Steve Urquhart

UTOPIA: the Buck Stops with the Cities

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:31:00 +0000

I want to go on record now, to state that Utah should not bail out cities for the huge indebtedness they will incur because of their involvement with UTOPIA.

In 2004, the Legislature warned the cities that they would lose their shirts on UTOPIA, but several cities went ahead anyway. The argument was, “How dare the State interfere!” Exactly. They made their bed.

UTOPIA clearly has failed. (It has abandoned its reason for being – complete build out; its product is inferior to the competition; and its new financing scheme laughably balances, by proposing to charge customers an installation fee of $1,000 for what currently can’t be given away for free. Somewhere, Ken Lay is saying, "Now that's chutzpah!"). To play out the string a little longer, though, UTOPIA wants to tap into more debt, backed by the full faith and credit of the cities, of course. For a project that has failed in every measure, cities are using one credit card to pay off another.

Make no mistake; the cities clearly know that UTOPIA is in a death spiral. However, they don’t want to face the music now. Instead of currently facing the financial consequences of stepping into a competitive arena they know nothing about, cities are lining up to increase their future indebtedness to the staggering amount of $500 million – more than doubling the stakes. Pointing out the joke of the whole thing, the refinancing scheme makes only the merest pretense of moving forward, by allocating just $11 million to new build, which is not enough money to build anything. (Before being sold off, the Charter system in little old St. George struggled, because of inadequate investment. And Charter had invested over $20 million on upgrades to its existing system there. To put things on more of a Wasatch Front scale, Comcast recently has invested $500 million to upgrade its Utah system).

In order to mask their problems for a little while longer, cities are piling huge sums of debt on the taxpayers. Given the budgets of the pledging cities, the $500 million indebtedness is enormous. It will hurt them, and it could hurt the State. The cities are in trouble, and they are making decisions that will put their citizens in real jeopardy.

I guarantee that those cities will marshal all of their considerable political clout, to petition the State to bail them out of their financial straits. They will say, “A different city council got us in this mess. We are innocent. Please bail us out.”

My answer: no. At times, cities need assistance from the State. But not when they knowingly make horrible decisions, just to avoid accountability. Every one of these cities clearly knows what it currently is doing. Each city is hiding from accountability – for a season – by burying its problems under a pile of money.

President Lee Caldwell

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:21:00 +0000

President Lee Caldwell announced that he will be leaving Dixie State College. He and his wife Bonnie will be missed tremendously. President Caldwell's efforts on all issues affecting the College, the students, and the community, were second to none.

President Caldwell picked up the torch regarding an affiliation with the University of Utah and blazed the trail with gusto. Without him, the affiliation would not have begun.

I clarified with acting-commissioner of higher education, Dave Buhler, that the affiliation is moving forward. He agreed.

Dixie State College

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:43:00 +0000

Dixie State College had a very good year legislatively, receiving more new money than any other college/university in the State. There are many people to thank for that. Near the top of that list would be House Speaker Greg Curtis and UofU President Mike Young. They understand what we’re trying to do down here – match educational opportunities in Washington County to the economic and innovative vibrancy that fills this blessed corner of the State. Likewise, the skilled personnel from DSC and the UofU that are working on the affiliation are to be commended for their excellent work to date.

This morning, I had breakfast with the brass for higher education (the Regents and Commissioner’s office), leaders from DSC, and leaders from the Dixie Applied Technology College. After that breakfast, I had a wonderful hallway huddle with President Caldwell and a few of his VPs, trustees Shandon Gubler and Steve Caplin, and Mark Gubler from the Alumni Association.

It’s tough to reduce the content of several great hours of dialogue to a few sentences, but here it is for me. Our community is very excited about increased education opportunities that could arise from an enhanced affiliation with the UofU. But, of course, where there is change, there is an element of trepidation and concern that the changes be beneficial. Finding the best possibilities and engaging the support necessary to achieve those possibilities requires broad community dialogue. Not in a way of selling something that is already baked, but in a way of inviting the community to participate in determining and blazing the trail. We need to look at the progress we’ve made to date on the affiliation and broaden our discussion with the two communities of interest.

Quite simply, the affiliation between the two institutions should work however the two communities of interest determine that it should work. Both institutions want better education opportunities. The UofU wants to better fill its mission as THE flagship institution for the entire State. DSC wants more degrees and programs. Those are great things. Let’s reboot the discussion, look at the great steps that the two institutions have made, and have a broad community dialogue on the next steps that we can take.

I have drafted some initial thoughts on a possible pathway for the affiliation. They will appear next Tuesday in the Dixie Weekly. Please take a look and give some input.

