Part #1 of 2 below.
Just go to this link:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=electwright&aq=f
And you can see a list of all the videos below.
Noah Webster Debate
Two weeks ago in Orem I had the opportunity to debate my opponent
on several important issues facing Utah County. Many of the
questions brought out clear differences between us on important
subjects. These questions ranged from jobs to the Utah Lake Bridge
to the County spending $40 Million on a Convention Center in Provo.
I believe the responses show clear differences to our priorities and
values.
Below you will find a summary of the responses and a link to watch
the full video for yourself on You Tube. Half of the debate will be in
this email and you will get the other half tomorrow.
Opening Statements
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGZhBT8Ok-A
Summary of Joel Wright's statements:
--We need to get more people involved
--This is a Debate on issues
--We have fundamental disagreements on certain issues
--Are we doing well enough right now? Or can we do better?
--My Experience
+Helped get a sales tax base into Cedar Hills while
on the City Council by removing obstacles to
economic development
--Proper role of Government is to remove obstacles to
Economic Development
--What got me interested in County was the roads that need County
Leadership and it’s not there
Summary of Gary Anderson's statements:
--Lives in Springville
--Ran for County Commission first in 1983
+I was elected to 2 terms then
--4 years ago approached to run for Commission
--Now we have a lot of road projects like I-15 going
Please set forward the top 5 long term problems facing
Utah County now, and discuss your proposed solution
for the biggest problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I2BXJmok4I
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--Live within your means
--I think Utah County can do a lot better with living within our means
--Must pay attention to new crimes
+Investment fraud gone from 30 million-104 million a year from
2006 to 2009
>It’s undermining our economy and getting worse
+Prescription Drug Abuse
>We need to be engaged
+Child Sex Abuse
>We need to give the Sheriff the resources to
combat this serious crime
--Transportation
+Government’s role is transportation
+We are at mercy of State & Federal Government
for roads
+I will push the State to give us the control and let
us keep our money here in Utah County
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
--Number 1 issue is Economy
--Bring good jobs
--Next is Economic Development
--Crime is a problem but we disagree with what is the biggest
problems
--Senior Citizen issues are problems
--Transportation
+Done a lot for this
Recently Utah County borrowed 40 million dollars to
build a convention center in Provo do you think this was
a wise use of taxpayer dollars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEke_ERefes
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--There are some serious concerns
--Decision is made and we have to make it successful though
--Must analyze decision making process
--Why did Utah County put in 40M but Provo around 7M?
--Started out purely Provo project and they get most benefits, why
County now?
--Pleasant Grove has plans for a convention center that could have
been built with private funds
--If they fixed stink at Sewer plant we could potentially get a
convention center built by private sector in Pleasant Grove
--Restaurant sales tax is paying for the Convention center and
residents of Utah County pay 80% of the restaurant tax, tourists
only pay 20%
--We are paying for the Convention center
--Opponent looks at Govt sector first, while I will remove obstacles
to private growth
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
--Happened a long time ago I can’t take credit for it
--People came to Utah County saying we need a Convention center
--Nobody else would build it
--By law only County can build Convention Center
--Claims only TRT room taxes pay for the Convention Center and
then rental car fees if we need it from Rental Car & Restaurant
Taxes
--We said we have this much money what are you going to give us
to designers
--The Convention Center in Pleasant Grove “isn’t happening”
Where do you see your role in Economic Development as
a County Commissioner?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBLNN2wu_5I
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
--“I think Utah County and State and govt in general has a few core
jobs and one of them is to make sure your people are working,
make sure we have good jobs in this county”
--Govt needs to compete with other states and provide incentives to
lure people in
--We said to Microsoft if you come in we will give you a tax break
--Brought in 7 companies,
--Claims nothing was happening 4 years ago, we are now in EDCU
under his watch
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--This is a critical difference between us
--Government's job is to remove obstacles to Economic Development,
keep taxes low (instead they’ve been going up), fight crime and
build infrastructure
--Tax breaks and incentives - doesn’t work long term
--Unemployment rate has grown in last 4 years, Govt isn’t responsible
for jobs, but if they are, they have done a dismal job
--We should stay in EDCU Utah
--None of the companies identified on opponent's flyer would say
opponent had anything to do with them coming
--EDCU has been in place for us since before my opponen came into
office and we should stay with them
--My job will be to remove the obstacles and let you create the jobs
and the innovation not government
On the topic of Econ Dev what can the county do about
the sewer treatment smell in the PG area?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD_epUc1WAU
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
--Joel said that Commission is responsible but its independent but we
could get rid of the district and take it back over
--I’ve never smelled it but I believe them
--Problem is composting
--My stand is this, we have a new system coming in, in June or July,
until then compost should be moved off site, when done move it
back and try again, if that doesn’t work we take drastic measures
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--I agree the problem has to be solved
--There was a window to solve this earlier but we didn’t get it done
earlier, County failed at leadership
--Utah County is changing we were rural but we are rapidly becoming
urban
--Competing Property Rights is becoming a big issue
--Govt should define property rights and say who needs to take care
of what
--The independent district isn’t fair or proportionate to users or
effects, Cedar Hills with 10,000 people shouldn’t have same vote
as Pleasant Grove with triple that amount and the smell
The two of you have conflicted on whether the County has
raised taxes recently, will you please explain your position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdx4R-5DGk
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
-Shows chart
--Tax rate went up about 8% in 2008-2009 but its set by state, but we
still collect the same amount of taxes
--Talked about his and Joel’s tax payments for their homes
--Talks about Joel has nice house and he has a picture of it here
--Says he pays less now
--We needed to be made whole
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--We disagree
--Gary and I are privileged people in nice homes that have gone down
in value in last few years
--If you have home that is 200k or less you are paying more, property
taxes are a regressive tax
-- “We have shifted [property] tax from rich attorneys to hard
working school teachers and other working [people] of the
county”
--Ut Co has grown dramatically in last few years 68% more
expenditures since 2003, population growth only 29%
--Anderson amended the budget up by 7% in 2007, then another 14%
in 2008
--Anderson increased salary from 94k to 104 K in 2008 the same year
he raised property tax rate
+I will not vote for a budget with that commission salary
increase
--Anderson also voted to increase the sales tax by largest increase
ever not approved by vote
--Anderson wants government to be made whole, and doesn’t care
what’s happening with the people
--On property tax we can have honest debate, on sales tax there is no
debate he raised the tax
--Anderson thinks govt can solve problems, and get you a job with
taxpayer money
--It’s not commission’s job toget you a job, government's job is to
remove obstacles
What is the total county budget and how much of that
money is from Fed govt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjbzdgYK4U4
Summary of Joel Wright's answer:
--Total budget is about 80M but I don’t know percentage of Fed
money in there, I admit I don’t know everything
--This is a frustrating issue when Fed govt takes money from us and
offers to give it back if we do it their way
--State govt often does the same, and so does the County to our cities
--We need to press down decisions and money to lowest level to local
officials
--I came through a small city that got hit with mandates too often
--We should get as much of this money back as we can
Summary of Gary Anderson's answer:
--We didn’t increase budget 50%
--We get 22% from Fed Govt
--I am happy to get these monies from Fed government it is good
--We don’t want one time stimulus money
--Those guys are way out of line
--Haven’t had to raise taxes everything we’ve done without raising
taxes
As you can see we have very different views on these issues. I look
forward to talking with you more about the issues that affect Utah
County.
You are always welcome to call me on my
cell phone at 801-368-5385.
As always, I also ask for your vote April 24th at the
Utah County Convention!
Warm Regards,
Joel Wright
Joel Wright
p.s. Please always feel free to call me or email me questions or
concerns, I will always be engaged and look forward to earning
your vote!
Showing posts with label gary anderson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gary anderson. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Response to Linda Houskeeper, and a Challenge to Gary Anderson
Since one of Gary Anderson’s campaign supporters, Linda Houskeeper, made a series of baseless attacks on our campaign last Tuesday, we have been hoping that Gary Anderson would publicly distance himself from the actions of one of his supporters. Since he has not yet done so, we feel obligated to defend ourselves from these baseless charges, and challenge Gary Anderson to refuse to participate in any more Meet the Candidate events sponsored by Linda Houskeeper unless all county candidates are invited to attend, which is what the overwhelming majority of the county delegates would prefer.
Campaign Tactics used by Linda Houskeeper and Sandi Hoffman, supporters of Gary Anderson
Facts:
1. Linda Houskeeper is currently a Republican candidate for Utah County Commissioner Seat B, and Sandi Hoffman is a county employee.
2. Both Ms. Houskeeper and Ms. Hoffman are supporters of Gary Anderson for Utah County Commissioner Seat A, and are doing everything they can to help Gary win a fourth term as County Commissioner against Joel Wright.
3. Ms. Houskeeper scheduled a number of Meet & Mingle events that were advertised to the county delegates as being held for all county candidates with all county delegates invited. The emails advertising these events did not disclose they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901. The sign at the door of each Meet & Mingle event stated “Utah County Republican Party – Meet and Mingle – Utah County Office Candidates” – and did not clarify they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events. This gave most, if not all, county delegates the false impression that the Utah County Republican Party was sponsoring these events, instead of being sponsored by the candidate Linda Houskeeper.
4. At the Meet & Mingle scheduled by Ms. Houskeeper on Tuesday, April 6th, Ms. Hoffman came over to Mr. Wright’s table and repeatedly interrupted a conversation Mr. Wright was having with a delegate who was complaining about the difficulties he encounters in filing personal property taxes. Ms. Hoffman told the delegate that she makes such filings all the time and they are easy to do.
5. Mr. Wright then asked Ms. Hoffman to stop interrupting their conversation because he wanted to hear from the delegate.
