Wednesday, March 23, 2011

HB477 The Alternative.

I offered to help the Legislature in crafting an alternative to HB477...chances are that I am not the only person who has done so.  Odds are, that there are Legislators that would not like what I have to say, anyhow.  Any time that Chris Buttars and Ethan Millard agree on something, people should listen.

The Grama (Government Records and materials act) policy needs to be crated with the understanding that there should be no expectation of privacy when information is transferred on the public internet...period.  You can craft any law that you want to, but it will have no effect.  Somewhere, someone is going to squeal and embarrassing information will be made public.  Think twice before you hit send.  What can the Legislature do?

1.  Identify the risks to the state for communicating over the Web.

2.  Purchase and deploy equipment and software that will help mitigate the risks.

3.  Develop a standard of expectation that even legislators are expected to abide by.  There should also be realistic and enforceable punishments for those who violate this policy...from the Governor down to every elected and appointed city and town official in the state.

Who should develop this policy?  Someone from the Governor's office, the state Attorney General, the state Director of Information Systems, the state Director of Personnel, someone from the press people of both parties respect like Carole Mikita, a member of the house and senate committee's responsible for Information Management in the state from each party, a commissioner from 4-6 counties in the state, a city/town council member from 4-6 cities/towns in the state and a recorder/scribe.  It may even include a faculty member from one of our universities as a technical adviser.  Having a policy ready for next Winter's legislative session will be plenty of time.

Once a policy, or expectation is developed, then electronic media forms transferred via electronic means and inside a virtual private network can be safely enveloped into Grama.

Monday, March 21, 2011

HB 477 Needs to Go

It is scary when KSL's Ethan Millard and I are on the same side of an issue.  Either I am wrong or we are both right.  In this case, I am standing firm.  HB477 is a bad idea and there needs to be some serious consequences for those who have passed it, even those who have changed their mind.  They do not belong in government.  Let me again quote from the Utah GOP platform:

ETHICS AND STANDARDS
We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We will work to
expose and stop corruption.

HB477 is against the Utah GOP platform...the same platform that those who are elected to public office agree to uphold.  It is for secrecy.  Period.  Those who voted for this bill, including Governor Herbert who signed it, need to resign from office and let those who agree to uphold the platform serve in those offices.  The only answer is a complete repeal of the bill.

Now the Governor and the House have agreed to special session to consider the repeal of the bill.  Both houses of the State Legislature need to vote for this repeal, and if the open records law needs a tweak, then take your time over the next year to work out all of the problems.  Perhaps the best policy is an acceptable use policy for all state officials including elected officials.  As an Information Systems professional, this is my best advice.  In fact, I am willing to volunteer my services, if necessary.  Please contact me and I will help.  I can provide my resume and references.  I will do this free of charge as a public service.  But first, let me say that there needs to be an understanding that any communication on a public system is meant for the public, while understanding that legislators need to have private communication with their families.

For your enrichment, here is a list of sponsors for this legislation.  Let the letter writing begin.  Please contact your state senator or state representative and let them hear you.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

One Big Problem With Utah's Immigration Law

Let's say that the "Utah" plan passes constitutional muster in the courts...and is adopted by several other states the problem is how to deal with discovered identity theft issues.  The Utah bill does not address this, and many feel that identity thieves may get a pass and avoid jail time as a result of this new guest worker program.

But let's examine the following scenario.  Joe came into the US undocumented.  Works a minimum wage job.  Decided that he does not wish to fear deportation any long.  Applies for the guest work program and comes up with the 2500 to pay the fine for crossing our borders illegally.  During the criminal background check, it is discovered that Joe is actually using the Social Security Number of a deceased individual.  He never used this number to apply for credit.  Never purchased a home or a car with it.  Just used the number to work around the system.  How will a situation like this be handled.

How will it look when Joe is arrested and put in jail for identity theft when he was just trying to beat the system and never ruined anyone's good name?  The easy answer is to put Joe in jail anyway...he did the crime and he should do the time as well.  Does Joe then get deported when his jail sentence is over?

One can not simply give Joe a pass either.  That will not go over well should the public find out.

Dealing with the identity theft that goes along with illegal immigration is the pit fall of the Utah plan, and something that probably can not be overlooked.  It would be better to do all that we can to stem the problem before the guest worker program goes into effect.  It will be something that Congress will need to address at the Federal Level and something that the individual states will need to address as well.  This is something that State and Federal officials will need to work together on to resolve.

