I had the opportunity to meet with both Steve Wrigley and Melody Shock last night (9/2/10) at a neighbor’s home.

Steve Wrigley has spent a lot of time developing relationships with the current school principals and administrative people and believes he has the ability to improve the school system without significant change to the status quo. He does not appear to be tuned in to taxpayer concerns as was evidenced by his lack of knowledge about what was in the bond, which narrowly passed recently.

Melody Shock is not an administrative person as much as she is passionate about teaching children. She is a teacher but does not belong to the UEA. She has worked very hard to get the votes she did in the primary election, she had the most votes of any of the four candidates, despite that she had no signs, has no web site, etc. But she feels very strongly about wanting to be an agent for change. While she wants the best education available for our children, she is not pleased with the way the School Board seems to be out of touch with parents and tax payers. She doesn’t think the Canyons District was forthcoming to the taxpayers when asking for the bond passage. She is opposed to the three-story Brighton football health spa (the top floor of which will be used to view film clips and discuss football training). She wonders why the board thinks it will cost 13 million dollars to fit Albion with air conditioning and is anxious to see who gets the contract. She is not pleased with the “progressive” board members who approved a history book, which states that some people “claim” that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during WII.

Perhaps you should actually visit with the candidates before making a recommendation. Invite your neighbors to meet them too. You will learn a lot more than what you learn from a few emails. So far, I endorse Melody Shock. She cares about our children and our wallets.

While I have the opportunity, let me share some other information about education in Utah, which most people seem to be totally unaware of:

The following Taxes are used to fund Utah Public Education:
100% of all Utah Personal Income Tax
100% of all Corporate and Franchise Income Tax
100% of all Wine and Liquor Sales Tax (School Lunch Programs)
55% of all Utah Property Taxes
100% of all Mineral Production Taxes
100% of Income tax from Electric Utility Companies
100% of Income tax from Radio Active Waste Companies
(Source: Utah State Tax Commission, http://www.tax.utah.gov/research/)

Don’t take my word for it. Call the Utah State Tax Commission and ask them.

From Americablog:

“The question of the proponents’ standing to appeal, or lack thereof, is a complicated one, but it’s grounded in some basic constitutional principles. Article III of the Constitution limits the federal courts to hearing “cases” or “controversies.” For some years now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that parties asking federal courts to act must have “standing.” One constitutional requirement for standing is that the party suffer an injury sufficient to give him, her, it, or them an appropriate stake in the dispute. This injury must be “concrete and particularized,” and it cannot be a mere “generalized grievance.” It is not enough that people object to the government not following what they believe the law to be; the Supreme Court uses standing doctrine to limit the number of people who have the right to take up the time of the federal judiciary. As part of this gatekeeping, the Court has said that the federal courts are not to be treated as “a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.” So, parties need to be injured in some way more than just passionately disapproving of what the government is doing if they’re going to be able to have the federal courts pass on their complaints.

These requirements of injury and standing apply in appeals and not just at trial. So, in a case called Diamond v. Charles in 1986, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by a pro-life doctor to appeal a decision enjoining parts of Illinois’s abortion-restricting law. The state government was a defendant at trial, lost, and opted not to appeal. Pro-life physician Eugene Diamond had intervened as a defendant at trial, and he tried to appeal. When the case came before the Supreme Court, the Court dismissed his appeal. The Court held that Diamond did not show that he had personally suffered or been imminently threatened with an adequate injury. “The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be,” the Court ruled, “is insufficient by itself to meet Art. III’s requirements.”

The Prop 8 proponents are in the same position. They intervened at trial to defend the measure they’d qualified for the California ballot because of their value interests in supporting mixed-sex only civil marriage and their sharp disagreement with the plaintiffs about Prop 8’s constitutionality or unconstitutionality, and because the governmental defendants refused to argue that Prop 8 was constitutional. As in Diamond, the state was the original defendant, it lost, and it has chosen not to appeal; and now the proponents are trying to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

As an aside, I don’t think that system can work universally. The courts change their minds on what is or is not constitutional on a regular basis. It regularly filters decisions through new court decisions, social mores, federal laws… the works. As much as a strict constructionist would like to say that the Constitution has always meant one thing and one thing only (and as extremely convenient as that would be), the reality is that the meaning and application changes depending on what we collectively want it to mean.

He said that while he personally felt that marriage was between a man and a woman and he was personally and morally against homosexuality that it was not his place to legally impose that moral belief on a group. That’s been pretty much been my opinion the past few years that this particular debate has been going on – if your belief is against gay marriage, that fine. I dont take issue with peoples various moral beliefs. Practice those beliefs within your home, your family, your parish, your ward, and your congregation. I disagree with legally imposing those beliefs on a minority group.

You may want to add a notice on the bottom of your blog or somewhere, to let folks know to check their spam folders for the “Notify” emails.

I check my spam folder at least weekly or more often if I’m expecting an email BUT most folks do not do this like they should and probably miss LOTS of email from people… maybe even that email from Publisher’s Clearing House letting them know they won TEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!

A Quorum requirement of at least 25% of voters and/or a NOTA ballot choice would go a LONG WAY in getting voters more involved.

“It’s not a surprise to me that pathetic is part of apathetic.” – (My own quote… lol)

Lenny Vasbinder
http://LennyVasbinder.blogspot.com

I’m really disappointed that Stout didn’t get the nod. I felt like he was a strong candidate, one that I could have considered voting for in the general. And Granato is already trying to negative campaign against Lee, yet still won’t tell us what he’s for. That’s frustrating as all get out.

Lenny: I agree that a NOTA option is a Good Thing(TM), but I don’t feel entirely powerless without one.

This is how corporate stockholder meetings are handled… there MUST be a quorum… usually at least 50% of the voters voting or the vote does not count.

As it stands in I believe ALL States, if only 1% of the voters showed up and voted, whoever got the majority of the votes wins or goes into a run-off with the other top vote getter, if nobody got 50%+1 of the votes that were cast. This is BAD when only 1% of the voters could decide who is getting elected to represent the other 99%.

Yes, the other 99% should have showed up but if there was a quorum requirement, if voters boycotted the polls, the election would not take place. That would send a clear message to the pol’s!!!

NOTA is also needed for many other reasons. I’m not sure if you remember, but down here in Louisiana, we had a gubernatorial race (=Governor’s race for those folks in New Orleans who have no clue what gubernatorial means.. lol) a while back, between Edwin Edwards (a known crook who is now serving time in Federal Prison) and David Duke (a former KKK grand wizard) and GOD knows we needed a NOTA ballot in that case… but we had to show up and hold our nose and vote for Edwards, who further ran Louisiana into the ground while enriching himself and his cronies… many of whom are also in jail today.

Without either a NOTA ballot choice or a Quorum requirement, then those of us who can vote, need to show up and vote… even if it’s for the lesser of two evils… which is often the case nowadays.

Lenny Vasbinder
http://LennyVasbinder.blogspot.com