6. Ms. Hoffman then raised her voice and called Mr. Wright a “liar” because “everyone knew Mr. Wright had promised to cut the salaries of county employees if elected, and now he was saying something different.”
7. Mr. Wright told Ms. Hoffman that he would indeed likely propose a cut to the salaries of county employees if the economy got worse and the tax revenue continued to decline, and would make no promises either way.
8. Ms. Hoffman called Mr. Wright a liar again, and then Mr. Wright’s campaign manager intervened and asked her why she was doing this. They spoke for a short while, and Ms. Hoffman then left, and she was not crying at any point. Mr. Wright’s campaign believes Ms. Hoffman has no grounds for her claim that “I have never been so publicly humiliated in my whole life.”
9. Mr. Wright never used any personal attacks or disparaging comments in his conversation with Ms. Hoffman. In contrast, Ms. Hoffman called Joel Wright a liar.
10. After this incident, Ms. Houskeeper asked Joel Wright about it, and Joel Wright discussed the event extensively with her on several occasions along with at least one witness of the event. Ms. Houskeeper then decided to “uninvite” Joel Wright from attending all future Meet & Mingle events based on this incident.
11. Ms. Houskeeper has also “uninvited” Jeff Buhman, the only Republican candidate for County Attorney, from attending her Meet & Mingle events, because she also dislikes him for reasons we do not understand, but we believe to be without merit.
12. Ms. Houskeeper continued to promote her Meet & Mingle events as open to all County Candidates, despite the fact she had uninvited both Joel Wright and County Attorney Jeff Buhman.
13. Joel Wright’s campaign then did their homework, and learned there are a number of restrictions on public buildings holding campaign events. Our campaign shared this research with the public charter school in Salem, and they concluded that their tax exempt status could be revoked if they held a campaign event that favored one candidate over another (see applicable IRS guidance here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), and they also learned that their insurance through the State of Utah would not cover any campaign event because the taxpayers would then be subsidizing a political campaign. The school then informed Ms. Houskeeper of these facts.
14. Ms. Houskeeper’s response to these facts provides tremendous insight into her true motives. When Ms. Houskeeper was informed that the public charter school in Salem could not host the Meet & Mingle unless all candidates were invited, Ms. Houskeeper sent Joel an email dated 9:58 AM on Tuesday, April 20, revoking her previous “uninvite” and re-inviting Joel Wright to attend the Meet & Mingle that night. In other words, if Ms. Houskeeper truly believed that the incident she cited above was a legitimate reason for “uninviting” Joel Wright from attending any future Meet & Mingle events, she immediately discarded that reason once it was not in her best interests. In other words, she did not “uninvite” Joel Wright on principle – she only uninvited Joel Wright because she thought it was in her best interests, and then immediately re-invited Mr. Wright once it was in her best interests to do so.
15. The public charter school in Salem then informed Joel Wright that because he had been invited, that they would go ahead and allow Ms. Houskeeper to hold her Meet & Mingle that night at their school, so long as Ms. Houskeeper could provide event insurance as they were required to do so by the State of Utah’s Division of Risk Management. (Call Morris Haggerty at the State of Utah at 801-538-956 to confirm the requirement that a public charter school may not use their insurance on a campaign event.)
16. Ms. Houskeeper failed to provide event insurance to the public charter school in Salem by that afternoon as required, so the public charter school cancelled the event.
17. Ms. Houskeeper then indirectly “uninvited” Joel Wright again to all the remaining Meet & Mingles on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 20, when she sent out an email to all county delegates stating I was “officially uninvited” from all the remaining events. Once again she violated the law by failing to disclose these were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901.
18. Ms. Houskeeper also accused Mr. Wright of using “legal tactics” to prevent her from hosting a Meet & Mingle the night of Tuesday, April 20 at the public charter school in Salem. Mr. Wright’s campaign respectfully disagrees, and believes that all elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the law, so candidates should respect all applicable laws, even when such laws are not convenient or in your favor.
Our Challenge to Gary Anderson:
Please make a public statement today that you will not attend any campaign events for multiple county candidates going forward unless ALL county candidates are invited, including Joel Wright and Jeff Buhman. And then please refuse to attend any such events unless you have solid proof that all county candidates have been invited. Note that Joel Wright promises you that he will not attend any campaign event for multiple county candidates unless you are invited on equal terms as well.
Note that Joel Wright’s campaign is not asking Gary Anderson to determine the truth of the facts above. We are simply asking him to comply with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the county delegates to allow all candidates to attend so they can decide for themselves who deserves their vote.
Campaign Tactics used by Linda Houskeeper and Sandi Hoffman, supporters of Gary Anderson
Facts:
1. Linda Houskeeper is currently a Republican candidate for Utah County Commissioner Seat B, and Sandi Hoffman is a county employee.
2. Both Ms. Houskeeper and Ms. Hoffman are supporters of Gary Anderson for Utah County Commissioner Seat A, and are doing everything they can to help Gary win a fourth term as County Commissioner against Joel Wright.
3. Ms. Houskeeper scheduled a number of Meet & Mingle events that were advertised to the county delegates as being held for all county candidates with all county delegates invited. The emails advertising these events did not disclose they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901. The sign at the door of each Meet & Mingle event stated “Utah County Republican Party – Meet and Mingle – Utah County Office Candidates” – and did not clarify they were Linda Houskeeper campaign events. This gave most, if not all, county delegates the false impression that the Utah County Republican Party was sponsoring these events, instead of being sponsored by the candidate Linda Houskeeper.
4. At the Meet & Mingle scheduled by Ms. Houskeeper on Tuesday, April 6th, Ms. Hoffman came over to Mr. Wright’s table and repeatedly interrupted a conversation Mr. Wright was having with a delegate who was complaining about the difficulties he encounters in filing personal property taxes. Ms. Hoffman told the delegate that she makes such filings all the time and they are easy to do.
5. Mr. Wright then asked Ms. Hoffman to stop interrupting their conversation because he wanted to hear from the delegate.
6. Ms. Hoffman then raised her voice and called Mr. Wright a “liar” because “everyone knew Mr. Wright had promised to cut the salaries of county employees if elected, and now he was saying something different.”
7. Mr. Wright told Ms. Hoffman that he would indeed likely propose a cut to the salaries of county employees if the economy got worse and the tax revenue continued to decline, and would make no promises either way.
8. Ms. Hoffman called Mr. Wright a liar again, and then Mr. Wright’s campaign manager intervened and asked her why she was doing this. They spoke for a short while, and Ms. Hoffman then left, and she was not crying at any point. Mr. Wright’s campaign believes Ms. Hoffman has no grounds for her claim that “I have never been so publicly humiliated in my whole life.”
9. Mr. Wright never used any personal attacks or disparaging comments in his conversation with Ms. Hoffman. In contrast, Ms. Hoffman called Joel Wright a liar.
10. After this incident, Ms. Houskeeper asked Joel Wright about it, and Joel Wright discussed the event extensively with her on several occasions along with at least one witness of the event. Ms. Houskeeper then decided to “uninvite” Joel Wright from attending all future Meet & Mingle events based on this incident.
11. Ms. Houskeeper has also “uninvited” Jeff Buhman, the only Republican candidate for County Attorney, from attending her Meet & Mingle events, because she also dislikes him for reasons we do not understand, but we believe to be without merit.
12. Ms. Houskeeper continued to promote her Meet & Mingle events as open to all County Candidates, despite the fact she had uninvited both Joel Wright and County Attorney Jeff Buhman.
13. Joel Wright’s campaign then did their homework, and learned there are a number of restrictions on public buildings holding campaign events. Our campaign shared this research with the public charter school in Salem, and they concluded that their tax exempt status could be revoked if they held a campaign event that favored one candidate over another (see applicable IRS guidance here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html), and they also learned that their insurance through the State of Utah would not cover any campaign event because the taxpayers would then be subsidizing a political campaign. The school then informed Ms. Houskeeper of these facts.
14. Ms. Houskeeper’s response to these facts provides tremendous insight into her true motives. When Ms. Houskeeper was informed that the public charter school in Salem could not host the Meet & Mingle unless all candidates were invited, Ms. Houskeeper sent Joel an email dated 9:58 AM on Tuesday, April 20, revoking her previous “uninvite” and re-inviting Joel Wright to attend the Meet & Mingle that night. In other words, if Ms. Houskeeper truly believed that the incident she cited above was a legitimate reason for “uninviting” Joel Wright from attending any future Meet & Mingle events, she immediately discarded that reason once it was not in her best interests. In other words, she did not “uninvite” Joel Wright on principle – she only uninvited Joel Wright because she thought it was in her best interests, and then immediately re-invited Mr. Wright once it was in her best interests to do so.
15. The public charter school in Salem then informed Joel Wright that because he had been invited, that they would go ahead and allow Ms. Houskeeper to hold her Meet & Mingle that night at their school, so long as Ms. Houskeeper could provide event insurance as they were required to do so by the State of Utah’s Division of Risk Management. (Call Morris Haggerty at the State of Utah at 801-538-956 to confirm the requirement that a public charter school may not use their insurance on a campaign event.)
16. Ms. Houskeeper failed to provide event insurance to the public charter school in Salem by that afternoon as required, so the public charter school cancelled the event.
17. Ms. Houskeeper then indirectly “uninvited” Joel Wright again to all the remaining Meet & Mingles on the afternoon of Tuesday, April 20, when she sent out an email to all county delegates stating I was “officially uninvited” from all the remaining events. Once again she violated the law by failing to disclose these were Linda Houskeeper campaign events, as required under Utah Code 20A-11-901.
18. Ms. Houskeeper also accused Mr. Wright of using “legal tactics” to prevent her from hosting a Meet & Mingle the night of Tuesday, April 20 at the public charter school in Salem. Mr. Wright’s campaign respectfully disagrees, and believes that all elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the law, so candidates should respect all applicable laws, even when such laws are not convenient or in your favor.
