed three years of probation, paid his fines, and moved on with his life. He never again used drugs, and was never again in trouble with the law.
In the years that followed, Kroeger built a career with ABC Construction, a national company with job sites all over America. He worked his way up from being a laborer to becoming one of only 10 superintendents with that company. He married, and became a father of two girls. He bought a home, went to soccer games, and took family vacations.
It was returning home from one of those vacations, a 2015 family outing in Mexico, that started his world unraveling again. Because he was traveling on a Dutch passport, immigration officials at Salt Lake International Airport ran a background check when he re-entered the country. The two distribution convictions turned up, and Kroeger was detained. After several hearings he was eventually ordered to leave the country no later than Aug. 25 by Judge David Anderson, one of the Salt Lake District immigration judges for the U.S. Department of Justice. Anderson had no choice as the convictions were on record, and he had no discretion.
Kroeger said he was not aware of the immigration consequences of taking the plea deal twenty years earlier, nor had his lawyer at the time made him aware.
As I was covering the story, every single person I spoke with, from County Attorney Steve Hadfield to regular people on the street, thought that Kroeger’s imminent deportation was a travesty. Thousands of people signed a petition, both online and on paper, asking Hadfield to reduce the original charges so that Kroeger could stay. Hadfield said his office couldn’t make the charges go away, because they had happened, but agreed he would help in any way he could without misrepresenting the facts or compromising the integrity of his office.
One day before Kroeger was scheduled to leave, First District Court Judge Brandon Maynard granted a motion by Kroeger attorney Adam Crayk to vacate Kroeger’s convictions on the grounds that he had “ineffective counsel” at the original trial. Judge Maynard cited a 2017 Supreme Court precedent for his decision, Lee vs. United States, which held that a defendant must be made aware of any immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
True to his word, in court Hadfield did not actively oppose the motion, in my opinion giving Kroeger’s team tacit support to fight something he had earlier called an “injustice.” It should also be noted that, according to Kroeger, Maynard himself researched and found the precedent he relied upon to vacate Kroeger’s conviction.
When we released the news that Kroeger would get to stay in Brigham City on the News Journal’s Facebook page, we soon had thousands of hits on the story, just under 29,000 as of this writing, with hundreds of people leaving comments. Not a single one was negative. Justice had prevailed, forgiveness and redemption had ruled the day. Kroeger, his family and friends were elated, as was a sizable chunk of Box Elder County.
Although I was personally happy to see a positive resolution to the problem facing this local family, as was everyone else in our newsroom, I couldn’t help but wonder about the other people in similar situations whose stories haven’t turned out so well.
Just recently in July, Plain City residents Bill and Suzanne Whitlock, owners of Roylie’s Cafe, were sent back to England over a technical mistake on their visa application. In August West Valley City resident Aufanua Manusina, a husband and father of four children, was deported back to Samoa over a misdemeanor charge from 2007. There are countless other stories of lives being turned upside down, and families being separated, because our immigration laws seem to value cold mechanical technicalities over people.
In America, we want good, honest, hardworking people to stay and help make our communities better places. Yes, we believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that laws need to be just, and their application tempered with mercy and compassion for those who deserve it. The land of someone’s birth should make no difference in that, whether it be Utah, Great Britain, Samoa, the Netherlands or Mexico.
Immigration judges, and all judges, really, need to be able to use discretion when deciding on cases that can rip apart families. It’s time the Congress of the United States reformed the law, giving them that power.
The only way politicians can truly represent ‘the people’
From the Desk of the Editor • August 9, 2017
The election year is in full swing, with a meet the candidates event last week in Brigham City for a hotly-contested mayoral race, and primary elections just around the corner for many municipalities.
To be honest, covering politics is not my favorite thing. I understand its importance to our system of government, and that the people’s power almost completely resides in their ability to cast a ballot and elect someone they think will best represent them and do what’s right for their communities.
That brings me to the real point of this: Politicians, for the love of all that’s good and right in this world, please—no, PLEASE!—stop saying that you are running to represent “the people” as though all citizens agree on every one of your platform planks.