A Fantastic Blog

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:32:00 +0000

Check out ColorComments. Wow! What a great tone for discussing many complex issues.

The House Rules Committee

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:59:00 +0000

The House Rules Committee takes original ownership of all legislation. Yesterday, we met and recommended that some bills go straight to the House floor for consideration (and possible passage) by the whole House. Those bills passed out of interim committees unanimously. And, we recommended that some bills go to standing committees, where the committee chairs can determine whether the bills will receive a hearing (and debate, amendment, referral to the House floor or – rarely – death).

Committees aren’t killing bills (now, watch, to prove me wrong, all my bills will die in committee). Nor are bills being killed on the floor. When they are, they quickly become zombie bills, coming back from the dead on a motion to reconsider after the sponsor has successfully begged enough colleagues to “just let it advance in the system.”

So, each chamber shovels garbage forward to the other chamber, counting on the other to kill it. And, even then, most bills are killed by the clock (when we constitutionally turn into pumpkins at midnight on the 45th day), rather than by an actual vote. This is a bad practice. To do its part, I plan for the House Rules Committee to more aggressively filter out bills that we deem don’t have a shot at actual passage. And – as you can imagine – we’ll catch all sorts of grief for being oppressive thugs.

To gauge that criticism, let me explain how the process will work. Believing that committees work best when each member is empowered, I have distributed many of the Chair’s prerogatives to the 7 other members of the committee. (We have 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Each member can nominate an equal number of bills to each recommendation list we send to the whole body for its approval. However, a majority of the Rules Committee members must agree with those recommendations.

Thus, there are two steps to successfully navigate the House Rules Committee. First, members of the House need to find a Rules Committee member (any Rules Committee member) who will add his/her bill to the list. And, remember, each member, including the Chair, has an equal number of nominations. Second, each Rules Committee member must work with the other 7 members to make sure his/her recommendations will have majority support in the Rules Committee. If a particular bill doesn’t have majority support, the Rules Committee member should tell the bill sponsor to work with the members of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee member should nominate a different bill.

People will mostly decide the effectiveness of this approach by the fate of the bill(s) they favor, but it is the most open, democratized procedure the Committee has ever used. Rep. Hendrickson suggested that we close the House Rules Committee. I discussed that suggestion with the other committee members, and it’s not going to happen. I’m a proponent of more openness in government, but I don’t think that Rep. Hendrickson or the Democrats should be pilloried for raising the issue for discussion.

An argument could be made that a closed process would work better for the minority party. (Not MY argument, mind you, but AN argument). In general, there isn’t as much partisan friction in the Utah Legislature as the Media might have you believe. Democrats have some very effective members; like every member of the Legislature, they simply understand that a majority of votes is needed at every step in the process; and they put legislation in a form that it can receive that support. If a Rules Committee member doesn’t do his/her homework with the other members of the Committee, to determine whether majority support exists, the bill simply will be removed from the list. A more candid exchange and, yes, horse trading and deal making could produce a less-blunt outcome. In a closed meeting, members are more likely to say, “C’mon. You know that bill is not ready and doesn’t have a prayer of passing the Legislature and will only take time away from bills that have a shot. What do you want that might have a prayer?”

It’s exciting to be back in the Capitol. I am optimistic that the Rules Committee will do a good job of serving the House and the people of the State.

The Budget

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:06:00 +0000

Robert Gehrke wrote a good article on the current status of budget talks. Senator Bramble sums up the situation: "'I think as we go into this session, it sounds like the House, Senate and governor are much closer than we've been at the same point in previous years,' said Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble. While Senate Republicans did not settle on the size of a tax cut, he said a reduction in the $100 million range is 'reasonable and possible.'"

The Governor's initial task in the budgeting process is to provide recommendations to the Legislature. Governor Huntsman did a great job.

For starters, he didn't use fake money. We have a spending cap. Some things count toward that cap, some don't, and some are grey. The Gov didn't fudge those numbers. Thus, the two branches agree on the amount of available revenue that exists.

Also, there are some (unglamorous) things that absolutely have to be funded (like enrollment growth in Medicaid). By not accounting for those things in a recommendation, a Gov leaves lots of fake money on the table to fund wish lists (leaving the Legislature to play Scrooge, by appropriating the money where it actually has to go).

And, most importantly, his recommendations are good. The biggest expenditure is public education. The 7% increase the Gov recommended is appropriate. We differ a bit on how that should be appropriated, but it is a point we will work out.