Our Challenge to Gary Anderson:
Please make a public statement today that you will not attend any campaign events for multiple county candidates going forward unless ALL county candidates are invited, including Joel Wright and Jeff Buhman. And then please refuse to attend any such events unless you have solid proof that all county candidates have been invited. Note that Joel Wright promises you that he will not attend any campaign event for multiple county candidates unless you are invited on equal terms as well.
Note that Joel Wright’s campaign is not asking Gary Anderson to determine the truth of the facts above. We are simply asking him to comply with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the county delegates to allow all candidates to attend so they can decide for themselves who deserves their vote.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Fiscal Facts on Utah County (4-9-10 email to county delegates)
I sent the email below to all County Delegates on the morning of Friday, April 9, 2010. It goes through and details the Fiscal Facts on Utah County, and explains my position in response to the claims from Gary Anderson. I have included Gary Anderson's email below for you to review because I want to earn the vote of delegates who have reviewed the claims, and verified the facts.
Dear County Delegate,
Wednesday you received an email from Gary Anderson with a number of claims about our campaign for Utah County Commissioner. I would like to take a few moments of your time to respond. You are always welcome to call me on my cell phone directly at 801-368-5385. I’ll first cover the fiscal facts that you can verify, address the claims in Commissioner Anderson’s email, and then make three promises to you that you will be able to verify if I run for re-election in four years.
FISCAL FACTS
1. Utah County’s expenditures have grown twice as fast as our population the last five years. Utah County’s expenditures have grown 68% in the last 5 years, from $51.04 million (in 2003) to $85.78 million (in 2008).[1] During that same time, Utah County’s population only grew 29.6%, from 409,000 to 530,000.[2]
2. Commissioner Anderson has supported these increases in the budget. Shortly after Commissioner Anderson was sworn in for his third term (2 terms in the late 80s previously) in, he approved amending the budget to increase it by 7% in 2007,[3] and then was the deciding vote (by 2 to 1) to approve a substantial 14% increase to the 2008 budget.[4] This rapid increase in spending led the Utah County Auditor to warn in 2008 that such expenditures would deplete the surplus (or general fund) and created a budget situation that “will not be sustainable in subsequent years without either new revenue sources or increased revenue from existing sources.”[5]
3. Commissioner Anderson voted to increase his salary by 10% in 2008. Commissioner Anderson was the deciding vote (by 2 to 1) to increase the salary of the Utah County Commissioners from $94,700 to $104,000 in June 2008.[6] In November 2009 I suggested this salary increase be rolled back to ease the burden on tax payers, and was rebuked by Commissioner Anderson.[7]
4. Commissioner Anderson voted for the largest combined sales tax increase in Utah County’s history that was not approved by the voters. In August 2007, Commissioner Anderson voted to increase the voter approved 0.25 percent sales tax for transportation (2006) by 20% up to .30 percent in 2007.[8] Further Commissioner Anderson voted in September of 2008 to further increase it by almost 100% more to .55 percent. [9] We certainly need transportation projects, but I believe any sales tax increase should be put before the voters so they can determine if it is justified.
5. Property Taxes Increased in 2008 and 2009: Utah County’s property taxes had stayed relatively modest and stable until 2008, when Utah County received a windfall due to the Utah State Tax Commission allowing a one time change in the assessing and collecting rate without going through the truth-in-taxation process, which resulted in the Utah County’s property tax revenue going from $25,430,082 to $30,299,437 from 2007 to 2008, or a 19% increase, in a single year.[10] It would have been responsible to either return this windfall to the taxpayers, or at least save it, but instead it was immediately spent on the growing budget. Because the surplus had been used up, Utah County then had to raise property tax rates by 8.5% in 2009[11] when our property values declined so Utah County could collect the same amount of revenue, even though it means they were now taking a larger percentage of your home’s value, or a bigger piece of the pie.
6. $40 million in new debt for the Convention Center in Provo: We can have honest disagreements on the Convention Center, including whether it is the proper role of government, why Utah County is paying $40 million for the Convention Center while Provo is only paying approximately $7 million, and whether the private sector would have built a convention center for our County in Pleasant Grove. But we cannot debate that the taxpayers of Utah County are paying for the Convention Center, because they clearly are. According to the Preliminary Offering Statement used to sell the Convention Center debt to investors, the annual debt service on the Convention Center will be paid as follows: 7% from the tax on hotel rooms, 11% from the tax on car rentals, and 82% by the one percent tax on restaurant food in Utah County.[12] While the tax on hotel rooms and car rentals are typically paid by visitors from out side our County (while also being paid by local businesses bringing in clients and employees), the tax on restaurant food in Utah County is paid overwhelmingly by the residents of Utah County, and most informed observers believe approximately 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by the residents of Utah County.[13] Bottom Line: While tourists and business will generate up to 40% of the revenue to cover the debt service on the Convention Center, the tax payers of Utah County will pay the most of the cost of the Convention Center. Furthermore, without the Convention Center’s debt service, the restaurant tax could have been decreased substantially, easing the tax burden on our residents.
CLAIMS FROM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
1. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants to expand the county commission to a council form of government or expand it to five commissioners.”
True? Partially. Our campaign wants to trust the voters to decide how best to govern Utah County. The current form of government (3 full time County Commissioners) has no checks and balances, has no regional representation, and is not based on the Constitution. If only two county commissioners would trust the voters, then the form of county government would be put on the ballot, and the voters could decide to consider a potential change. If the voters approved the change, then a study commission would be created to recommend a potential change to either a Mayor/County Council form (Salt Lake and Cache counties have done this), or a full time executive and part time county council (Grand, Morgan, Summit and Wasatch have done this) or five or seven full time county commissioners (no county has done this, but former Utah County Commissioner and current Governor Gary Herbert told me in February 2010 that he publicly supports increasing the full time Commissioners in Utah County from 3 to 5). Such recommendation would then be on the ballot, and the voters could accept or reject their recommendation. In other words, the voters would directly decide this issue, not the Utah County Commissioners. Finally, I believe the best choice would be a full time Mayor and five part time county council members, which would cost substantially LESS than the current form of three full time county commissioners. Right now, three full time county commissioners cost Utah County $312,000/year in salary, while a full time Mayor (at $104,000/year), and five part time county council members (at $20,000/year) would only cost Utah County $204,000/year.[14]
2. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants our county to take over jurisdiction from the State all of the roads in Utah County that do not cross county lines.”
True? Yes, but only on fair terms. I believe Utah County can more effectively govern its future if it controls the roads within Utah County that do not cross county lines. However, I would only accept the transfer of such roads to the extent the State allows us to keep the funding associated with such roads. As a former City Council member, I have seen the arrogance of our Federal Government, the State of Utah and even Utah County with a “one size fits all” approach on certain issues. As Dr. Skousen points out in the 5,000 Year Leap, one of the principles of the Founding Fathers was that “Problems were solved to the greatest possible extent on the level where they originated.”[15] In short, we should not be expecting citizens of another county to be funding Utah County's roads, nor should they expect us to fund their roads. To the greatest extent possible, where roads need repair, or where residents desire new roads, I believe we should be funding them ourselves rather than forcing others to help pay for them.
3. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants to give the County Attorney more funds to prosecute White-collar crime.”
True? Yes, absolutely. I believe investment fraud is at epidemic levels and is harming our economy far more than any form of “economic development” by the government can improve our economy. In 2009, the Utah County Attorney received claims of $104 million in investment fraud. When Commissioner Anderson assumed office in 2007, those claims were less than $20 million annually. Since 2000, the Utah County Attorney has received investment fraud claims totaling $432 million.[16] We need seasoned and experienced investigators and prosecutors to fight this relatively complicated form of crime that has done tremendous damage to our property values, and our community’s ability to remain solvent and self-sufficient. On October 24, 2009, County Attorney Buhman was quoted as follows: "The honest truth is we're barely scratching the surface [on investment fraud]. We could double or triple our department easily, and we would still be extremely busy."[17] However, I am unwilling to raise taxes to increase the resources devoted to investment fraud, but I will find savings from other areas to do so. The very first cut will be $10,000 to the salary of each of the County Commissioners, giving us another $30,000 to fight investment fraud immediately.
4. Claim: “I believe we should be involved in and support Economic Development in Utah County. Mr. Wright does not.”
You have to define “Economic Development.” I believe government does not know better than the private sector how to most effectively allocate resources, and should instead live within its means and do the jobs it is given, namely fight crime and build transportation infrastructure, as effectively as possible. In contrast, Commissioner Anderson has said on multiple occasions that “It is the government’s job to help you get jobs.” Nonetheless, I support the relatively minimal expense for the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to help companies that are already attracted to Utah find the best location for their operations in Utah. Commissioner Anderson claims that 1,027 jobs have come to Utah County in the last 2 years due to his work, even though he offers no evidence that his personal efforts made any difference.
Finally, I make three promises to you that you will be able to verify four years from now, and that Commissioner Anderson is unwilling to make:
1. I will vote against any budget that includes an increase in the property tax rate in the next four years. Our citizens and businesses have to live within their means. It is time for Utah County to do the same.
2. I will vote against any budget that includes the 2008 salary increase from $94,700 to $104,000 for the County Commissioners, and vote against any salary increase for Commissioners in the next 4 years. Everyone is doing more with less. It is time for our Commissioners to lead by example.
3. I will not run for more than two terms as a Utah County Commissioner. Our founding fathers understood the problems with any individual accumulating too much power, and becoming a career politician. I believe no one should serve in any Executive Branch position for more than two terms, and that includes our County Commissioners. In contrast, my opponent is asking you for a fourth term in office.