Because, as any election will show, “the people” is a diverse group that encompasses myriad philosophies, priorities, hopes, and needs. If that wasn’t the case, if “the people” was a single group lock-step in their thinking, elections would always be decided by landslide victories for that candidate who truly represents “the people.”
For example, some of “the people” believe that the proper role of government is whatever we, “the people,” decide it should be, while others may believe that the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits government from involving itself with certain things. Some of “the people” believe that taxes should only be used for very specific public needs, while others believe that—within reason—“the people” can decide to put some of that money to projects or amenities that will benefit the community at large, even if it’s not necessarily every single citizen.
There are always going to be competing philosophies, needs and beliefs in a diverse society, and so, rather than saying “the people,” those running for office should let us know which of “the people” they are going to represent.
Is it Tea Party extremists for whom obstructionism is the standard operating procedure, or is it liberal progressives who have never seen a community project they didn’t like and think was worth almost any increase in taxes? Is it the poor, or those on fixed incomes, for whom any increase in taxes would create very real and significant issues? Is it business interests and those who would benefit from economic development projects?
For my money, I will unfailingly bet on any candidate who understands that “the people” represents a diverse group of competing interests, and that the job of government is to find solutions to issues that best meets everyone’s needs. For those who may have put this particular word in their personal dictionary of “Swears and Other Vulgar Terms,” it’s called “compromise,” and nothing will ever get done without it.
The problem with compromise is that no one is ever really happy; that’s the very nature of it. In journalism, there’s a well-known idea that any reporter has done his job right when neither side of a story is happy. It generally indicates objectivity and fairness to both sides, which is usually seen as a personal attack to anyone passionate about their agenda. Similarly, I feel a successful elected official will always feel some measure of “damned if I do, damned if I don’t,” or being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I also think citizens try to be respectful toward those elected officials who try to represent “the people” by finding solutions in the highly elusive middle ground, regardless of how they may feel about the ultimate outcome.
Now, I’m not generally a person to identify a problem without offering some type of solution, so I have a sentence that citizens can practice and file away for use whenever discussing any issue with any elected official:
“I don’t like the way [insert issue, project, etc., here] turned out, but I understand that you did your best to find compromise between the competing needs of a diverse community. Thank you, for that.”
Hopefully, we can begin to realize that despite our differing views, we’re all in this together, and recognize that as long as our elected officials deliberate carefully on issues, seek compromise and make fairness and equal treatment as important as any other consideration, they are doing their best to represent “the people.”
And yes, I do mean all of us.
To be honest, covering politics is not my favorite thing. I understand its importance to our system of government, and that the people’s power almost completely resides in their ability to cast a ballot and elect someone they think will best represent them and do what’s right for their communities.
That brings me to the real point of this: Politicians, for the love of all that’s good and right in this world, please—no, PLEASE!—stop saying that you are running to represent “the people” as though all citizens agree on every one of your platform planks.
Because, as any election will show, “the people” is a diverse group that encompasses myriad philosophies, priorities, hopes, and needs. If that wasn’t the case, if “the people” was a single group lock-step in their thinking, elections would always be decided by landslide victories for that candidate who truly represents “the people.”
For example, some of “the people” believe that the proper role of government is whatever we, “the people,” decide it should be, while others may believe that the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits government from involving itself with certain things. Some of “the people” believe that taxes should only be used for very specific public needs, while others believe that—within reason—“the people” can decide to put some of that money to projects or amenities that will benefit the community at large, even if it’s not necessarily every single citizen.
There are always going to be competing philosophies, needs and beliefs in a diverse society, and so, rather than saying “the people,” those running for office should let us know which of “the people” they are going to represent.
Is it Tea Party extremists for whom obstructionism is the standard operating procedure, or is it liberal progressives who have never seen a community project they didn’t like and think was worth almost any increase in taxes? Is it the poor, or those on fixed incomes, for whom any increase in taxes would create very real and significant issues? Is it business interests and those who would benefit from economic development projects?
For my money, I will unfailingly bet on any candidate who understands that “the people” represents a diverse group of competing interests, and that the job of government is to find solutions to issues that best meets everyone’s needs. For those who may have put this particular word in their personal dictionary of “Swears and Other Vulgar Terms,” it’s called “compromise,” and nothing will ever get done without it.