Many in the Legislature want a good chunk of the education money to go directly to teacher bonuses, rather than to the districts in a lump sum. In negotiating salaries with the districts, the education unions demand that most of the money go to teachers nearing retirement (since retirement is based on a percentage of their highest paid years); this hurts teachers at the start of their careers. By paying the money as an across-the-board bonus, it works to lift salaries of the younger teachers we need to retain more than if we were to send the money directly to the districts.

As for a tax cut, stay tuned. As I have stated many times before, I believe that cuts to the personal income tax stimulate the economy. Businesses are very mobile, and they look at the income tax rate as a key indicator. Thus, I will work to further reduce the income tax rate.

Mitt's Mormon Speech

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:02:00 +0000

I liked Mitt’s Mormon speech. America does well when it openly discusses its prejudices and divisions. Regardless of parties and positions, it is exciting that our leading candidates include a Mormon, a woman, and a black man with a humdinger of a name. We’ve come a long way, baby.

How to Cripple Utah's Economy

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:37:00 +0000

For decades, Utah has worked hard to bring in better paying jobs. St. George provides a good example of this work – and a good example of how to bring economic progress to a halt.

Realistically, the economies of states largely follow the national economy. However, there are a few things state governments can do to boost or undermine their own fate. One specific thing Utah could do to hurt its economy would be to increase energy prices.

In south St. George, some enterprising individuals teamed with the City of St. George, the State Trust Lands Administration, and the Dixie-Escalante Rural Electric Association, to create the Fort Pierce Industrial Park. Without manufacturing, touristy places like St. George can develop very unhealthy economies. Through Fort Pierce, largely because of fantastic energy rates, St. George has placed itself on the map for clean manufacturing. The jobs that are being imported and created in the industrial park are fantastic, and, through the multiplier effect, those jobs are inuring to the broader benefit of the community and the State.

And, by the way, the affordable power for Fort Pierce is generated in the Uintah Basin, at the coal-fired Bonanza Power plant. Utah is a coal state.

One of the employers in Fort Pierce is Blue Bunny ice cream. Because of the affordable power rates, Wells Dairy decided it would make sense to produce lots of ice cream in St. George. Raise its power rates, and Blue Bunny loses its reason for being here -- as do other manufacturing businesses and prospective businesses sensitive to the costs of inputs (meaning, all manufacturing businesses).

Utah has some unique aspects that can help attract or repel business development. One of the best things Utah has going for it is affordable power. The Legislature knows this and is extremely concerned that Utah might lose this advantage.

By contrast, no matter what it does, California is looking at much higher energy costs in the future. Because businesses are extremely sensitive to higher energy costs, what can California do to keep from losing businesses to neighboring states in the future? Get them to take steps that will lead to higher energy rates. Let’s not take that bait.

I Heart St. George (Part 4)

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:10:00 +0000

Sara and I are throwing our annual Christmas party tonight. (For any newbies, we are serious about you performing a number; no exceptions). Things are beautiful, ready, and calm. Nine years ago, that was not the case.

Sara was in the hospital, in Salt Lake City, with a pregnancy that had gone awry. I was in St. George with our three young kids (our oldest was 4 ½), traveling up twice a week to visit her and trying (unsuccessfully) to keep all the balls in the air down here. At a church Christmas party, JoLynne Miller asked how I was managing. “Fine.” Her suspicions having been raised by the way my girls were dressed and “styled,” she stopped by the next day. Looking at the chaos, she said, “You lie. This is not ‘fine.’”

So, JoLynne arranged things, and, for the next few weeks, she and a brigade of other saints would show up to clean, cook, tend, and help us manage. People would show up with cleaning stuff, and I’d just say “thanks,” and they’d do their thing. Up in Salt Lake, Sara was extremely grateful to get these reports that her babies (and clueless husband) were being taken care of. But, she was mortified/stoked to learn that notorious clean freaks Kamie Truman and Valarie Snow had cleaned our house. Anyone we tell the story to who knows them asks, “Did they clean under the beds?” Yes.

One Saturday, a teenage neighbor boy, Mark Blake, knocked on the door with a Christmas tree from the nursery where he worked, saying he figured I hadn’t had time to get one. He left, and I cried (and I’m tearing up as I write this) at the generosity of my fine community. I’ve never seen angels from on high, but I’ve seen plenty of angels just off Red Hills golf course.

Arthur Anderson Audits Giuliani Affair

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:25:00 +0000

Giuliani is my second choice for President (behind the Mittster). But . . .

. . . if you love the circus that is politics, you’ve just gotta love Rudy’s dance regarding security-detail payments for his affair. When Katie Couric asked America’s Mayor how he thinks the episode will affect people’s perception of him, he stated, “I think it will show that we do things honestly, honorably, above board.”