Thank you very much for engaging with me in an informed discussion of these issues.
I would warmly welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with you at length. Please join me at any of the meetings below where we will discuss these issues in depth:
1. Saturday, April 10 from 6 PM to 8 PM at the home of Oak Norton in Highland at 10812 North 5800 West.
2. Tuesday, April 13 from 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM at the Cotton Tree Inn in Provo at 2230 North University Parkway. Light refreshments will be provided.
3. Wednesday, April 14 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM at the home of Karen Herd in Cedar Hills at 10669 Fiddlesticks.
4. Saturday, April 17 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM at the home of Kirk & Shannon Magleby at 553 East 100 North in American Fork.
I will also be attending all the mass meetings for county candidates in the next three weeks, which includes events in Santaquin, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, Provo and multiple times in Springville. Please see the complete schedule of all such meetings here:
http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-you-can-meet-me-in-person.html
Alternatively, you are always welcome to call me on my cell phone at 801-368-5385.
As always, I also ask for your vote April 24th at the Utah County Convention!
Warm Regards,
Joel Wright
Joel Wright
p.s. If you want further clarification please give me a call. 801-368-5385
p.p.s. Let me know what you think on these issues! I always welcome feedback.
SOURCES
[1] Numbers from 2004 to 2008 available at http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xbutco.pdf , 2009 numbers from http://www.sltrib.com/utahcounty/ci_13862040 (Note that final official expenditures for 2009 are not yet available.)
[2] See http://www.census.gov/
[3] 2007 Lower budget was approved in 2006, but subsequently amended after Commissioner Anderson came into office in 2007, see: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xbutco.pdf
[4] See the Minutes from the December 18, 2007 Utah County Commission Meeting, Item #26: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/COMMISH/Data/Minutes/CM/2007/121807-CommissionMinutes.pdf
[5] See page 9 of the 2008 Financial Statements from the Independent Auditor here: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xfutco.pdf
[6] See the Minutes from the June 17, 2008 Commission Meeting, Item #1: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2008/061708-CommissionMinutes.pdf ; see also the Deseret News article dated June 18, 2008: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700235619/Utah-County-commissioners-hike-pay.html
[7] See the blog of Daily Herald reporter Joe Pyrah here: http://sausagegrinding.blogspot.com/2009/11/game-on.html
[8] See Item #22 on the August 28, 2007 Commission Minutes at: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2007/082807-CommissionMinutes.pdf
[9] See item #17 on the September 23, 2008 Commission Minutes at: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2008/092308-Commission-Minutes.pdf
[10] See page 46 of the 2008 Financial Statements here: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xfutco.pdf
[11] Such information not yet available in official Financial Statements, but available on every property tax notice in Utah County. The Utah County Tax Levy was .000809 in 2008, and increased to .000878 in 2009, which is an 8.5% increase.
[12] Copy of the Preliminary Financial Statement (page 3) obtained from Utah County in February 2010 through a GRAMA request. Email Joel Wright at Joel@ElectWright.com if you would like a copy of it.
[13] The Utah Restaurant Association told me that at least 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by the residents of Utah County, and likely over 90%. I have also had conversations with Commissioners Anderson and White, as well as Rep. Frank who tried to repeal this tax earlier this year, and they all have said to me that approximately 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by Utah County residents.
[14] See our campaign blog for more details on this proposed change here: http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-utah-county-change-its-form-of_18.html
[15] See page 16 of the “5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen.
[16] See: “Investment Fraud Rampant in Utah County” from the Daily Herald, February 28, 2010, available at: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_7c2429f4-a9ed-5ce2-af14-a40ed6c7b8bc.html, or see “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705339222/Investigators-say-59-million-scheme-targeted-Utah-County.html?pg=4 ; the number of $432 million from 2000 to 2009 is from an email from the Utah County Bureau of Investigations in our possession that we are happy to share.
[17] See “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705339222/Investigators-say-59-million-scheme-targeted-Utah-County.html?pg=4
Dear County Delegate,
Wednesday you received an email from Gary Anderson with a number of claims about our campaign for Utah County Commissioner. I would like to take a few moments of your time to respond. You are always welcome to call me on my cell phone directly at 801-368-5385. I’ll first cover the fiscal facts that you can verify, address the claims in Commissioner Anderson’s email, and then make three promises to you that you will be able to verify if I run for re-election in four years.
FISCAL FACTS
1. Utah County’s expenditures have grown twice as fast as our population the last five years. Utah County’s expenditures have grown 68% in the last 5 years, from $51.04 million (in 2003) to $85.78 million (in 2008).[1] During that same time, Utah County’s population only grew 29.6%, from 409,000 to 530,000.[2]
2. Commissioner Anderson has supported these increases in the budget. Shortly after Commissioner Anderson was sworn in for his third term (2 terms in the late 80s previously) in, he approved amending the budget to increase it by 7% in 2007,[3] and then was the deciding vote (by 2 to 1) to approve a substantial 14% increase to the 2008 budget.[4] This rapid increase in spending led the Utah County Auditor to warn in 2008 that such expenditures would deplete the surplus (or general fund) and created a budget situation that “will not be sustainable in subsequent years without either new revenue sources or increased revenue from existing sources.”[5]
3. Commissioner Anderson voted to increase his salary by 10% in 2008. Commissioner Anderson was the deciding vote (by 2 to 1) to increase the salary of the Utah County Commissioners from $94,700 to $104,000 in June 2008.[6] In November 2009 I suggested this salary increase be rolled back to ease the burden on tax payers, and was rebuked by Commissioner Anderson.[7]
4. Commissioner Anderson voted for the largest combined sales tax increase in Utah County’s history that was not approved by the voters. In August 2007, Commissioner Anderson voted to increase the voter approved 0.25 percent sales tax for transportation (2006) by 20% up to .30 percent in 2007.[8] Further Commissioner Anderson voted in September of 2008 to further increase it by almost 100% more to .55 percent. [9] We certainly need transportation projects, but I believe any sales tax increase should be put before the voters so they can determine if it is justified.
5. Property Taxes Increased in 2008 and 2009: Utah County’s property taxes had stayed relatively modest and stable until 2008, when Utah County received a windfall due to the Utah State Tax Commission allowing a one time change in the assessing and collecting rate without going through the truth-in-taxation process, which resulted in the Utah County’s property tax revenue going from $25,430,082 to $30,299,437 from 2007 to 2008, or a 19% increase, in a single year.[10] It would have been responsible to either return this windfall to the taxpayers, or at least save it, but instead it was immediately spent on the growing budget. Because the surplus had been used up, Utah County then had to raise property tax rates by 8.5% in 2009[11] when our property values declined so Utah County could collect the same amount of revenue, even though it means they were now taking a larger percentage of your home’s value, or a bigger piece of the pie.
6. $40 million in new debt for the Convention Center in Provo: We can have honest disagreements on the Convention Center, including whether it is the proper role of government, why Utah County is paying $40 million for the Convention Center while Provo is only paying approximately $7 million, and whether the private sector would have built a convention center for our County in Pleasant Grove. But we cannot debate that the taxpayers of Utah County are paying for the Convention Center, because they clearly are. According to the Preliminary Offering Statement used to sell the Convention Center debt to investors, the annual debt service on the Convention Center will be paid as follows: 7% from the tax on hotel rooms, 11% from the tax on car rentals, and 82% by the one percent tax on restaurant food in Utah County.[12] While the tax on hotel rooms and car rentals are typically paid by visitors from out side our County (while also being paid by local businesses bringing in clients and employees), the tax on restaurant food in Utah County is paid overwhelmingly by the residents of Utah County, and most informed observers believe approximately 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by the residents of Utah County.[13] Bottom Line: While tourists and business will generate up to 40% of the revenue to cover the debt service on the Convention Center, the tax payers of Utah County will pay the most of the cost of the Convention Center. Furthermore, without the Convention Center’s debt service, the restaurant tax could have been decreased substantially, easing the tax burden on our residents.
CLAIMS FROM
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
1. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants to expand the county commission to a council form of government or expand it to five commissioners.”
True? Partially. Our campaign wants to trust the voters to decide how best to govern Utah County. The current form of government (3 full time County Commissioners) has no checks and balances, has no regional representation, and is not based on the Constitution. If only two county commissioners would trust the voters, then the form of county government would be put on the ballot, and the voters could decide to consider a potential change. If the voters approved the change, then a study commission would be created to recommend a potential change to either a Mayor/County Council form (Salt Lake and Cache counties have done this), or a full time executive and part time county council (Grand, Morgan, Summit and Wasatch have done this) or five or seven full time county commissioners (no county has done this, but former Utah County Commissioner and current Governor Gary Herbert told me in February 2010 that he publicly supports increasing the full time Commissioners in Utah County from 3 to 5). Such recommendation would then be on the ballot, and the voters could accept or reject their recommendation. In other words, the voters would directly decide this issue, not the Utah County Commissioners. Finally, I believe the best choice would be a full time Mayor and five part time county council members, which would cost substantially LESS than the current form of three full time county commissioners. Right now, three full time county commissioners cost Utah County $312,000/year in salary, while a full time Mayor (at $104,000/year), and five part time county council members (at $20,000/year) would only cost Utah County $204,000/year.[14]
2. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants our county to take over jurisdiction from the State all of the roads in Utah County that do not cross county lines.”
True? Yes, but only on fair terms. I believe Utah County can more effectively govern its future if it controls the roads within Utah County that do not cross county lines. However, I would only accept the transfer of such roads to the extent the State allows us to keep the funding associated with such roads. As a former City Council member, I have seen the arrogance of our Federal Government, the State of Utah and even Utah County with a “one size fits all” approach on certain issues. As Dr. Skousen points out in the 5,000 Year Leap, one of the principles of the Founding Fathers was that “Problems were solved to the greatest possible extent on the level where they originated.”[15] In short, we should not be expecting citizens of another county to be funding Utah County's roads, nor should they expect us to fund their roads. To the greatest extent possible, where roads need repair, or where residents desire new roads, I believe we should be funding them ourselves rather than forcing others to help pay for them.