The problem with compromise is that no one is ever really happy; that’s the very nature of it. In journalism, there’s a well-known idea that any reporter has done his job right when neither side of a story is happy. It generally indicates objectivity and fairness to both sides, which is usually seen as a personal attack to anyone passionate about their agenda. Similarly, I feel a successful elected official will always feel some measure of “damned if I do, damned if I don’t,” or being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I also think citizens try to be respectful toward those elected officials who try to represent “the people” by finding solutions in the highly elusive middle ground, regardless of how they may feel about the ultimate outcome.
Now, I’m not generally a person to identify a problem without offering some type of solution, so I have a sentence that citizens can practice and file away for use whenever discussing any issue with any elected official:
“I don’t like the way [insert issue, project, etc., here] turned out, but I understand that you did your best to find compromise between the competing needs of a diverse community. Thank you, for that.”
Hopefully, we can begin to realize that despite our differing views, we’re all in this together, and recognize that as long as our elected officials deliberate carefully on issues, seek compromise and make fairness and equal treatment as important as any other consideration, they are doing their best to represent “the people.”
And yes, I do mean all of us.
Feeling uninformed? The local newspaper is just what the doctor ordered
Our Perspective • August 9, 2017
Over the past couple of years, as different proposals and projects have created controversy within Brigham City, we’ve become increasingly concerned with the number of times we’ve heard residents complain “I’ve never heard about this,” when the buzz about an issue got loud enough that no one could ignore it.
Even at a recent Meet the Candidates event in Brigham City, several hopefuls for elected office expressed similar refrains about the city’s lack of communication, or inability to get in front of an issue.
To anyone who might feel that way, all we can say is: Read your local newspaper.
As early as July of last year, the News Journal had a front page story on the city’s discussion about a location for the splash pad. Prior to that, the paper published numerous smaller stories, or photos, related to fundraising efforts for the project by the city’s Rotary Club, dating back to at least November of 2015.
Another controversial issue was the proposed general obligation bond for a recreation and senior center and to complete the city’s sports complex. Things didn’t really get heated until late summer or early fall on that issue—the time the buzz became too loud to ignore—but the News Journal had published a front page story on the issue in April of 2016, following the first city council meeting where the subject was addressed.
Granted, the stories that grace the pages of the News Journal are not as intriguing as those that might be found in larger circulation dailies, or on the web pages of national or international media outlets. We understand that our brand of no-nonsense, just-the-facts, “he said, she said,” style of reporting may not engage those looking for a more nuanced—or biased—brand of journalism. We understand that slogging through a story about approving a bond for an electrical substation, or the county’s annual audit, is about as much fun as sitting through the meeting so we can report on it.
But we also understand that it’s important. Inside the walls of a city council chamber or county commission meeting is where the rubber meets the road for local citizens, and we will be there. We report what happens, so you can attend to your own life, yet still be aware of what’s going on in your local governments and communities; to give you the essential information so you can decide for yourself whether or not an issue is important enough to you to get involved.
While major news outlets might take a look at Box Elder County when something major happens, such as a sensational fatal accident or political scandal, there’s only one place to get news every week that is strictly focused on where you live: The Box Elder News Journal.
We are working every week to improve what we do and how we do it—including recently updating our website for better functionality and one that’s accessible with mobile devices—to make sure residents can get the information they need when it’s best for them.
We take pride in our constitutionally-protected duty to keep the public informed about their government, and do so in an unbiased way that considers all sides of a story, and will strive continually to be a consistent, reliable source for the information you need.
Even at a recent Meet the Candidates event in Brigham City, several hopefuls for elected office expressed similar refrains about the city’s lack of communication, or inability to get in front of an issue.
To anyone who might feel that way, all we can say is: Read your local newspaper.
As early as July of last year, the News Journal had a front page story on the city’s discussion about a location for the splash pad. Prior to that, the paper published numerous smaller stories, or photos, related to fundraising efforts for the project by the city’s Rotary Club, dating back to at least November of 2015.
Another controversial issue was the proposed general obligation bond for a recreation and senior center and to complete the city’s sports complex. Things didn’t really get heated until late summer or early fall on that issue—the time the buzz became too loud to ignore—but the News Journal had published a front page story on the issue in April of 2016, following the first city council meeting where the subject was addressed.