Sure. All-in-all, I’d say it was one of the more honest, honorable, above-board extramarital affairs in recent memory. “But, honey, take a look at the accounting!”

Global Warming (soon to be, Global Storming)

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:05:00 +0000

This decade has been hotter than previous decades (as were the 1930s). And, unless you’ve been seeking shade under a rock, you know that Global Warming is THE issue (so huge that many policymakers – who typically are in the business of promoting infrastructure stability – already are willing to throw huge energy dislocations at future generations). Here’s my prediction. Temperatures will go back down – continuing to cycle up and down like they have for millennia.

My evidence? None. It’s my hypothesis that this is a blip. If you disagree: your evidence? None. It’s your hypothesis that this is not a blip (no matter how many movie stars, pop scientists, concerts or conventions beat the drum).

The way to test each hypothesis is to collect data over time and see. Of course, a non-human-caused warming trend could go on for a long time, but I’ll give my side just one decade. After that – and, before that, if reliable data comes in – and I will grant you that my hypothesis is problemed. (I know. I know. We might not be around that long. When the full fury of nature is unleashed, and we tip off our axis and start floating into space, my last words will be, “Al really did deserve that Oscar.”).

Here’s the meat of my prediction – and please remember you saw it here first. Millennia of data, with a few significant and seemingly-non-human-caused exceptions, suggest that temperatures will trend back down. Or, I should say, non-homo sapiens sapiens-caused exceptions, since I’m not about to give those damn fire-burning cro-magnons a free pass. Anyway, when temperatures do trend back down, the alarmists will not admit that their hypothesis is problemed. Rather, they will shift ground and grow louder. The trend downward will prove that the climatic conditions of the Earth are destabilized – as will be further proven by every tornado, drought, hurricane, flood, etc., that happens thereafter.

Because I first predicted the positional shift, I get to name it – Global Storming. You heard it here. That’s the adequately-hedged, broad-portfolio crisis to invest in. Global Storming. Global Warming is far too narrow a sector.

Too many people have staked too much on a hypothesis, to simply let it go if it doesn’t pan out. “Um, ya, about jacking up those power rates 1,000%, . . .” Remember: Global Storming.

My hypothesis is that temperatures will trend back down. If not, I’m real sorry that I helped doom the planet. My bad. If they do come down, though, I’ll represent all of you in a class action lawsuit against the promoters of Live Earth.

Sen. Ed Mayne

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:04:00 +0000

Sen. Ed Mayne died this weekend, after battling cancer. Ed was a terrific person and a very skilled legislator.

Anyone who maintains that Democrats can't be successful in the Legislature (because of the Republican's supermajority), only needed to follow Ed for a day, to see that Democrats can be very successful. Ed was at the center of many good deals. In many ways, he was larger than life -- smart, loud, confident, and always a pleasure to be with. One of the joys of serving in the Legislature for me was to pay a visit to the Senate and have Senator Mayne hold forth. "Before you folks go too crazy down stairs, let me give you some advice," he'd say. And his advice was always good (though his upside to the deals was never modest). He will be sorely missed, and the Capitol will be a smaller place without him.

I Heart St. George (Part 3)

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:05:00 +0000

The basement stint was pretty short – though it felt much longer to all involved. Sara and I bought a 1,400 square foot house on the 8th green of Dixie Red Hills golf course, and that’s where we lived for 13 years, 3 more kids, a fire (now that's a good story), 2 floods -- one sprinkler-caused, one toilet-caused (thanks, again, Dr. Ben Blair) -- and lots of political campaigns.

We had full run of the course. My kids could show you all sorts of cool archaeological stuff up in the hills and also just a few feet away from where golfers walk and rarely look. (If you walk 150 feet past the 4th green, you’ll be in the middle of the quarry where rock was excavated for the walls of the St. George Temple and the Tabernacle. If you slice your drive into the brush along the 8th fairway, take a minute to look for shards of Indian pottery; the coolest thing is that on many of the pieces, you’ll see perfectly-preserved finger prints. If you veer 20 feet left of the 9th fairway, just past the men’s tee box, you’ll see – on the little elevated ridge – 5 perfectly circular depressions where Indians would grind corn.)

One of the things I loved best about Red Hills was night golf. I’d grab a glow-in-the-dark ball, a few clubs, and go mess around on the course. It was a perfect way to spend a summer’s night.

One night I was putting on the 4th green, at about 2 a.m., when I heard the shriek of sure, horrible death. Despite 60 extra pounds since the high school track days, I think I might have run the fastest half-mile of my life.

