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
Friday, March 19, 2010
Why did I resign from the Board of Regents?
Why did I resign from the Board of Regents in February 2009? Thanks for asking. I’m happy to respond.
In short, I resigned because I was afraid the opponents of Utah Valley University (“UVU”) on the Board of Regents would have stopped the search process for a new President if I did not resign, and UVU’s future would have been harmed because they would have been stuck with an interim President for several years or more. Also, Governor Huntsman was no longer willing to support me, even though he had initially encouraged me to “shake things up” on the Board of Regents.
However, after I resigned, Governor Huntsman sent me a very kind note of thanks for my service on the Board of Regents (copy of this note included in comments below), and the Board of Regents even sent me a kind letter thanking me for my service and the “fresh perspective” I brought to the challenges facing higher education (copy of this letter included in the comments below). The letter also confirmed that I did not do anything wrong while serving. Lt. Gov. Herbert also sent me a kind email, which I have included below.
That’s it. But if you’re still interested, please read the complete explanation below.
The Board of Regents in Utah consists of 15 voting members, all appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate to six year terms. I was appointed by Governor Huntsman to the Board of Regents in June 2008, and confirmed by the State Senate shortly thereafter.
The job of the Board of Regents is to serve as an advocate for Utah's ten universities and colleges before the Utah State Legislature, and oversee resource allocation and manage the appointment of Presidents at these universities and colleges as well. The budget for higher education in Utah is approximately $1.2 billion, which is approximately 10% of Utah’s entire budget.
In May 2008 the son of Senator Harry Reid, Josh Reid, resigned from the Board of Regents with three years of his six years remaining. The Governor at the time, Jon Huntsman Jr., had previously appointed me to the State Charter School Board, and I thought he would re-appoint me to the State Charter School Board for another term. However, the Governor decided he wanted me to serve on the Board of Regents. I would have preferred to stay on the Charter School Board but when the Governor asks you to serve, you don’t say no. The Governor subsequently told me that we needed some “new blood” on the Board of Regents and he expected me to “shake things up” as well.
After about a month on the Board of Regents, I quickly realized that most of the Regents view their job as preserving the status quo in higher education in every area, but especially with regards to the University of Utah and Utah State at the top of the pecking order. In order to avoid any conflict and preserve the pecking order, the budget they recommend to the State Legislature every year generally consists of the same percentage increase (or decrease) in funds for every university and college, even if that institution is growing much faster than their increase in funds, like UVU or Dixie College.
As anyone who knows me can appreciate, I am an independent thinker. I warmly welcome any information or advice, but I will reach my own conclusions. I quickly realized the “system” was unfair to both UVU and Dixie, because they were growing much faster than everyone else, and did not hesitate to point out the fact that UVU was receiving approximately 40% less funding per student than Southern Utah University, and 20% less funding per student than Weber State. So I proposed we change to a system where the funding follows the student. We could require some level of admissions standards at all of our universities and colleges, and also create a separate research budget for University of Utah and Utah State (which they deserve, since they are research institutions). My proposal was strongly rejected, and I was actually told in private that my fellow Regents viewed me as being too “pro-UVU” for making such a proposal.
Things continued to get worse because many of the Regents do not tolerate dissent. I voted against approving a master’s degree for SUU because I believed it was a “diploma mill” degree that lacked the high standards needed of a master’s degree. I lost 14-1. That was the only “nay” vote I saw in my entire 9 months on the Board of Regents. I was also controversial because I asked in private if we should stop accepting gifts from the Universities and Colleges that we oversee, or at least disclose all the gifts we were receiving.
In short, it was safe to say I was the least popular Regent on the Board of Regents after only 6 months because I was unwilling to accept the status quo, and would continually point out that Utah had the fewest taxpayers supporting the most students, so it was essential that we learned how to do more with less.