3. Claim: “Mr. Wright wants to give the County Attorney more funds to prosecute White-collar crime.”
True? Yes, absolutely. I believe investment fraud is at epidemic levels and is harming our economy far more than any form of “economic development” by the government can improve our economy. In 2009, the Utah County Attorney received claims of $104 million in investment fraud. When Commissioner Anderson assumed office in 2007, those claims were less than $20 million annually. Since 2000, the Utah County Attorney has received investment fraud claims totaling $432 million.[16] We need seasoned and experienced investigators and prosecutors to fight this relatively complicated form of crime that has done tremendous damage to our property values, and our community’s ability to remain solvent and self-sufficient. On October 24, 2009, County Attorney Buhman was quoted as follows: "The honest truth is we're barely scratching the surface [on investment fraud]. We could double or triple our department easily, and we would still be extremely busy."[17] However, I am unwilling to raise taxes to increase the resources devoted to investment fraud, but I will find savings from other areas to do so. The very first cut will be $10,000 to the salary of each of the County Commissioners, giving us another $30,000 to fight investment fraud immediately.
4. Claim: “I believe we should be involved in and support Economic Development in Utah County. Mr. Wright does not.”
You have to define “Economic Development.” I believe government does not know better than the private sector how to most effectively allocate resources, and should instead live within its means and do the jobs it is given, namely fight crime and build transportation infrastructure, as effectively as possible. In contrast, Commissioner Anderson has said on multiple occasions that “It is the government’s job to help you get jobs.” Nonetheless, I support the relatively minimal expense for the Economic Development Corporation of Utah to help companies that are already attracted to Utah find the best location for their operations in Utah. Commissioner Anderson claims that 1,027 jobs have come to Utah County in the last 2 years due to his work, even though he offers no evidence that his personal efforts made any difference.
Finally, I make three promises to you that you will be able to verify four years from now, and that Commissioner Anderson is unwilling to make:
1. I will vote against any budget that includes an increase in the property tax rate in the next four years. Our citizens and businesses have to live within their means. It is time for Utah County to do the same.
2. I will vote against any budget that includes the 2008 salary increase from $94,700 to $104,000 for the County Commissioners, and vote against any salary increase for Commissioners in the next 4 years. Everyone is doing more with less. It is time for our Commissioners to lead by example.
3. I will not run for more than two terms as a Utah County Commissioner. Our founding fathers understood the problems with any individual accumulating too much power, and becoming a career politician. I believe no one should serve in any Executive Branch position for more than two terms, and that includes our County Commissioners. In contrast, my opponent is asking you for a fourth term in office.
Thank you very much for engaging with me in an informed discussion of these issues.
I would warmly welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with you at length. Please join me at any of the meetings below where we will discuss these issues in depth:
1. Saturday, April 10 from 6 PM to 8 PM at the home of Oak Norton in Highland at 10812 North 5800 West.
2. Tuesday, April 13 from 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM at the Cotton Tree Inn in Provo at 2230 North University Parkway. Light refreshments will be provided.
3. Wednesday, April 14 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM at the home of Karen Herd in Cedar Hills at 10669 Fiddlesticks.
4. Saturday, April 17 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM at the home of Kirk & Shannon Magleby at 553 East 100 North in American Fork.
I will also be attending all the mass meetings for county candidates in the next three weeks, which includes events in Santaquin, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, Provo and multiple times in Springville. Please see the complete schedule of all such meetings here:
http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2010/04/where-you-can-meet-me-in-person.html
Alternatively, you are always welcome to call me on my cell phone at 801-368-5385.
As always, I also ask for your vote April 24th at the Utah County Convention!
Warm Regards,
Joel Wright
Joel Wright
p.s. If you want further clarification please give me a call. 801-368-5385
p.p.s. Let me know what you think on these issues! I always welcome feedback.
SOURCES
[1] Numbers from 2004 to 2008 available at http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xbutco.pdf , 2009 numbers from http://www.sltrib.com/utahcounty/ci_13862040 (Note that final official expenditures for 2009 are not yet available.)
[2] See http://www.census.gov/
[3] 2007 Lower budget was approved in 2006, but subsequently amended after Commissioner Anderson came into office in 2007, see: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xbutco.pdf
[4] See the Minutes from the December 18, 2007 Utah County Commission Meeting, Item #26: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/COMMISH/Data/Minutes/CM/2007/121807-CommissionMinutes.pdf
[5] See page 9 of the 2008 Financial Statements from the Independent Auditor here: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xfutco.pdf
[6] See the Minutes from the June 17, 2008 Commission Meeting, Item #1: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2008/061708-CommissionMinutes.pdf ; see also the Deseret News article dated June 18, 2008: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700235619/Utah-County-commissioners-hike-pay.html
[7] See the blog of Daily Herald reporter Joe Pyrah here: http://sausagegrinding.blogspot.com/2009/11/game-on.html
[8] See Item #22 on the August 28, 2007 Commission Minutes at: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2007/082807-CommissionMinutes.pdf
[9] See item #17 on the September 23, 2008 Commission Minutes at: http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Commish/data/minutes/CM/2008/092308-Commission-Minutes.pdf
[10] See page 46 of the 2008 Financial Statements here: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2008/08xfutco.pdf
[11] Such information not yet available in official Financial Statements, but available on every property tax notice in Utah County. The Utah County Tax Levy was .000809 in 2008, and increased to .000878 in 2009, which is an 8.5% increase.
[12] Copy of the Preliminary Financial Statement (page 3) obtained from Utah County in February 2010 through a GRAMA request. Email Joel Wright at Joel@ElectWright.com if you would like a copy of it.
[13] The Utah Restaurant Association told me that at least 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by the residents of Utah County, and likely over 90%. I have also had conversations with Commissioners Anderson and White, as well as Rep. Frank who tried to repeal this tax earlier this year, and they all have said to me that approximately 80% of the restaurant tax is paid for by Utah County residents.
[14] See our campaign blog for more details on this proposed change here: http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-utah-county-change-its-form-of_18.html
[15] See page 16 of the “5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen.
[16] See: “Investment Fraud Rampant in Utah County” from the Daily Herald, February 28, 2010, available at: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_7c2429f4-a9ed-5ce2-af14-a40ed6c7b8bc.html, or see “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705339222/Investigators-say-59-million-scheme-targeted-Utah-County.html?pg=4 ; the number of $432 million from 2000 to 2009 is from an email from the Utah County Bureau of Investigations in our possession that we are happy to share.
[17] See “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705339222/Investigators-say-59-million-scheme-targeted-Utah-County.html?pg=4
Friday, March 19, 2010
Is crime increasing or decreasing in Utah County?
Is crime increasing or decreasing in Utah County?
As a candidate for Utah County Commissioner, I believe the most important duty of government is to protect its citizens from crime. Over 60% of the budget of Utah County goes towards law enforcement, funding either the Sheriff’s department or the County Attorney’s department. In other words, most of what a County Commissioner does is oversee the budget for law enforcement.
At the Utah County Republican Central Committee meeting on February 20, 2010, my opponent, three term incumbent Gary Anderson, asserted that crime has “decreased” in Utah County since he was last elected in 2006. I respectfully disagree, and am concerned that Commissioner Anderson is either unaware, or unconcerned, about the massive increase in investment fraud since he was last elected.
According to the Utah County Attorney’s office, victims of investment fraud in Utah County lost $45 million in 2006 and 2007 together, $64 million in 2008, and $104 million in 2009. In other words, since Gary Anderson was last elected, investment fraud has at least tripled, and nearly $200 million has been reported stolen.
What is ironic is that Utah County is currently engaged in dozens of activities to improve economic development that are really not the proper role of government, while apparently ignoring its proper role in law enforcement. If that $200 million had not been stolen, the positive economic impact of that $200 million would be much greater than any form of “economic development” Utah County is currently trying to do. If that $200 million had not been stolen, hundreds of small businesses could have been started, college educations paid for, and missions served. Furthermore, Utah County unfortunately now has a well earned reputation as the “fraud capital of the State” with apparently over half the fraud cases in Utah coming from Utah County.
If elected as your County Commissioner, I pledge to make fighting investment fraud one of my highest priorities, and expect you to hold me accountable if I seek re-election and we have not made substantial progress fighting investment fraud.
Specifically:
1. Education is the key to the solution. Government cannot, and should not, protect you from your own greed and stupidity. If something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Any investment that promises potential returns exceeding 10% a year is risky, and anything over 15% is high risk and the investor should be capable of losing their entire investment. Furthermore, if you have to borrow the money to make an investment, you are almost certainly not in a situation where you can afford to lose all or most of your investment. It is also critical that everyone understand that a Ponzi scheme is an investment where the “returns” are paid not through the profitable activities of the company, but instead through the funds raised from new investors. If elected, I would start a public education campaign in Utah County explaining the points I just made above that would exceed the public education campaign on the H1N1 virus. I would create an investment fraud hot line where people could call in and get some basic advice on how to spot investment fraud, and also report investment fraud. I would have our county attorneys and sheriffs speak in public as much as possible to explain how investment fraud is happening in Utah County, and how it can be identified. I would like to see part of the punishment for engaging in investment fraud be a requirement of several hundred hours of community service dedicated to fighting investment fraud, where the individual would teach others how they used religion, family connections or other forms of affinity fraud or manipulation to convince otherwise intelligent individuals that they could guarantee returns exceeding 15% a year.