Me: “Sara! Wake up! I heard a scary noise!”

Sara: “What was it?”

Me: “I don’t know!”

Sara: “Are you okay?”

Me: “Well, ya. But it was scary! I mean REALLY scary!”

She teased me mercilessly. For a week. Until a mountain lion took down a deer on that same fairway.

So, remember: Steve Urquhart -- faster than a deer.

Good Old Boy, Gloria Shakespeare

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:52:00 +0000

It is always interesting how elections get framed. In the recent St. George City Council election, the three losing candidates worked hard to make it an election to throw out the good old boys. Mind you, none of the six candidates in the November election was an incumbent – but since when does truth matter in campaigns?

This guy’s blog post illustrates the nonsense that was circulated. I love that Gloria Shakespeare is a “good old boy.” First, as her name suggests, she’s a very girlish good old boy. Second, she is a democrat (not exactly the power group in Washington County politics). And, third, as for her good old boy activities as “the volunteer head of the neighborhood enhancement committee,” that is just about the most precious thing I’ve ever heard.

The point of Gloria’s “neighborhood enhancement committee” was specifically to take on the city council, home builders, businesses, and anyone and everyone else who – in Gloria’s opinion – proposed things that might harm the downtown neighborhoods. Gloria cozies up to those powerful interests, like Ali cozied up to Frazier.

The reason Gloria enjoys success – in taking on tough interests and in her election – is that she doesn’t defame and belittle people along the way. She doesn’t say that people she opposes are corrupt or evil. She understands that they simply have different interests and opinions. She then works to change their minds, learn from them, and – with them – improve the community around her. Her goal isn't to work against others; instead, it is to work for positive outcomes.

As for the blogger’s opinion that this election presented a unique choice between two opposing camps, that is simply wrong. Just about every election down here has someone who has been involved in the community and wants to build on the good foundation we have been given and someone who hasn’t done much to better the community but wants to tear up everything by the roots (always backed by Larry Meyers and the several acronymic groups he runs out of his basement).

Urquhart is not one of the pioneer names. I moved to St. George in 1994, and was elected to the Legislature six years later. Obviously, the hurdle to get into the good old boys club is pretty low. I’ll let you in on the secret requirements:

1. Be a boy. Or a girl.
2. Be a pioneer descendant. Or not.
3. Work to better the community in some way.

Obviously, the third requirement – work – is the only one that matters. There are so many needs and opportunities in St. George. And there are so many formal and informal ways to get involved. Just like female, democrat, rabblerousing Gloria Shakespeare, everyone in St. George can be a good old boy, if they will get off their duffs and engage in positive activities.

UTOPIA (Cont'd)

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:16:00 +0000

Jesse Harris has returned from D.C., and provides responses to my 2 questions on UTOPIA.

My questions (posts here and here) were (1) whether UTOPIA is financially viable and (2) why UTOPIA is cherry picking in non-pledging cities.

You can read Jesse's thoughtful response at FreeUtopia.

On point 1, Jesse argues that the big costs have been sunk and that additional costs will be much smaller as additional homes are passed -- meaning a lower overall cost/subscriber than the very high current figure. That might be. I'd like to see some numbers (e.g., additional cost per marketable home passed).

On point 2, I think we simply disagree whether it is appropriate for UTOPIA to be in the business of establishing the policy and practice of deploying systems only in new subdivisions where homeowners will be forced to use the product (since the homeowners will be forced to pay for it with their HOA fees). To me, this seems like a very significant departure from UTOPIA's original mission -- ubiquitous service.

To clarify, I don't think the directors of UTOPIA intend to work "malice" in the non-pledging cities. Rather, it goes back to point 1; are its actions being guided by desperation? Such a significant departure from a core-mission principle seems to signify the "neon paint" phase of the business plan. That is a phrase my wife and I use when we see struggling businesses scribble "Clearance" or "Everything must go" in neon paint on their windows; rather than being something included in the original business plan, it is an addendum added to the plan (usually the last chapter of its existence) when things haven't worked out quite as well as originally hoped.

Regardless of intent, as I described here, I believe that cherry picking does work harm to communities that abandon requirements for uniform and equal services for all citizens.

I Heart St. George (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:29:00 +0000

Shortly after my fight with Ken Broadhead, I was at a party in Provo. The most beautiful girl I had ever seen bounced up to me and, with a really pretty smile, said a bunch of stuff in a hurry. Though I had no idea what she was talking about, I did notice that after a few exchanges she was calling me “Sid.”

I said, “My name is Steve.”