Granted, the stories that grace the pages of the News Journal are not as intriguing as those that might be found in larger circulation dailies, or on the web pages of national or international media outlets. We understand that our brand of no-nonsense, just-the-facts, “he said, she said,” style of reporting may not engage those looking for a more nuanced—or biased—brand of journalism. We understand that slogging through a story about approving a bond for an electrical substation, or the county’s annual audit, is about as much fun as sitting through the meeting so we can report on it.
But we also understand that it’s important. Inside the walls of a city council chamber or county commission meeting is where the rubber meets the road for local citizens, and we will be there. We report what happens, so you can attend to your own life, yet still be aware of what’s going on in your local governments and communities; to give you the essential information so you can decide for yourself whether or not an issue is important enough to you to get involved.
While major news outlets might take a look at Box Elder County when something major happens, such as a sensational fatal accident or political scandal, there’s only one place to get news every week that is strictly focused on where you live: The Box Elder News Journal.
We are working every week to improve what we do and how we do it—including recently updating our website for better functionality and one that’s accessible with mobile devices—to make sure residents can get the information they need when it’s best for them.
We take pride in our constitutionally-protected duty to keep the public informed about their government, and do so in an unbiased way that considers all sides of a story, and will strive continually to be a consistent, reliable source for the information you need.
Splash pad is example of community involvement that provides world-class quality of life
Our Perspective • June 14, 2017
Soon, the Brigham City Council will decide the fate of an embattled and beleaguered proposal to build a splash pad within the city.
Somehow, the issue has become contentious, with some speaking loudly against the frivolous use of taxpayer money for such an amenity, while others continue to debate the location, preferring one city park over another. Those discussions have, for the largest part, remained civil, however, it’s difficult to understand why there is any debate at all beyond the city council deciding whether or not to spend surplus city funds to complete the project.
We feel the council’s decision was informally made when in July of last year, councilmembers pushed for a more elaborate facility than the simple concrete slab and fountains that the Brigham City Rotary Club envisioned.
The Brigham City Rotary Club began fundraising efforts to build a splash pad a couple of years ago. The plan at the time was that Rotary would provide all the funds necessary for a splash pad, which at that point was basic, and have the city provide the space and cover costs to run utilities and maintain it. However, in the meeting in July 2016, councilmember Tom Peterson was quoted as saying, “We’ve been around to a lot of these splash pads. “I’ve been to Tremonton’s, and we won’t be going back to Tremonton’s.” There was a discussion about what the difference in cost might be between the proposed bare bones version, and something with above-ground water features.
At some point the city council decided to look at funding a more elaborate splash pad, and the 2017-2018 budget proposal from Mayor Tyler Vincent includes money for the splash pad to the tune of $156,000. Of that, $70,000 is the contribution from the Rotary Club, leaving the city to cover $86,000 to construct the facility. The $86,000 will be drawn from the city’s general fund overrun, which has to be drawn down in order to comply with state law.
Debate has gone on in some circles regarding what is perceived as an addition to the project. The mayor’s budget proposal included an individual line item that would fund construction of bathroom facilities and a bowery at Playground Park, the preferred location for the splash pad based on analysis of all the city’s parks by a task force established to identify the best location for the facility. The park has neither a bathroom or bowery, and the mayor’s budget includes $140,000 to build those.
This perceived additional cost to the splash pad project has led to a debate about location, with some people identifying Constitution Park as a better choice since it already has bathroom facilities and a bowery, and could therefore eliminate the need for those items from the project cost.
Based on information from the city we don’t believe a discussion about bathrooms or boweries belongs in the same discussion with the splash pad.
First of all, city officials say that regardless of whether or not Playground park gets a splash pad, it is open, public park with amenities and needs bathroom facilities (it is the city’s only park without bathrooms). We agree with that and that those facilities should be considered a normal capital project that would be built no matter what, officials say, and should not be associated with the splash pad. The $90,000 for the bathrooms will be funded through the city’s general fund overrun.
The bowery at Playground Park was only budgeted due to a promised contribution from an anonymous donor. If the donation doesn’t materialize, neither will the bowery at Playground Park.