I was also assigned to the UVU Presidential Search Committee by the Regents. It was my favorite task on the Board of Regents, and I spent over 50 hours a month for more than 4 months trying to recruit candidates to apply, and then discuss the issues related to UVU with all of them in private. One of the strongest candidates was Dr. Ned Hill, who had been Dean of BYU’s Business School. His wife also ran for the State Legislature that year as a Democrat, and during her campaign she did not hesitate to question the ethics of the State Legislators in Utah County. When I called and spoke with Dr. Hill after the election was over, I pointed out to him that most of the job as President of UVU would be fighting to obtain equitable funding from the Legislature, and that it would be difficult without a close working relationship with State Legislators in Utah County that his wife had just recently strongly criticized. I suggested, and made clear it was only a suggestion, that if he could talk to some of the State Legislators in Utah County, share his vision for UVU with them, and learn how to work with them, that it would resolve one of the concerns I had with his candidacy. I made clear it was not a requirement for him to do so, and that I was speaking only for myself. Dr. Hill is very bright, and realized quickly he would need to have a working relationship with the State Legislators in Utah County if he were going to be a successful President of UVU. I offered to put him in touch with some of the Utah County Legislators, and he welcomed the opportunity to talk with them.
I heard nothing further until early January 2009, when I learned Dr. Hill had decided to withdraw from consideration for President of UVU. I was disappointed, but did not know why. I subsequently learned Dr. Hill had spoken with a Legislator, had realized being President of UVU was a highly political job, and he wasn’t interested in the politics given the many other amazing opportunities he could pursue. After I spoke with him, and even after he dropped out, several other Regents spoke directly with Dr. Hill, and made it clear to him that he was a very strong candidate regardless of his relationship with the Legislators. But Dr. Hill did not want to pursue his candidacy for President of UVU any further. Dr. Hill said that neither my call, nor his call with the Legislator was “threatening” and both of us were only trying to be helpful.
Then, in late January 2009, someone involved with the Board of Regents or the Search Committee (not myself or Dr. Hill) told Paul Rolly who writes a political gossip column for the Salt Lake Tribune that Dr. Hill had dropped out of the race after being required to “make nice” with Utah County Legislators. The story quickly developed a life of its own. As a member of the Search Committee I was not allowed to talk with the press at the time, but told everything I knew to the Board of Regents when they became concerned about the attention in the press.
The Board of Regents then concluded I should resign, or things were going to get out of control. I told them I was happy to resign if the Governor wanted me to do so, since it was clear I was not making any headway on the Board. Subsequently they went to Governor Huntsman and asked for my resignation. Governor Huntsman never allowed me to tell my side of the story, and simply told me to resign, with the promise that no one had any concerns about what I had done and nothing inappropriate would be said about me if I resigned. I was only too happy to resign at that point.
However, only two days after I resigned, the Board of Regents leaked details of my resignation to someone who then leaked it to Paul Rolly at the Salt Lake Tribune. The Board of Regents apologized to me profusely over this, but it didn’t matter, as I was then hammered in the press, with allegations I was required to resign because I had broken some law or rule, even though I had not broken any law or rule, and the Board of Regents later confirmed that in their letter to me. Strangely, the press never even called me to ask my side of the story. However, even if they had called, I couldn’t have said anything because the UVU presidential search process was ongoing.
So, that’s the story. If anyone with firsthand knowledge has a different version, I’d encourage them to call me to discuss.
This story is worth sharing because I believe it says a lot about me. I do not hesitate to fight for what I believe is right, and I’m not afraid to be controversial. I enter public service to serve the public, and not to feel important or receive undeserved praise. I’m honest, maybe even to a fault, and believe there are many things much more important than myself – and the future of UVU is definitely one of those things. Looking back at everything that happened, I wouldn't do anything differently. I continue to believe the future of UVU is far more important than a few harsh words about me in the press, or my ongoing service on the Board of Regents.
Thanks for taking the time to hear my side of the story. Don't hesitate to call or email me if you would like to discuss further.
P.S. Here is the email I received from then Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert after I resigned from the Board of Regents:
"Gary R. Herbert February 27, 2009 at 1:31pm
Sometime things don't go the way we plan them--and the old adage "no good turn goes unpunished" comes to mind. I appreciate all of your service over the years. Don't let this last experience get your down. You are a good man with a great family. And I am glad to call you a friend! GH"
In short, I resigned because I was afraid the opponents of Utah Valley University (“UVU”) on the Board of Regents would have stopped the search process for a new President if I did not resign, and UVU’s future would have been harmed because they would have been stuck with an interim President for several years or more. Also, Governor Huntsman was no longer willing to support me, even though he had initially encouraged me to “shake things up” on the Board of Regents.