She said, “I like Sid better.” And she kept calling me Sid. Now, I’m not sure if it was love at first sight or post-concussion syndrome, but I thought, if I had to, I could get used to Sid. It’s as good a name as any.

After she left, my friend asked, “What was that?!”

I said, “I have no idea, but I think I might be in love.”

Skipping most of the details, Sara and I dated that year. An added bonus was that she was from St. George. I was always eager to travel down with her – to get to know the family (though, not meaning to criticize them, they could have reached out a bit more, if they'd really wanted to get to know me, and spent some time with me on the golf course).

Sara and I happened to get married on the same weekend of the Washington County Fair. Her father thought it would be great if I fought at the fair. Her mother thought otherwise. I learned, those Stanley women are tough negotiators.

We were married in the St. George Temple, where Sara’s grandfather, Lloyd Pack, worked as a sealer. We had our wedding breakfast at Andelin’s Gable House – where Sara worked in high school. And where she briefly worked a few years after we graduated – while I figured out what, other than a lawyer, I was going to be. Again, I don’t mean to be critical, but it didn’t really stimulate the creative job-hunting juices, when she’d come home dressed in her Andelin’s wench/waitress get up, slap her tips on the dresser (in the basement of her parents’ home where we (Sara, me, and our baby) were living – in fact, the very room where she had grown up: full circle!), and ask – in a something less-than truly supportive voice – “Have you figured out what you want to be when you grow up?”

I was somewhere between astronaut and race car driver, when “we” decided lawyer would be good.

I got ahead of myself there. While we were at BYU, between getting married and passing the bar exam, working at one of the best law firms in the world, and – then – moving into her parents’ basement, Sara informed me that we could live anywhere in the world – except St. George, Utah – the one-stoplight town where she grew up. When I asked why, she gave some lame reason, like we’d end up living in her parents’ basement.

Like that would ever happen.

Medical Malpractice Arbitration

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:29:00 +0000

Currently, medical malpractice litigation takes too long, costs too much, is unavailable for some legitimate claims, casts too broad a net, and doesn’t efficiently dispense of bogus claims. To address those concerns, I propose that Utah should consider reform along the following lines.

Establish an arbitration system for smaller claims (under $500,000);

Appoint a medical malpractice administrator – who, then, appoints a qualified (MD-type) arbitrator;

The arbitrator reviews the medical record and determines (w/in 90 days) whether liability exists and damages were caused;

The amount of damages also could be arbitrated later (but, once liability and causation are found, the lawyers likely could determine damages);

De Novo appeals are available – but, if the appealing party doesn’t significantly change the outcome of the arbitration, he would owe the other side’s costs and fees.

The Problem with Cherry Picking

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:42:00 +0000

Successful businesses mostly pursue profitable activities and avoid activities that are not profitable. Of course. Businesses exist to make a profit.

Infrastructure providers, however, typically don’t enjoy that luxury. Treating all citizens as equals, governments typically require infrastructure providers to provide uniform and equal services to all citizens. The theory is that, for the privilege of using public resources (e.g., pole attachments, public rights-of-way, etc.), infrastructure providers have to figure out a service model where the profitable areas will subsidize the areas that are not profitable, so that everyone will receive the same level of service.

It is not rocket-science to figure out which areas will be the most profitable. When it comes to telecommunications infrastructure, the most profitable areas typically are new, affluent neighborhoods – where people pick advanced services and add-on features and pay their bills in higher percentages.

In 2004, UTOPIA argued that Qwest was cherry picking, by rolling out DSL in some neighborhoods and ignoring other neighborhoods. UTOPIA argued that cherry picking is an awful thing, and that UTOPIA’s driving impulse was to provide great services to everyone (i.e., ubiquitous service).

UTOPIA now has abandoned that philosophy. In communities where UTOPIA has to stand on its own (meaning, in cities where its bonds are not backed with taxpayer money), it – along with Qwest – wants to repeal ordinances requiring ubiquitous service, so that it can cut exclusive deals with developers. In the comments to the last post, someone asks what’s wrong with that.

A key question is who should the infrastructure benefit – consumers or developers? Once a developer picks a provider, consumers lose all other options. Fees for the chosen provider are included in homeowner association (HOA) fees that residents are forced to pay. Thus, those homeowners aren’t “customers” to the provider picked by the developer; they are hostages.

Instead of homeowners deciding whether they want cable, satellite, or cable antenna – and, then, deciding which provider they want in that arena (based on cost, service, neighbors’ recommendations, etc.) – those hostages can choose between whoever the developer picked and whoever the developer picked.