2. More resources are needed to fight back. County Attorney Jeff Buhman stated in October 2009 that he could “double or triple” his division devoted to fighting investment fraud, and they would all still be very busy. The simple answer would be to raise taxes, but I am unwilling to do that, so we would need to do the following: (a) redeploy existing resources to this problem from lower priority areas to this higher priority area, (b) we need to fine these criminals who are frequently living lavish lifestyles enough to fund the increase in resources we need to fight investment fraud, and (c) require individuals who are involved in investment fraud to give several hundred hours of community service educating the public on how these crimes are happening. It is the proper role of government to prosecute and convict criminals who have stolen money based on lies, and return as much of that money as possible to the victims. We need to wisely devote the resources necessary to fight this problem.
3. We cannot rely on the federal or state government. Like many of you, I am alarmed and concerned at the rapid rate of growth by our federal and state governments, and am anxious to “push back” against this alarming rate of government expansion. However, equally concerning is the mentality that we should rely on our federal or state governments to rescue us from all our problems. Commissioner Anderson believes that the federal and state governments are supposed to fix this problem for us. I respectfully disagree. The County Attorney prosecutes essentially all felonies in Utah County, including investment fraud, and the federal and state governments have been of little help the last three years while this problem has grown. I believe Utah County has the duty to fight this problem first, and not rely on any assistance from the federal or state governments. I have spoken with both federal officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and state officials at the Utah Securities Division, and they have both confirmed that Utah County has the duty to first investigate these crimes in most instances, and then come to them for assistance that may or may not be given.
Finally, we need your help. Please don’t hesitate to speak up when you see someone selling an investment that is “too good to be true” and please email me your ideas on how we can better fight investment fraud in Utah County.
Sincerely,
Joel Wright
Below are two excellent recent stories on Investment Fraud in Utah County:
1. “Investment Fraud Rampant in Utah County” from the Daily Herald, February 28, 2010, available at: http://bit.ly/c3jzUu
2. “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://bit.ly/aqmpIM
Total claims of investment fraud reported to Utah County Attorney by year since 2000:
Total from 2000 to 2009: $432,339,530.53
2009: $104,607,873
2008: $64,197,107
2007: $7,457,665.19
2006: $14,681,704.18
2005: $30,218,566.76
2004: $19,264,455.79
2003: $18,260,368.76
2002: $80,038,210.38
2001: $66,505,735.54
2000: $27,107,843.03
As a candidate for Utah County Commissioner, I believe the most important duty of government is to protect its citizens from crime. Over 60% of the budget of Utah County goes towards law enforcement, funding either the Sheriff’s department or the County Attorney’s department. In other words, most of what a County Commissioner does is oversee the budget for law enforcement.
At the Utah County Republican Central Committee meeting on February 20, 2010, my opponent, three term incumbent Gary Anderson, asserted that crime has “decreased” in Utah County since he was last elected in 2006. I respectfully disagree, and am concerned that Commissioner Anderson is either unaware, or unconcerned, about the massive increase in investment fraud since he was last elected.
According to the Utah County Attorney’s office, victims of investment fraud in Utah County lost $45 million in 2006 and 2007 together, $64 million in 2008, and $104 million in 2009. In other words, since Gary Anderson was last elected, investment fraud has at least tripled, and nearly $200 million has been reported stolen.
What is ironic is that Utah County is currently engaged in dozens of activities to improve economic development that are really not the proper role of government, while apparently ignoring its proper role in law enforcement. If that $200 million had not been stolen, the positive economic impact of that $200 million would be much greater than any form of “economic development” Utah County is currently trying to do. If that $200 million had not been stolen, hundreds of small businesses could have been started, college educations paid for, and missions served. Furthermore, Utah County unfortunately now has a well earned reputation as the “fraud capital of the State” with apparently over half the fraud cases in Utah coming from Utah County.
If elected as your County Commissioner, I pledge to make fighting investment fraud one of my highest priorities, and expect you to hold me accountable if I seek re-election and we have not made substantial progress fighting investment fraud.
Specifically:
1. Education is the key to the solution. Government cannot, and should not, protect you from your own greed and stupidity. If something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Any investment that promises potential returns exceeding 10% a year is risky, and anything over 15% is high risk and the investor should be capable of losing their entire investment. Furthermore, if you have to borrow the money to make an investment, you are almost certainly not in a situation where you can afford to lose all or most of your investment. It is also critical that everyone understand that a Ponzi scheme is an investment where the “returns” are paid not through the profitable activities of the company, but instead through the funds raised from new investors. If elected, I would start a public education campaign in Utah County explaining the points I just made above that would exceed the public education campaign on the H1N1 virus. I would create an investment fraud hot line where people could call in and get some basic advice on how to spot investment fraud, and also report investment fraud. I would have our county attorneys and sheriffs speak in public as much as possible to explain how investment fraud is happening in Utah County, and how it can be identified. I would like to see part of the punishment for engaging in investment fraud be a requirement of several hundred hours of community service dedicated to fighting investment fraud, where the individual would teach others how they used religion, family connections or other forms of affinity fraud or manipulation to convince otherwise intelligent individuals that they could guarantee returns exceeding 15% a year.
2. More resources are needed to fight back. County Attorney Jeff Buhman stated in October 2009 that he could “double or triple” his division devoted to fighting investment fraud, and they would all still be very busy. The simple answer would be to raise taxes, but I am unwilling to do that, so we would need to do the following: (a) redeploy existing resources to this problem from lower priority areas to this higher priority area, (b) we need to fine these criminals who are frequently living lavish lifestyles enough to fund the increase in resources we need to fight investment fraud, and (c) require individuals who are involved in investment fraud to give several hundred hours of community service educating the public on how these crimes are happening. It is the proper role of government to prosecute and convict criminals who have stolen money based on lies, and return as much of that money as possible to the victims. We need to wisely devote the resources necessary to fight this problem.
3. We cannot rely on the federal or state government. Like many of you, I am alarmed and concerned at the rapid rate of growth by our federal and state governments, and am anxious to “push back” against this alarming rate of government expansion. However, equally concerning is the mentality that we should rely on our federal or state governments to rescue us from all our problems. Commissioner Anderson believes that the federal and state governments are supposed to fix this problem for us. I respectfully disagree. The County Attorney prosecutes essentially all felonies in Utah County, including investment fraud, and the federal and state governments have been of little help the last three years while this problem has grown. I believe Utah County has the duty to fight this problem first, and not rely on any assistance from the federal or state governments. I have spoken with both federal officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and state officials at the Utah Securities Division, and they have both confirmed that Utah County has the duty to first investigate these crimes in most instances, and then come to them for assistance that may or may not be given.
Finally, we need your help. Please don’t hesitate to speak up when you see someone selling an investment that is “too good to be true” and please email me your ideas on how we can better fight investment fraud in Utah County.
Sincerely,
Joel Wright
Below are two excellent recent stories on Investment Fraud in Utah County:
1. “Investment Fraud Rampant in Utah County” from the Daily Herald, February 28, 2010, available at: http://bit.ly/c3jzUu
2. “Investigators say $59 million scheme targeted Utah County” from Deseret News, October 24, 2009, available at: http://bit.ly/aqmpIM
Total claims of investment fraud reported to Utah County Attorney by year since 2000:
Total from 2000 to 2009: $432,339,530.53
2009: $104,607,873
2008: $64,197,107
2007: $7,457,665.19
2006: $14,681,704.18
2005: $30,218,566.76
2004: $19,264,455.79
2003: $18,260,368.76
2002: $80,038,210.38
2001: $66,505,735.54
2000: $27,107,843.03
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Do voters or "gentlemen" decide who gets to be your Utah County Commissioner?
In the last couple weeks, several supporters of my opponent, Gary Anderson, have told me that I am "violating" the "Gentlemen's Agreement" because we are supposed to have one County Commissioner from South of Provo, one from Provo, and one from North of Provo. And, if I won, we'd have two County Commissioners north of Provo (Ellertson lives in Lindon and I live in Cedar Hills), and one in Provo (White). In other words, "gentlemen" are apparently supposed to decide who should run for County Commissioner, and not the voters.
As you can imagine, I completely reject this idea. This Gentlemen's Agreement is wrong for multiple reasons:
1. The voters or delegates should select each County Commissioner, not the entrenched elite who benefit from the status quo. I believe in transparency, and I believe in the wisdom of the voters.
2. Each County Commissioner is elected by ALL of Utah County, and expected to represent ALL of Utah County. If Commissioner Anderson believes he only represents the 20% of the population in Utah County that lives south of Provo, then he should make that clear, instead of claiming to represent all of Utah County.
3. The population assumptions in the Gentlemen's Agreement are completely wrong. When Gary Anderson was first elected as a County Commissioner in 1982, approximately one third of Utah County may have lived south of Provo, one third in Provo, and one third north of Provo. But that is simply not the case now. Approximately 20% of Utah County lives south of Provo, a little over 20% in Provo, a little under 20% in Orem, a little under 20% in Northwest Utah County (Lehi, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain) and a little over 20% in Northeast Utah County (Lindon, Pleasant Grove, Cedar Hills, American Fork, Highland and Alpine). In other words, if we divided Utah County by thirds, then South County and most of Provo would only get one Utah County Commissioner, not the two they have now!
4. The Gentlemen's Agreement has not been followed in the past. There have been multiple instances in the last 30 years where you did not have one County Commissioner south of Provo, one in Provo and one north of Provo. It appears that supporters of Commissioner Anderson are only bringing it up now because it favors him.
5. Does Commissioner Anderson share this same view? I don't know, but I'll try to ask him, and let you know his response. If so, then the $200,000 "award" that Utah County gave to the Springville Art Museum last year, and the ongoing support of the Utah County Fair in Spanish Fork, seem more like political patronage, and less like the best use of taxpayer funds.