However, after I resigned, Governor Huntsman sent me a very kind note of thanks for my service on the Board of Regents (copy of this note included in comments below), and the Board of Regents even sent me a kind letter thanking me for my service and the “fresh perspective” I brought to the challenges facing higher education (copy of this letter included in the comments below). The letter also confirmed that I did not do anything wrong while serving. Lt. Gov. Herbert also sent me a kind email, which I have included below.
That’s it. But if you’re still interested, please read the complete explanation below.
The Board of Regents in Utah consists of 15 voting members, all appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate to six year terms. I was appointed by Governor Huntsman to the Board of Regents in June 2008, and confirmed by the State Senate shortly thereafter.
The job of the Board of Regents is to serve as an advocate for Utah's ten universities and colleges before the Utah State Legislature, and oversee resource allocation and manage the appointment of Presidents at these universities and colleges as well. The budget for higher education in Utah is approximately $1.2 billion, which is approximately 10% of Utah’s entire budget.
In May 2008 the son of Senator Harry Reid, Josh Reid, resigned from the Board of Regents with three years of his six years remaining. The Governor at the time, Jon Huntsman Jr., had previously appointed me to the State Charter School Board, and I thought he would re-appoint me to the State Charter School Board for another term. However, the Governor decided he wanted me to serve on the Board of Regents. I would have preferred to stay on the Charter School Board but when the Governor asks you to serve, you don’t say no. The Governor subsequently told me that we needed some “new blood” on the Board of Regents and he expected me to “shake things up” as well.
After about a month on the Board of Regents, I quickly realized that most of the Regents view their job as preserving the status quo in higher education in every area, but especially with regards to the University of Utah and Utah State at the top of the pecking order. In order to avoid any conflict and preserve the pecking order, the budget they recommend to the State Legislature every year generally consists of the same percentage increase (or decrease) in funds for every university and college, even if that institution is growing much faster than their increase in funds, like UVU or Dixie College.
As anyone who knows me can appreciate, I am an independent thinker. I warmly welcome any information or advice, but I will reach my own conclusions. I quickly realized the “system” was unfair to both UVU and Dixie, because they were growing much faster than everyone else, and did not hesitate to point out the fact that UVU was receiving approximately 40% less funding per student than Southern Utah University, and 20% less funding per student than Weber State. So I proposed we change to a system where the funding follows the student. We could require some level of admissions standards at all of our universities and colleges, and also create a separate research budget for University of Utah and Utah State (which they deserve, since they are research institutions). My proposal was strongly rejected, and I was actually told in private that my fellow Regents viewed me as being too “pro-UVU” for making such a proposal.
Things continued to get worse because many of the Regents do not tolerate dissent. I voted against approving a master’s degree for SUU because I believed it was a “diploma mill” degree that lacked the high standards needed of a master’s degree. I lost 14-1. That was the only “nay” vote I saw in my entire 9 months on the Board of Regents. I was also controversial because I asked in private if we should stop accepting gifts from the Universities and Colleges that we oversee, or at least disclose all the gifts we were receiving.
In short, it was safe to say I was the least popular Regent on the Board of Regents after only 6 months because I was unwilling to accept the status quo, and would continually point out that Utah had the fewest taxpayers supporting the most students, so it was essential that we learned how to do more with less.
I was also assigned to the UVU Presidential Search Committee by the Regents. It was my favorite task on the Board of Regents, and I spent over 50 hours a month for more than 4 months trying to recruit candidates to apply, and then discuss the issues related to UVU with all of them in private. One of the strongest candidates was Dr. Ned Hill, who had been Dean of BYU’s Business School. His wife also ran for the State Legislature that year as a Democrat, and during her campaign she did not hesitate to question the ethics of the State Legislators in Utah County. When I called and spoke with Dr. Hill after the election was over, I pointed out to him that most of the job as President of UVU would be fighting to obtain equitable funding from the Legislature, and that it would be difficult without a close working relationship with State Legislators in Utah County that his wife had just recently strongly criticized. I suggested, and made clear it was only a suggestion, that if he could talk to some of the State Legislators in Utah County, share his vision for UVU with them, and learn how to work with them, that it would resolve one of the concerns I had with his candidacy. I made clear it was not a requirement for him to do so, and that I was speaking only for myself. Dr. Hill is very bright, and realized quickly he would need to have a working relationship with the State Legislators in Utah County if he were going to be a successful President of UVU. I offered to put him in touch with some of the Utah County Legislators, and he welcomed the opportunity to talk with them.