Developers typically base their pick on the basis of one thing – their wallet. Whether it is water, power, trash pick up, telecommunications, or anything else where homeowners will pay a fee, developers want to control the selection and the billing. They will pay one cost, and charge homeowners a different (i.e., higher) cost. It is a way for a developer to stay in a buyer’s pockets long after the house is sold – “residual income.”

Consumers, not developers, should control choices and enjoy discounts.

UTOPIA

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:23:00 +0000

UTOPIA is a taxpayer-backed broadband project deployed in several Utah cities. Several service providers ride the UTOPIA system to provide video, telephone, and fast Internet services.

When UTOPIA was unable to obtain financing in the private markets on its own, it sought and obtained government backing from municipalities and, later, the federal government. In the 2004 session, the Legislature determined that (1) cities actually had to set aside taxpayer funds that were pledged as security for UTOPIA’s financial obligations (rather than just have the funds exist as a potential obligation on paper), (2) UTOPIA could not have one exclusive provider (it was going to give AT&T an exclusive), (3) cities needed to hold a public hearing before pledging taxpayer funds, and (4) no additional cities could join until July 1, 2007.

Now, 3 years later, it seems we should have enough data to see how the project is going. But, it sure does seem like UTOPIA is very reluctant to answer simple questions.

Jesse Harris, an insightful blogger, devotes Free UTOPIA to, of course, UTOPIA issues. On one post, I ask 2 questions that were dodged in recent legislative hearings: (1) can UTOPIA survive its anemic financial numbers (they are north of $5,000 per potential subscriber (using a very generous 50% take rate) a point where most bonds would be called and where few, if any, companies have survived to tell stories), and (2) why is UTOPIA now cherry picking affluent neighborhoods and shunning poorer neighborhoods in non-pledging cities, if its original purpose was to counter the awful practice of cherry picking?

Jesse is out of town – and will get blog space here when he returns, if he wants it. But I can’t find anyone else who wants to move beyond broad philosophical statements, the-other-guys-are-bad arguments that have nothing to do with my two questions, and ad hominem attacks to answer my questions. In fact, in the comments to that post, Pete Ashdown, founder of UTOPIA service-provider X Mission, seems to dare me to have a UTOPIA discussion here.

Because I hide from controversial topics on this site, I guess. (See Voucher posts ad nauseum).

It is worrisome when topics are deemed out of bounds. It usually works out that those are the topics that should be explored. My two questions are valid. They are not whether municipal broadband is good or bad, whether competitors in the market place are good or bad, or whether I understand the importance of connectivity to our economy. My simple questions concern the performance of one municipal broadband company – the one that has obligated millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Specifically, (1) how does UTOPIA plan to make it financially and not leave taxpayers holding the bag, and (2) why is UTOPIA now cherry picking, if it once claimed that cherry picking was awful and was the reason that it needed to exist?

I would think that backers of municipal broadband, as much as anyone else, would want these questions addressed. If UTOPIA fails and brings down a city or two with it and/or, in order to play the string out longer, UTOPIA embraces the vile practice it swore to oppose, isn’t that a problem for future attempts to deploy municipal broadband projects in Utah and the broader United States? If the numbers are as bad as they seem, do UTOPIA and its backing cities need State assistance now? It’s better to face bad news now than to shout down tough questions and simply hope against hope that things will work out.

Disclaimer: in my legal practice, I represent a broadband company in Washington County (Baja Broadband). In an interesting reversal of the 2004 activities, UTOPIA is arm-in-arm with Qwest and other avowed cherry pickers down here, arguing that build-out requirements (ubiquitous service) should be eliminated and that providers should be allowed to cherry pick who they want to serve and who they want to ignore. I fully realized in 2005/2006 that Qwest had neither the desire nor the financial ability to upgrade its existing system to anything close to state-of-the-art capabilities; I fully bought into UTOPIA's prior arguments that cherry picking was bad and that uniform and equal services for all residents was required; unlike UTOPIA, I still believe that.

Referenda – What Are They Good For?

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:56:00 +0000

Lee Benson’s article Friday touched on my thoughts regarding Utah’s referendum process. In short, I like the process.

Excluding golf, you can’t say an activity is dumb just because you lose a contest. Likewise, my thoughts on referenda are unchanged by the recent pounding my voucher bill took.

The referendum concept is sound. People give legislative bodies and government as a whole the power to act. Sure, people have the ability to affect those actions through the election process. But, that opportunity is somewhat removed from directly reacting to any specific piece of legislation. Referenda act as a rip cord. If the populace thinks that government got something terribly wrong, the referendum process allows the public to step in and take immediate action. Just like the checks and balances between the branches of government, this is a way to prevent excesses and – as is needed to preserve healthy democratic republics – a way to vent steam. Our system of government is designed to encourage battles within the system, not out on the streets.