If elected, I would represent all of Utah County equally, because all of Utah County votes for me. I was raised in Provo, but live in Cedar Hills, and have supporters all over Utah County.
However, I do think there is considerable merit to the view that Utah County now has 550,000 residents, and that 3 county commissioners cannot adequately represent all of them, no matter where they live. Our three county commissioners have "executive, legislative and judicial powers" which is a primitive form of government without checks and balances that is not based on the US Constitution. If only two County Commissioners would trust the voters, then the voters of Utah County would get the chance to consider a new form of County Government that would potentially cost less and include geographic representation. See my blog post here for the details on how this process would potentially work: http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-utah-county-change-its-form-of_18.html
If anyone knows if Commissioner Anderson supports this Gentlemen's Agreement, please post.
As you can imagine, I completely reject this idea. This Gentlemen's Agreement is wrong for multiple reasons:
1. The voters or delegates should select each County Commissioner, not the entrenched elite who benefit from the status quo. I believe in transparency, and I believe in the wisdom of the voters.
2. Each County Commissioner is elected by ALL of Utah County, and expected to represent ALL of Utah County. If Commissioner Anderson believes he only represents the 20% of the population in Utah County that lives south of Provo, then he should make that clear, instead of claiming to represent all of Utah County.
3. The population assumptions in the Gentlemen's Agreement are completely wrong. When Gary Anderson was first elected as a County Commissioner in 1982, approximately one third of Utah County may have lived south of Provo, one third in Provo, and one third north of Provo. But that is simply not the case now. Approximately 20% of Utah County lives south of Provo, a little over 20% in Provo, a little under 20% in Orem, a little under 20% in Northwest Utah County (Lehi, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain) and a little over 20% in Northeast Utah County (Lindon, Pleasant Grove, Cedar Hills, American Fork, Highland and Alpine). In other words, if we divided Utah County by thirds, then South County and most of Provo would only get one Utah County Commissioner, not the two they have now!
4. The Gentlemen's Agreement has not been followed in the past. There have been multiple instances in the last 30 years where you did not have one County Commissioner south of Provo, one in Provo and one north of Provo. It appears that supporters of Commissioner Anderson are only bringing it up now because it favors him.
5. Does Commissioner Anderson share this same view? I don't know, but I'll try to ask him, and let you know his response. If so, then the $200,000 "award" that Utah County gave to the Springville Art Museum last year, and the ongoing support of the Utah County Fair in Spanish Fork, seem more like political patronage, and less like the best use of taxpayer funds.
If elected, I would represent all of Utah County equally, because all of Utah County votes for me. I was raised in Provo, but live in Cedar Hills, and have supporters all over Utah County.
However, I do think there is considerable merit to the view that Utah County now has 550,000 residents, and that 3 county commissioners cannot adequately represent all of them, no matter where they live. Our three county commissioners have "executive, legislative and judicial powers" which is a primitive form of government without checks and balances that is not based on the US Constitution. If only two County Commissioners would trust the voters, then the voters of Utah County would get the chance to consider a new form of County Government that would potentially cost less and include geographic representation. See my blog post here for the details on how this process would potentially work: http://wright4countycommissioner.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-utah-county-change-its-form-of_18.html
If anyone knows if Commissioner Anderson supports this Gentlemen's Agreement, please post.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Article in today's Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/closeup/ci_14182457
Race is on for commission seat in Utah County
By Donald W. Meyers
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/14/2010 08:42:39 AM MST
Former Cedar Hills City Councilman Joel D. Wright will seek the Utah County Commission seat now occupied by Gary J. Anderson.
Wright recently announced his intention to seek Commission Seat A in this year's election. He stressed that he is not running against Anderson at this point.
"I don't know if [Anderson] is going to run again," Wright said.
Anderson and commission chair Steve White, who occupies Seat B, are both up for re-election this year.
Wright said Anderson hasn't done enough to keep the county budget in check on his watch. Specifically, he pointed to the commission awarding raises in 2008, just before the county was rocked by the recession. His calls for the commission to cut wages went unheeded.
He said it was especially insulting in light of the fact that many people in the county have seen their wages cut because of the economy.
Anderson, who confirmed he is running to keep his seat, said the county has already made cutbacks. The current budget does not include cost-of-living increases and there is a hiring freeze in place.
As for the raises, Anderson said a market study recommended the increases to bring county employees into parity with their counterparts around the state, and to keep staff who were leaving for better pay. He said the county also altered its benefits program to give employees more take-home pay.
"We had a lot of young families who couldn't afford formula or diapers for their babies," Anderson said.
He said the commission has struggled to stretch dollars and to obtain federal funding for projects around the county.
Anderson said Wright may not fully understand how county government works.
Anderson first served on the commission from 1983-89, and was elected again in 2006. He previously worked for the Utah County Attorney's civil and criminal divisions and also had a private law practice.
dmeyers@sltrib.com
Race is on for commission seat in Utah County
By Donald W. Meyers
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/14/2010 08:42:39 AM MST
Former Cedar Hills City Councilman Joel D. Wright will seek the Utah County Commission seat now occupied by Gary J. Anderson.
Wright recently announced his intention to seek Commission Seat A in this year's election. He stressed that he is not running against Anderson at this point.
"I don't know if [Anderson] is going to run again," Wright said.
Anderson and commission chair Steve White, who occupies Seat B, are both up for re-election this year.
Wright said Anderson hasn't done enough to keep the county budget in check on his watch. Specifically, he pointed to the commission awarding raises in 2008, just before the county was rocked by the recession. His calls for the commission to cut wages went unheeded.
He said it was especially insulting in light of the fact that many people in the county have seen their wages cut because of the economy.
Anderson, who confirmed he is running to keep his seat, said the county has already made cutbacks. The current budget does not include cost-of-living increases and there is a hiring freeze in place.
As for the raises, Anderson said a market study recommended the increases to bring county employees into parity with their counterparts around the state, and to keep staff who were leaving for better pay. He said the county also altered its benefits program to give employees more take-home pay.
"We had a lot of young families who couldn't afford formula or diapers for their babies," Anderson said.
He said the commission has struggled to stretch dollars and to obtain federal funding for projects around the county.
Anderson said Wright may not fully understand how county government works.
Anderson first served on the commission from 1983-89, and was elected again in 2006. He previously worked for the Utah County Attorney's civil and criminal divisions and also had a private law practice.
dmeyers@sltrib.com
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Front page of the Daily Herald!
Joe Pyrah of the Daily Herald invited me in last Wednesday for an interview. I had wanted him to do an article on me last November when I announced I was running for Utah County Commissioner, but he told me I wasn't "news worthy" until I announced which seat I was running for (A or B).
So I called him up a week ago and told him I was going to announce who I was running for on Saturday, January 9, 2010 on Red Meat Radio. He kindly invited me in for an interview during the week, and took over 90 minutes with me to cover a wide variety of topics. He also promised to keep my announcement of who I was running against confidential until after I appeared on the radio show on Saturday morning.
Any rational candidate will always have multiple moments of terror during their campaign that no one will even care that you are running for office. Well, the Daily Herald kindly posted the article with my announcement for County Commissioner on the front page of the paper today. I'm excited because it helps me reach and connect to a much bigger audience than my immediate friends on Facebook and Twitter.
Anyway, the article is below. What do you think?
http://bit.ly/8YJGtP
Former Cedar Hills councilman running for county commission
Joe Pyrah - Daily Herald | Posted: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:05 am
Don't be confused by the baby face. Joel Wright has been around.
Wright announced this week that he'll be challenging fellow Republican and incumbent Gary Anderson for his county commission seat.
His core push is for an expanded commission -- from three full-time commissioners to five part-time and one county mayor.
"I think Utah County has grown enough and matured enough ... that we need to have that discussion," he said.
While Anderson and fellow commissioner Steve White -- who is also up for re-election -- argue that expanding the commission would cost more money, Wright says it would cost about the same as long as they were paid the same as state lawmakers and didn't each have their own assistant.
Additional commissioners would help spread out the leadership role needed as the population continues to boom and issues such as transportation, trails and law enforcement are brought up, he contends.
The latter includes Ponzi schemes and prescription drug abuse specifically. Wright says the county needs to assume a stronger and more public leadership role in taking on such issues.
"I believe in limited government, but I believe in government that stands up and fights effectively for the county," he said.
Wright, though just 37, is a former Cedar Hills councilman as well as a former member of the state board of regents. His position as a regent generated some controversy early last year when he was linked to a UVU presidential candidate's decision to drop out of the race. Wright said he spoke with Ned Hill during the process about Hill's relationship with county legislators -- his wife was running as a Democrat -- and suggested he talk to a few of them to iron out differences. A smooth relationship with the Legislature is critical to getting funding at the university level, Wright said.
After Hill spoke with a few GOP lawmakers, he dropped out of the running for UVU president because he claimed it was too political. Wright, who said Hill was a "superb candidate," resigned his position shortly after because of the pressure being put on him over the incident, as well as his claim that as a regent "you are not supposed to think for yourself or vote as an independent person."
"I was too controversial," he said.
He currently works as a real estate attorney at the law firm Kirton & McConkie.
While Wright says he's running for the position more so than running against Anderson, he claims the incumbent isn't as responsive as he could be to the public.
"Is he managing or his he leading? Is he serving or is it a job?" he said. Service or a job, the position pays about $104,000 annually.
Because it's an intra-party challenge, Wright and Anderson will first meet at the party's convention in April. Should neither gather 60 percent of the party's delegates, they will face off in a primary in June. The winner would then move on to the November general election.
Joel Wright's issues:
• Better development of the Provo airport. While it belongs to the city, the airport has a growing regional significance that demands more attention from the county as a whole.