I heard nothing further until early January 2009, when I learned Dr. Hill had decided to withdraw from consideration for President of UVU. I was disappointed, but did not know why. I subsequently learned Dr. Hill had spoken with a Legislator, had realized being President of UVU was a highly political job, and he wasn’t interested in the politics given the many other amazing opportunities he could pursue. After I spoke with him, and even after he dropped out, several other Regents spoke directly with Dr. Hill, and made it clear to him that he was a very strong candidate regardless of his relationship with the Legislators. But Dr. Hill did not want to pursue his candidacy for President of UVU any further. Dr. Hill said that neither my call, nor his call with the Legislator was “threatening” and both of us were only trying to be helpful.
Then, in late January 2009, someone involved with the Board of Regents or the Search Committee (not myself or Dr. Hill) told Paul Rolly who writes a political gossip column for the Salt Lake Tribune that Dr. Hill had dropped out of the race after being required to “make nice” with Utah County Legislators. The story quickly developed a life of its own. As a member of the Search Committee I was not allowed to talk with the press at the time, but told everything I knew to the Board of Regents when they became concerned about the attention in the press.
The Board of Regents then concluded I should resign, or things were going to get out of control. I told them I was happy to resign if the Governor wanted me to do so, since it was clear I was not making any headway on the Board. Subsequently they went to Governor Huntsman and asked for my resignation. Governor Huntsman never allowed me to tell my side of the story, and simply told me to resign, with the promise that no one had any concerns about what I had done and nothing inappropriate would be said about me if I resigned. I was only too happy to resign at that point.
However, only two days after I resigned, the Board of Regents leaked details of my resignation to someone who then leaked it to Paul Rolly at the Salt Lake Tribune. The Board of Regents apologized to me profusely over this, but it didn’t matter, as I was then hammered in the press, with allegations I was required to resign because I had broken some law or rule, even though I had not broken any law or rule, and the Board of Regents later confirmed that in their letter to me. Strangely, the press never even called me to ask my side of the story. However, even if they had called, I couldn’t have said anything because the UVU presidential search process was ongoing.
So, that’s the story. If anyone with firsthand knowledge has a different version, I’d encourage them to call me to discuss.
This story is worth sharing because I believe it says a lot about me. I do not hesitate to fight for what I believe is right, and I’m not afraid to be controversial. I enter public service to serve the public, and not to feel important or receive undeserved praise. I’m honest, maybe even to a fault, and believe there are many things much more important than myself – and the future of UVU is definitely one of those things. Looking back at everything that happened, I wouldn't do anything differently. I continue to believe the future of UVU is far more important than a few harsh words about me in the press, or my ongoing service on the Board of Regents.
Thanks for taking the time to hear my side of the story. Don't hesitate to call or email me if you would like to discuss further.
P.S. Here is the email I received from then Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert after I resigned from the Board of Regents:
"Gary R. Herbert February 27, 2009 at 1:31pm
Sometime things don't go the way we plan them--and the old adage "no good turn goes unpunished" comes to mind. I appreciate all of your service over the years. Don't let this last experience get your down. You are a good man with a great family. And I am glad to call you a friend! GH"
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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
What is a tax increase?
The property tax rate in Utah County in 2008 was .000809, and was increased in 2009 to .000878. In other words, the property tax rate was increased by 8.53% in 2009. I think that is a tax increase. However, my opponent claims it was not a tax increase, because our home values fell by about 8%, so they had to raise the property tax rate by 8.5% to collect the same dollar amount in property taxes in 2009 as they did in 2008.
I would compare this to a farmer deciding to feed his plow horse 8.5% less. But, when the plow horse doesn't have as much strength to pull the plow, the farmer just makes him work an hour longer every day to get just as much work out of him.
Like many of you, I made less money in 2009 than in 2008 due to the recession, and was frankly just grateful for my job in 2009. At my house, we had to cut down on a number of expenses in 2009 due to our lower income. But Utah County didn't have to cut nearly as much as we did, or you most likely did, because they could simply raise the property tax rate to keep their property tax income exactly the same.
