What's it to you?
Poor legislators. Once again they had to make a hard decision. Should they risk violating their own sacred rules to close ethics committee meetings to the public or should they flout the rules and let taxpayers see how the sausage is made on Capitol Hill?I don't know what Jesus would have done, but these sanctimonious bozos closed the door, tossed the media and pulled the shroud of secrecy over the public's business.
Rep. Todd Kiser, co-chairman of the committee, explained in his tool-like way:
If we choose to [open the meeting], we are in violation of those rules, and I think there are probably some dangers. In doing that, we send messages abroad that we don't respect and honor legislative rules.What about respecting the spirit of the open meetings act and honoring your constituents by letting them see what will likely be a week's worth of weasel work? Wait, let me guess: The committee will find everything is squeaky clean on the Hill. Again.
Rep. Roz McGee, who some GOP members say is "disgusting" for signing the ethics complaint, says open the door:
Clearly the public is very very interested and entitled to have more knowledge about what's going on.
4 Comments:
Glen,
You seems to forget that personnel issue are typically dealt with in executive (closed) session. Rep McGee whining is childish. Her October surprise is a disgusting and highly partisan act. Why was this complaint not release 2 years ago when these individuals were aware of these allegations. To sit on the allegations for 2 years and spring it a month before an election is unconscionable.
So to clarify, these legislators closed the door and tossed the sanctimonious bozos (commonly referred to as the media.
Glen,
When you close the doors whether you have someting to hide or not the appearance is the you have something to hide. Clearly, both Hughes and Riesen wanted the hearing to be seen by the public. I think that those voting to keep the doors closed were concerned that something negative about them may come out.
Glen.....
There is more to the story regarding the Rep from Draper. I would encourage you to take a look at HB109 from the last Legislative Session. From what I understand in discussions with others, there are some troubling issues involved. I have heard the legislation was drafted in a way that only one vendor would likely get the contract. I think you will see it if you take a quick look at the bill. The specificity of items included in the bill is without precedent. If this isn't illegal, it certainly crosses ethical boundaries The scoop I heard was that one of partners of the company that would likely get the bid basically drafted the bill. It isn't coincidence that the assessment tool required under the legislation is exactly the same as the assessment tool created by this company. Is this what we have come to? Legislators drafting and selling legislation to pad the pocketbook of specific companies? Allowing the company that will compete for the contract to draft the bill? I would suggest you do some digging. Citizens are not going to like the smell, and it is very apparent what is happening here. The pilot program drafted in the legislation is to go out to bid by the Department of Corrections. Perhaps you should contact them both to get the whole story and to see if this company did, in fact, get the funding. Initially, I was angry that this would be allowed to happen. I finally let it go. However, now that I find an alleged bribery scandal a pattern of abuse is coming into focus. The citizens of this state should be appalled that this type of policy making is occurring. I believe some investigative reporting would quickly lay bare what happened with this bill. Utah citizens have a right to know. Take a look. You won't be disappointed.
Since we are supposed to be those legislator's employers, shouldn't we have the right to examine their personnel record?
Post a Comment
<< Home