However, since taxpayer money will fund costs for the splash pad beyond what Rotary Club has raised, we believe that the city should only consider the location that will save the most taxpayer money, and that location is, unequivocally, Playground Park.
According to Brigham City Public Works, the city would have to run 90 feet of utilities to the splash pad at Playground Park, versus approximately 450 feet—five times longer—at Constitution Park. In addition to the cost associated with putting the utilities in, is the cost of fixing roads, parking lots, or lawn that will have to be dug up to run the utilities, all of which will cost five times as much at Constitution Park than at Playground Park.
We understand the principles and philosophy of those opposed to spending any taxpayer money on projects such as the splash pad, and, generally, we advocate for fiscal responsibility that will save taxpayers every possible dime.
However, this city has a legacy of private contributions creating facilities that benefit numerous segments of our population, and generally makes quality of life in Brigham City top-notch. Certainly, without that legacy, this city would not have an extensive system of parks, a skate park, or pickleball courts. The courts are drawing praise from across the nation and hosting numerous tournaments that inject our community with tourism money.
We feel it would be an affront to all those projects that started with citizen initiative—and now which benefit Brigham City generally—to not offer the same consideration to the splash pad project and support its construction using the city’s general fund surplus.
Academy Center: Look for solutions to financial losses, not scapegoats
Guest Perspective • David Walker• May 24, 2017
Financial losses reported at the Academy Conference Center in last week’s edition of the Box Elder News Journal were disappointing and will likely generate some public lamentation. We should be concerned, but we should also look carefully for solutions, rather than scapegoats.
Convention center profitability studies are numerous, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the travel industry and it’s easy to get lost in statistics. I like a summation by Mary Bujold at Maxfield & Associates who said “weighing all the pros and cons—economically and otherwise—is much more complicated than cities typically undertake, and much of it cannot be easily boiled down to dollar terms.”
Miscalculations in renovation costs, the appropriateness of public involvement, moral hazards included in the management contract, and operational deficiencies are all legitimate beefs (and ones we’ve heard about in one form or another); but, miss the point. The Academy Conference Center is unprofitable because it is underutilized. Improving utilization is going to take a community effort, and that begins with each of us.
The Academy Conference Center is a beautiful facility, infused with light, tastefully decorated, and versatile. Its history has shaped much of our community’s story. It was worth preserving and it is worthy of using.
The next time you leave Brigham City for an evening of entertainment, book a meeting in another facility, plan a conference in another destination, or use the “free space” at your local church, consider how your choice might make a difference in next year’s annual report.
Historic Downtown Brigham City commits significant resources to promote this amazing venue. We believe it holds great promise for Main Street and our community. A spectacular example is the annual Academy Center Art Show, held this weekend, where the region’s best fine artists will display their works.
Admission is free, so come see what the Academy Conference Center has to offer. You won’t be disappointed.
Convention center profitability studies are numerous, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the travel industry and it’s easy to get lost in statistics. I like a summation by Mary Bujold at Maxfield & Associates who said “weighing all the pros and cons—economically and otherwise—is much more complicated than cities typically undertake, and much of it cannot be easily boiled down to dollar terms.”
Miscalculations in renovation costs, the appropriateness of public involvement, moral hazards included in the management contract, and operational deficiencies are all legitimate beefs (and ones we’ve heard about in one form or another); but, miss the point. The Academy Conference Center is unprofitable because it is underutilized. Improving utilization is going to take a community effort, and that begins with each of us.
The Academy Conference Center is a beautiful facility, infused with light, tastefully decorated, and versatile. Its history has shaped much of our community’s story. It was worth preserving and it is worthy of using.
The next time you leave Brigham City for an evening of entertainment, book a meeting in another facility, plan a conference in another destination, or use the “free space” at your local church, consider how your choice might make a difference in next year’s annual report.
Historic Downtown Brigham City commits significant resources to promote this amazing venue. We believe it holds great promise for Main Street and our community. A spectacular example is the annual Academy Center Art Show, held this weekend, where the region’s best fine artists will display their works.
Admission is free, so come see what the Academy Conference Center has to offer. You won’t be disappointed.