But one thing is possible.  Credit will reports will confirm whether or not Joe is telling the truth...that the card was only used for identification purposes and was never used to obtain credit.  It is also likely that Joe did not get his fraudulent social security number by himself.  If he can prove that he did not use his stolen identification to gain credit--that he did no harm to the stolen good name and he can help bring down the ring that gave him is identification, maybe a slap on the wrist is appropriate.  Otherwise, it would be best to take care of all of the identity theft issues before the guest worker program goes into effect.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Congressional Redistricting...What the Legislature Will Choose From

Four plans came out of committee on redistricting Utah.  None of them are similar to my plan from back in December where my bright idea was to put Davis and Weber Counties into separate districts to help protect Hill Air Force Base.

None of the plans keep Salt Lake County whole.  All of the plans build the new districts around the current delegation.  Congressman Bishop lives in Brigham City, so every plan has the Box Elder County in the First District.  Congressman Matheson lives in Salt Lake City.  Northeast Salt Lake County is always in the Second district.  Congressman Chaffetz lives in Alpine.  The Third District always includes northeast Utah County.  All of them seem to put Carl Wimmer, the Tea Party favorite, in the 4th district.

Source: Provo Daily Herald and the Utah Legislature.

My comments on each plan...

Plan A



Out of the four plans, this is my favorite because it appears to balance the population between the four districts...even though that is not a constitutional requirement.  It splits the national parks between the 2nd and 3rd districts.    The new district is Southern Salt Lake County.  The First District will continue to be a strong Republican district.  The Third District has the strong Democratic base in Summit, Grand and Carbon counties against Utah County...meaning that if the GOP messes up there, it would be possible for a Democrat to win.  Jim Matheson will likely be able to keep his job representing the second district, but could be replaced by a Republican when he leaves office.  The new 4th district would also be a strong GOP district.  All four districts would have growth areas.  What I like about it is that there is districts, mostly, are culturally matched.

Plan G

This is my least favorite because it not only splits Salt Lake County into three, but splits the populated part of Utah County from the new growth part of the county.  It guarantees a Democrat in the Second District and a Republican in the other three districts.  It is population balanced, but not growth balanced.  There are very little new growth areas in the established part of Salt Lake County, the part that would be the second district.  It emphasizes the differences between the parties in Utah.  This is what is called the donut plan.  The second and third district are the donut hole.

Plan I


It is workable, but I really don't like the idea of separating Rich County from Cache County nor do I like the idea of separating Morgan County from Weber County.  This separates the rural from suburban in Northern Utah in a bad way.  This plan also separates Park City...mostly Democratic from the rest of Summit County.  Although the Democratic Stronghold of Northern Salt Lake County remains in tact.  But on the other hand, there are enough Democrats in Park City, Carbon and Grand Counties to keep the Republicans in Utah County in check.

Plan J
This plan is the second best plan, in my opinion.  It is better than plan I because it keeps Rich County with Cache County and does not divide any county other than Salt Lake County.  It almost guarantees a Democrat will represent the Second District, but a hard working moderate Republican could win.  Like some of the other plans, it help keep a Utah County congressman honest by putting some Democratic-leaning counties in the district.  I would rather see Morgan and Weber Counties together.  But otherwise, this plan looks almost natural.  You could probably fix this by taking Morgan County out of the Second District and giving them northern Summit County, giving the 4th District Garfield and Kane Counties and giving the 2nd District West Davis County (Clearfield, Syracuse, Clinton and West Point).  But giving the 2nd District Morgan County makes for a nicer map.


The plan the Tea Party did not get.

If the GOP in Utah really wanted to screw the Democrats out of seat, the districts would have been divided like this:






This is the plan that would have ensured that all four Utah Congressional districts would be solid Republican.

This plan would have protected the one Democratic Seat in Utah...

The main difference between this plan and the plan I had in mind is that Salt Lake County is split north and south.  My plan was to split Salt Lake County East and West.  Salt Lake County becomes more Democratic as you move to the north.

Which plan do you like best?  Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Utah's New Immigration Law

I've heard that a lot of people are upset about the Utah Immigration Law and what they believe is in it.  Also, a lot of people are upset that the Chambers of Commerce in the state and the LDS Church have supported it.  Even the ultra-conservative Sutherland Group is for this series of laws.  Hopefully, I can help clear up some misconceptions.