In fairness to my opponent, he would tell you that the State of Utah sets Utah County's property tax rates every year by calculating the property tax rate necessary to collect the same dollar amount, while potentially adding a little more for population growth. So, he would tell you that he just approved the amount that the State of Utah sent him. But my opponent had the ability to deny the property tax rate increase recommended by Utah. In other words, he had the ability to prevent it if he had opposed it, and convinced one more Commissioner to oppose it as well.
However, what do you think? Do you think it was appropriate for Utah County to raise the property tax rate 8.5% to collect the same amount of property taxes in 2009 as they did in 2008?
I would compare this to a farmer deciding to feed his plow horse 8.5% less. But, when the plow horse doesn't have as much strength to pull the plow, the farmer just makes him work an hour longer every day to get just as much work out of him.
Like many of you, I made less money in 2009 than in 2008 due to the recession, and was frankly just grateful for my job in 2009. At my house, we had to cut down on a number of expenses in 2009 due to our lower income. But Utah County didn't have to cut nearly as much as we did, or you most likely did, because they could simply raise the property tax rate to keep their property tax income exactly the same.
In fairness to my opponent, he would tell you that the State of Utah sets Utah County's property tax rates every year by calculating the property tax rate necessary to collect the same dollar amount, while potentially adding a little more for population growth. So, he would tell you that he just approved the amount that the State of Utah sent him. But my opponent had the ability to deny the property tax rate increase recommended by Utah. In other words, he had the ability to prevent it if he had opposed it, and convinced one more Commissioner to oppose it as well.
However, what do you think? Do you think it was appropriate for Utah County to raise the property tax rate 8.5% to collect the same amount of property taxes in 2009 as they did in 2008?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Fraud in Utah County
According to this article in the Deseret News from October 2009: http://bit.ly/aqmpIM , victims of fraud in Utah County lost $45 million in 2006 and 2007 together, $64 million in 2008, and at least $76 million in 2009. We need to take down the criminals engaged in this fraud. Now.
But, with that said, we also need individuals to realize that if something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Anything promising a likely return over 10% a year is risky. And anything promising a likely return over 15% a year makes it almost certain that there is a substantial chance you will lose your entire investment. GOVERNMENT CANNOT, AND SHOULD NOT, PROTECT YOU FROM YOUR OWN GREED AND STUPIDITY. Unless, or until, folks realize that, there are a lot of folks who will continue to invest money they cannot afford to lose.
However, if elected, I commit to do the following:
1. Give our Sheriff and County Attorney all the resources they need to prosecute individuals engaged in these investment fraud schemes to the fullest extent of the law, and recover as much as possible for the victims. Even if that means cutting my own salary as a Commissioner. These fraud schemes are harming thousands of individuals, and damaging the business reputation of our county. County Attorney Jeff Buhman states in the article that:
"The honest truth is we're barely scratching the surface [of the fraud in Utah County]," Buhman said. "We could double or triple our department easily, and we would still be extremely busy."
Maybe we need to make cuts else where, but if elected, I will get County Attorney Buhman the resources to go after these criminals, and recover as much as possible for the victims.
2. Start an aggressive education campaign on investment fraud. I will pay our employees in our County Attorney and Sheriff's departments to go out into the community and educate our citizens on how investment fraud works, and the kind of fraud they have seen in Utah County. I will ask the local churches to allow one of our employees to come to one of their Sunday meetings and take 30 minutes to give their presentation. I will also set up county web site that explains these things in detail, and a hot line where people can call to report investment schemes that are fraudulent so they can be shut down BEFORE they can steal millions.
But, what do you think? This is an important topic, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Joel
But, with that said, we also need individuals to realize that if something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Anything promising a likely return over 10% a year is risky. And anything promising a likely return over 15% a year makes it almost certain that there is a substantial chance you will lose your entire investment. GOVERNMENT CANNOT, AND SHOULD NOT, PROTECT YOU FROM YOUR OWN GREED AND STUPIDITY. Unless, or until, folks realize that, there are a lot of folks who will continue to invest money they cannot afford to lose.
However, if elected, I commit to do the following:
1. Give our Sheriff and County Attorney all the resources they need to prosecute individuals engaged in these investment fraud schemes to the fullest extent of the law, and recover as much as possible for the victims. Even if that means cutting my own salary as a Commissioner. These fraud schemes are harming thousands of individuals, and damaging the business reputation of our county. County Attorney Jeff Buhman states in the article that:
"The honest truth is we're barely scratching the surface [of the fraud in Utah County]," Buhman said. "We could double or triple our department easily, and we would still be extremely busy."