• Pay raise rollbacks. The county instituted significant pay raises in 2008 after a study revealed they were lagging behind other counties. Wright says that if the rest of the county is going to go through a recession, county government can cut back, as well. The existing commission has trimmed the budget over the past two years.
• A self-described Facebook and Twitter addict, Wright said the county could do more to reach out to the county's extremely young population through social media. The county has dipped its toes into the Twitterverse recently with a few government-managed accounts.
So I called him up a week ago and told him I was going to announce who I was running for on Saturday, January 9, 2010 on Red Meat Radio. He kindly invited me in for an interview during the week, and took over 90 minutes with me to cover a wide variety of topics. He also promised to keep my announcement of who I was running against confidential until after I appeared on the radio show on Saturday morning.
Any rational candidate will always have multiple moments of terror during their campaign that no one will even care that you are running for office. Well, the Daily Herald kindly posted the article with my announcement for County Commissioner on the front page of the paper today. I'm excited because it helps me reach and connect to a much bigger audience than my immediate friends on Facebook and Twitter.
Anyway, the article is below. What do you think?
http://bit.ly/8YJGtP
Former Cedar Hills councilman running for county commission
Joe Pyrah - Daily Herald | Posted: Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:05 am
Don't be confused by the baby face. Joel Wright has been around.
Wright announced this week that he'll be challenging fellow Republican and incumbent Gary Anderson for his county commission seat.
His core push is for an expanded commission -- from three full-time commissioners to five part-time and one county mayor.
"I think Utah County has grown enough and matured enough ... that we need to have that discussion," he said.
While Anderson and fellow commissioner Steve White -- who is also up for re-election -- argue that expanding the commission would cost more money, Wright says it would cost about the same as long as they were paid the same as state lawmakers and didn't each have their own assistant.
Additional commissioners would help spread out the leadership role needed as the population continues to boom and issues such as transportation, trails and law enforcement are brought up, he contends.
The latter includes Ponzi schemes and prescription drug abuse specifically. Wright says the county needs to assume a stronger and more public leadership role in taking on such issues.
"I believe in limited government, but I believe in government that stands up and fights effectively for the county," he said.
Wright, though just 37, is a former Cedar Hills councilman as well as a former member of the state board of regents. His position as a regent generated some controversy early last year when he was linked to a UVU presidential candidate's decision to drop out of the race. Wright said he spoke with Ned Hill during the process about Hill's relationship with county legislators -- his wife was running as a Democrat -- and suggested he talk to a few of them to iron out differences. A smooth relationship with the Legislature is critical to getting funding at the university level, Wright said.
After Hill spoke with a few GOP lawmakers, he dropped out of the running for UVU president because he claimed it was too political. Wright, who said Hill was a "superb candidate," resigned his position shortly after because of the pressure being put on him over the incident, as well as his claim that as a regent "you are not supposed to think for yourself or vote as an independent person."
"I was too controversial," he said.
He currently works as a real estate attorney at the law firm Kirton & McConkie.
While Wright says he's running for the position more so than running against Anderson, he claims the incumbent isn't as responsive as he could be to the public.
"Is he managing or his he leading? Is he serving or is it a job?" he said. Service or a job, the position pays about $104,000 annually.
Because it's an intra-party challenge, Wright and Anderson will first meet at the party's convention in April. Should neither gather 60 percent of the party's delegates, they will face off in a primary in June. The winner would then move on to the November general election.
Joel Wright's issues:
• Better development of the Provo airport. While it belongs to the city, the airport has a growing regional significance that demands more attention from the county as a whole.
• Pay raise rollbacks. The county instituted significant pay raises in 2008 after a study revealed they were lagging behind other counties. Wright says that if the rest of the county is going to go through a recession, county government can cut back, as well. The existing commission has trimmed the budget over the past two years.
• A self-described Facebook and Twitter addict, Wright said the county could do more to reach out to the county's extremely young population through social media. The county has dipped its toes into the Twitterverse recently with a few government-managed accounts.
Red Meat Radio
I really enjoyed appearing on Red Meat Radio (AM 630) yesterday. The show is hosted by State Senator Howard Stephenson and State Representative Greg Hughes, and takes two hours every Saturday to discuss politics in Utah.
Even though I had already announced I was running for County Commissioner, they kindly invited me on their show to announce I which County Commission seat I was running for, A or B. I announced I was running for Seat A, which is currently occupied by Gary Anderson.
They asked me some tough questions, but the show is really just a fun mix of information and banter. They asked me to come back again, and I told them they could count on it.
You can listen to my 20 minutes of fame on their program by listening to the last third of the first hour here:
http://bit.ly/6ZVDbv
Even though I had already announced I was running for County Commissioner, they kindly invited me on their show to announce I which County Commission seat I was running for, A or B. I announced I was running for Seat A, which is currently occupied by Gary Anderson.
They asked me some tough questions, but the show is really just a fun mix of information and banter. They asked me to come back again, and I told them they could count on it.
You can listen to my 20 minutes of fame on their program by listening to the last third of the first hour here:
http://bit.ly/6ZVDbv
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Kicking the Hornet's Nest
Blog from Daily Herald report Joe Pyrah here:
http://sausagegrinding.blogspot.com/2009/11/game-on.html
Text of blog below:
I skipped doing a published story on Joel Wright's formal announcement as candidate for county commission because he didn't announce an opponent. (I did mention his intention back in September on the Grinder.)
It's not too easy to write a story when you can't stack someone up against an opponent. It's either Steve White or Gary Anderson, but those guys are so different that it's not like Wright can make a blanket statement that covers them both.
But today, Wright poked the hornets nest to see what would happen. At the weekly commission meeting, he got up during the public comment portion and said that while commissioners did a good job with the 2010 budget, they should have rescinded the 2008 salary increases to ease the burden on taxpayers.
"The market right now, I think, would not lead to many employees leaving," he said, then added he'd put the raises back in place once the economy improved.
Anderson went straight into campaign mode, claiming that the employees didn't get a raise in 2009 or 2010 which amounts to a 5 percent pay cut because of the increase in cost of living. (I reject that methodology as public employee BS, but whatever.)
He leans into the mic and says "I appreciate our employees doing more with less."
Of course, it's hard to convey the mood of a room and the passive-aggressive nature of Utah politicians, but it made for a fun 30 seconds.
MY COMMENT ON BLOG ABOVE:
I appreciate our County Commissioners balancing Utah County's budget for 2010, and I also appreciate they had to make painful cuts in order to do so. But those cuts were simply insufficient given the current state of the economy.
Our County Commissioners raised our property tax rate about 8.5% in 2009 in order to keep their property tax revenue steady. That's like feeding your horse less, but still expecting it to do just as much work.
If the County Commissioners had already cut everything they could, then it would be defensible, but they haven't.
All county employees, including the County Commissioners, got a big raise in 2008, just before the biggest recession of our life time set in. At a minimum, they should roll that salary increase back entirely before raising our property tax rates in this this tough economy.
Very few, if any, Utah County employees are going to quit right now if their salaries go back to 2007 levels. There just aren't that many other jobs out there. Note further that we are experiencing deflation now, so a salary decrease becomes more reasonable. Note also the Utah State Legislators cut their salary earlier this year when they were cutting everyone else's budget.
Bottom Line: Until the County Commissioners have cut everything they can, they should NOT raise our property tax rates. And I believe they can still reasonably cut all salaries, including their salaries, back to 2007 levels.
http://sausagegrinding.blogspot.com/2009/11/game-on.html
Text of blog below:
I skipped doing a published story on Joel Wright's formal announcement as candidate for county commission because he didn't announce an opponent. (I did mention his intention back in September on the Grinder.)
It's not too easy to write a story when you can't stack someone up against an opponent. It's either Steve White or Gary Anderson, but those guys are so different that it's not like Wright can make a blanket statement that covers them both.
But today, Wright poked the hornets nest to see what would happen. At the weekly commission meeting, he got up during the public comment portion and said that while commissioners did a good job with the 2010 budget, they should have rescinded the 2008 salary increases to ease the burden on taxpayers.
"The market right now, I think, would not lead to many employees leaving," he said, then added he'd put the raises back in place once the economy improved.
Anderson went straight into campaign mode, claiming that the employees didn't get a raise in 2009 or 2010 which amounts to a 5 percent pay cut because of the increase in cost of living. (I reject that methodology as public employee BS, but whatever.)
He leans into the mic and says "I appreciate our employees doing more with less."
Of course, it's hard to convey the mood of a room and the passive-aggressive nature of Utah politicians, but it made for a fun 30 seconds.
MY COMMENT ON BLOG ABOVE:
I appreciate our County Commissioners balancing Utah County's budget for 2010, and I also appreciate they had to make painful cuts in order to do so. But those cuts were simply insufficient given the current state of the economy.
Our County Commissioners raised our property tax rate about 8.5% in 2009 in order to keep their property tax revenue steady. That's like feeding your horse less, but still expecting it to do just as much work.
If the County Commissioners had already cut everything they could, then it would be defensible, but they haven't.
All county employees, including the County Commissioners, got a big raise in 2008, just before the biggest recession of our life time set in. At a minimum, they should roll that salary increase back entirely before raising our property tax rates in this this tough economy.
Very few, if any, Utah County employees are going to quit right now if their salaries go back to 2007 levels. There just aren't that many other jobs out there. Note further that we are experiencing deflation now, so a salary decrease becomes more reasonable. Note also the Utah State Legislators cut their salary earlier this year when they were cutting everyone else's budget.
Bottom Line: Until the County Commissioners have cut everything they can, they should NOT raise our property tax rates. And I believe they can still reasonably cut all salaries, including their salaries, back to 2007 levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