What is is:

1.  A Guest Worker Program that allows those who are already here a chance to apply for permits if they pay a 2500 fine and 1000 if they overstay their visa.  It also will include a criminal background check for those wishing to apply.
2.  Worker Exchange Program with the Mexican State of Nuevo Leon.
3.  Requirement that employers verify the legal status of employees.
4.  Allows employers and citizens to sponsor an immigrant laborers.

What is is not:

1.  Amnesty.  It simply states law enforcement agencies in the State of Utah will not enforce Federal immigration law.  It is no worse that the status quo.  It keeps the state out of it.  This is something that Police Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City and other law enforcement agencies asked for.  However, Governor Hebert will file a grievance with the Feds asking for stronger enforcement of the law.  Amnesty is a complete pardon for a crime.  Paying 2500 is not amnesty.  At minimum wage, that is about 8 and 1/2 weeks of labor.  You would not consider working for 8 and 1/2 weeks for any misdemeanor fine amnesty.  If you are the kind of person that believes anything short of deportation is amnesty, there will never be an executable law that you will like.
2.  A pass for identity theft.  No where does the new law excuse identity theft nor does it excuse any other crime.  Those who fake their identities or steal the identity of another will still be punished according to the law.  This is perhaps the biggest misconception that I heard on KNRS radio this afternoon.  Shame on Rod Arquette for not clarifying this with his listeners and callers.
3.  An attempt at an Arizona-style immigration law.
4.  A path to US Citizenship.  That has already been defined by the Constitution and by Federal Law.  The State of Utah itself has no authority to grant citizenship.

Will it work?  It is doubtful that anything other than the employment verification bill will pass constitutional muster, but I am no constitutional expert.  It seems, however, that the Utah Department of Public Safety does not have the authority to issue a visa, but I could be wrong about that.

Rather than condemned, the state leaders should be commended for passing this series of laws.

Further Commentary...
As a state GOP delegate (former delegate, I had to surrender my position when I moved), I voted against the immigration provision for three reasons.

1.  The language is unclear.  According to the language of the platform plank, the party is opposed to a guest worker program IF that program provides a pathway to citizenship.  This is clearly not the intent of that plank.  The sponsors were completely opposed to a guest worker program...period.
2.  Amnesty is one of those words that sparks an emotional response, but is not clear in it's meaning.  To some people, some punishment, even when light, is not amnesty.  And yes, those people are Republicans.  To others, anything short of deportation is amnesty.  Those people are also Republicans.  People in the Utah GOP need to realize that this is a wedge issue that could cost our state dearly.
3.  A punitive approach seems racist.  We are not racist in the GOP.  Therefore, the plank needs to be reworded.

The current plank:

America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders.

We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants. We support suspending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents. We oppose granting government benefits to those illegally present in the US. We oppose any temporary or "guest" worker program that would offer an automatic path to citizenship. We believe that current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced, particularly to stem the now too common crime of identity theft in obtaining employment.

How it should read:

America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders.

We believe that those who cross international borders illegally into our country or those who over-stay a visa, no matter their nation of origin, are not entitled the same rights and privileges granted to natural-born or naturalized citizens nor the same privileges and rights granted to legal immigrants and those with a current visa.  We strongly encourage vigorous enforcement current immigration and identity law.  We do not support laws that provide a pathway to citizenship for any undocumented immigrant without a just remedy.  We encourage businesses to conduct background checks on prospective employees and refer any suspected violations to the proper authorities. 
(This is no amnesty without saying the word amnesty.)

We do not support birthright citizenship for the children of those who are not in the United States legally and call for Federal Government to fix this oversight in law, even if the Constitution of the United States needs to be amended.  We do not support enforcement of immigration law of the type that would break families apart and allow children to remain in our country while their parents are deported.

We support programs that will allow foreigners to work or gain an education in our nation legally, provided they have obtained gainful employment or admittance to an accredited school; but do not support the idea that such programs should provide an automatic path to citizenship.  We strongly encourage authorities to ensure that no guest worker or student overstays a work or education visa.

(The following could be a new plank.)
We do not support the selective enforcement of immigration law or any law when the sole basis for suspicion is race, religion, nation of origin, gender, age or sexual orientation.  We believe that justice should be blind in such matters.