Maybe we need to make cuts else where, but if elected, I will get County Attorney Buhman the resources to go after these criminals, and recover as much as possible for the victims.
2. Start an aggressive education campaign on investment fraud. I will pay our employees in our County Attorney and Sheriff's departments to go out into the community and educate our citizens on how investment fraud works, and the kind of fraud they have seen in Utah County. I will ask the local churches to allow one of our employees to come to one of their Sunday meetings and take 30 minutes to give their presentation. I will also set up county web site that explains these things in detail, and a hot line where people can call to report investment schemes that are fraudulent so they can be shut down BEFORE they can steal millions.
But, what do you think? This is an important topic, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
Thanks,
Joel
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
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Utah County borrows $40 million for a Convention Center in Provo
Very interested in your thoughts on Utah County borrowing approximately $40 million to build a convention center in Provo. The Convention Center should largely pay for itself through rental rates, and should be a great place for conventions in Utah County that are now being held else where, thus substantially boosting business in Utah County. However, if revenues are insufficient to cover debt service on the convention center, then the bond is guaranteed by the tax on restaurants and hotels in Utah County, which should be sufficient.
Nevertheless, several concerns:
1. Tax increase? Government spending is frequently just a delayed tax increase. Because Utah County could be using the restaurant and hotel taxes to cover the debt service on the convention center, they will have less revenue to cover all other expenses, and thus may feel a need to allow property taxes to increase again. (They allowed the property tax rate to go up 8.5% in 2009.) On the other hand, the convention center could increase the revenue from restaurant and hotel tax in Utah County substantially, meaning even more tax revenue for Utah County.
2. Elimination of Restaurant tax? The debt on the convention center is guaranteed mostly by the restaurant tax paid in Utah County, and many of the restaurants will benefit substantially from the additional business the convention center will bring. HOWEVER, the Utah Restaurant Association is currently lobbying hard to get a bill passed this year in Utah that would eliminate the restaurant tax, but allow counties to increase their general sales tax to make up for it. In other words, we'd shift the cost of the convention center largely from the restaurants to the general tax payer. Note the restaurants in Utah County support the Convention Center, but also support eliminating the taxes that would potentially pay for the Convention Center! In other words, they want to "keep their cake and eat it too".
Deseret News article on the Convention Center:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705358118/Financing-in-place-for-Utah-County-convention-center.html
Financing in place for Utah County convention center
By Sara Lenz
Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010 8:48 p.m. MST
PROVO — Saying it couldn't have been better timed, Utah County Commissioners on Tuesday finalized plans to build a convention center in downtown Provo.
With the economy struggling and the federal government offering incentives to spend, Utah County locked down an interest rate of 3.89 percent on its $40.15 million worth of bonds issued for the convention center as of Monday. Without those conditions, the rate would have been closer to 6 percent or 7 percent, County Commissioner Larry Ellertson said.
"It's the culmination of a lot of work and effort and thoughts and ideas by a lot of people," Ellertson said. "This kind of puts the nail in the ground, so to speak."
There is speculation that the Federal Reserve will raise the borrowing rate later this month, so commissioners say they believe they finalized the project at the right time — even down to the date.
"The timing couldn't have been more perfect," Commissioner Gary Anderson said during a planning meeting Tuesday.
The county issued three types of bonds — tax-exempt bonds, Build America Bonds and recovery zone bonds — to various entities, including private health insurance and retirement fund companies, said Bryan Thomson, Utah County clerk/auditor. The bonds will be paid back over 30 years, with the total principal plus interest for Utah County at $69.75 million.
Thomson said the county was given a AA-minus rating in financial strength, which he said is basically saying to investors that the bond is a safe investment and has a low risk of failure.
While 90 percent of all municipalities' financial ratings went down with the economy, Utah County's did not. Thompson said he believes that's partly due to county commissioners' fiscal conservatism. Utah County has two-time coverage on all of its debt, he said.
Ellertson said the convention center will be paid for with Tourism, Recreation, Cultural and Convention Tax revenue, which has remained stable during the economic downturn. General sales tax revenue, on the other hand, has gone down in most cities.
Ellertson said the only drawback with the timing is that a proposal about the tourism tax is currently being debated by state legislators. The proposal is to eliminate the 1 percent TRCC tax and replace it with a .01 percent tax on all businesses across the board.
County commissioners met with architects Tuesday afternoon to go over design plans and discuss a timetable for construction of the convention center. Ellertson said construction should commence by the beginning of summer and take no longer than two years to finish.
The convention center is proposed to be built on 200 West, between Center and 100 North, near the Provo Marriott. It is planned to be three stories tall and 120,000 square feet, with a 20,000-square-foot exhibit hall and an 18,000-square-foot ballroom.
County officials also have plans to expand the center to more than double its planned size if the need is there in the future.
END
Nevertheless, several concerns:
1. Tax increase? Government spending is frequently just a delayed tax increase. Because Utah County could be using the restaurant and hotel taxes to cover the debt service on the convention center, they will have less revenue to cover all other expenses, and thus may feel a need to allow property taxes to increase again. (They allowed the property tax rate to go up 8.5% in 2009.) On the other hand, the convention center could increase the revenue from restaurant and hotel tax in Utah County substantially, meaning even more tax revenue for Utah County.
2. Elimination of Restaurant tax? The debt on the convention center is guaranteed mostly by the restaurant tax paid in Utah County, and many of the restaurants will benefit substantially from the additional business the convention center will bring. HOWEVER, the Utah Restaurant Association is currently lobbying hard to get a bill passed this year in Utah that would eliminate the restaurant tax, but allow counties to increase their general sales tax to make up for it. In other words, we'd shift the cost of the convention center largely from the restaurants to the general tax payer. Note the restaurants in Utah County support the Convention Center, but also support eliminating the taxes that would potentially pay for the Convention Center! In other words, they want to "keep their cake and eat it too".
Deseret News article on the Convention Center:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705358118/Financing-in-place-for-Utah-County-convention-center.html
Financing in place for Utah County convention center
By Sara Lenz
Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010 8:48 p.m. MST
PROVO — Saying it couldn't have been better timed, Utah County Commissioners on Tuesday finalized plans to build a convention center in downtown Provo.
With the economy struggling and the federal government offering incentives to spend, Utah County locked down an interest rate of 3.89 percent on its $40.15 million worth of bonds issued for the convention center as of Monday. Without those conditions, the rate would have been closer to 6 percent or 7 percent, County Commissioner Larry Ellertson said.
"It's the culmination of a lot of work and effort and thoughts and ideas by a lot of people," Ellertson said. "This kind of puts the nail in the ground, so to speak."
There is speculation that the Federal Reserve will raise the borrowing rate later this month, so commissioners say they believe they finalized the project at the right time — even down to the date.
"The timing couldn't have been more perfect," Commissioner Gary Anderson said during a planning meeting Tuesday.
The county issued three types of bonds — tax-exempt bonds, Build America Bonds and recovery zone bonds — to various entities, including private health insurance and retirement fund companies, said Bryan Thomson, Utah County clerk/auditor. The bonds will be paid back over 30 years, with the total principal plus interest for Utah County at $69.75 million.
Thomson said the county was given a AA-minus rating in financial strength, which he said is basically saying to investors that the bond is a safe investment and has a low risk of failure.
While 90 percent of all municipalities' financial ratings went down with the economy, Utah County's did not. Thompson said he believes that's partly due to county commissioners' fiscal conservatism. Utah County has two-time coverage on all of its debt, he said.
Ellertson said the convention center will be paid for with Tourism, Recreation, Cultural and Convention Tax revenue, which has remained stable during the economic downturn. General sales tax revenue, on the other hand, has gone down in most cities.
Ellertson said the only drawback with the timing is that a proposal about the tourism tax is currently being debated by state legislators. The proposal is to eliminate the 1 percent TRCC tax and replace it with a .01 percent tax on all businesses across the board.
County commissioners met with architects Tuesday afternoon to go over design plans and discuss a timetable for construction of the convention center. Ellertson said construction should commence by the beginning of summer and take no longer than two years to finish.
The convention center is proposed to be built on 200 West, between Center and 100 North, near the Provo Marriott. It is planned to be three stories tall and 120,000 square feet, with a 20,000-square-foot exhibit hall and an 18,000-square-foot ballroom.
County officials also have plans to expand the center to more than double its planned size if the need is there in the future.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