Utah’s referendum process is sound. It is tough to get a referendum on the ballot in Utah. The high hurdle virtually guarantees that the attention given to a referendum item will be significant and serious (unlike in other states where the bar is low and referenda see less substantive dialogue). Even though I dislike the outcome on Referendum 1, I can’t deny and don’t deny that the will of the people was done. They spoke up, officially reviewed the bill, and rejected it.

I fully realize that some combatants want to deride the quality of dialogue that surrounded Referendum 1. Again, I think much of the dialogue was wonderful – easily on par with much of the dialogue we are privileged to witness in the Legislature.

As I hope my 7 years in the Legislature and my more visible (or at least my more readily-researchable) 3 years of blogging show, I’m a process guy. Give me good process, and I can easily live with the outcome.

Speaking of which, for those arguing that vouchers should never again be brought up, that’s not how the process works. The 3/8th of the people who embrace the idea of vouchers (at least as it was captured in my bill) can continue to work to put it in a form that achieves broader support. And, of course, others have the right to oppose those effort and/or find better solutions.

As a process guy, I believe that we’ll find the right place on education and all other issues, if (and only if) people dedicate themselves to the process and stay at the table.

I Heart St. George

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:36:00 +0000

I love St. George. I’m going to take the next few Saturdays to tell you a few reasons why.

I first visited St. George in 1989, when I came to fight one-hundred-and-nothing-pound Mike Kroff – a Hurricane resident and good friend – in the Washington County Fair. After I drove the 4 hours to get here, Mike wisely chickened out (work conflict, my eye). So, I was matched with a 278-pounder – who fortunately was S-L-O-W.

After that first fight (first-round knock out, thank you very much), the promoter – Jay Ence – and the ref – the great middle-weight champion Gene Fulmer – said I was a great fighter. Not knowing either of them at the time, I thought that meant I must be a great fighter. (And why not? I’d had plenty of post-Christmas and post-birthday fights, back in the days when parents would give a pair of boxing gloves as a present. “I call! I get the right hand this time!”).

Of course, it didn’t mean that at all. It meant that they needed a stiff to fight Utah Highway Patrolman Ken Broadhead, who’d just starched St. George cop Kevin Sullivan. (In one of those moments you’d like to get back, I consoled Mrs. Sullivan – who was a bit disturbed that her supine husband hadn’t opened his eyes or moved for a full minute – by saying, “It’s okay. I can see him breathing.” Take note, Mother Teresa). As an aside: Kevin probably could have been a good fighter; we’ll lay his defeat on his trainer – current SGPD Chief Deputy Russ Peck. So, Jay and Gene set up the fight for the next night.

(My brother likes to tell the story about our phone call that night. After I told him about Broadhead pasting Sullivan, I asked, “Can you REALLY get hurt boxing?” Him: “Sure. Minor cuts all the way up to killed.” Me: “Aw, man. This isn’t good.” Him: “You’re an idiot.”)

The next night, I climbed into the ring to fight Officer Broadhead.

Ref (Fulmer): “I want a clean fight.”

He checked our gloves, and asked, “Are you each wearing a cup?”

Me: “Aw, man.”

I climbed out of the ring and went into the fighters' shed (at the Hurricane VFW hall) – with my gloves taped on, mind you – grabbed my cup and walked up to some poor schlep who was warming up for his later fight. He saw me and quickly assessed the situation.

“No way, man. Find someone else.”

Well, though we’d never met before, and even though he didn’t so much as buy me dinner, he finally helped me ready myself for the fight. Soft hands, for a fighter.

Back in the ring. “Okay, Champ! I’m ready to go.”

About 0:02 into the first round I believe it was, though my memory is somewhat foggy for some reason, Broadhead caught me square on the nose. After the fight, some guy enthusiastically told me, “Dude! I was on the top row, and I had to wipe your blood off my camera lens!”

After the 3 rounds, the judges scored the fight 2-1 for Broadhead. One of the judges put me up for the night. He told me, “You know, I had one round for each of you, going into the third. And the third round was very close. But, in good conscience, I just couldn’t give the fight to someone covered with so much of his own blood.”

Obviously, this is a town where reason prevails.

Vouchers

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:11:00 +0000

Don’t hold back, people. Tell me what you really think about my voucher bill. Are you with me?!

I’m very sad that it didn’t pass. I concluded that vouchers would have been good for individuals and the education system. But, the people disagreed.

Fair enough.

Along with some silliness on both sides, we had some of the best public dialogue we’ve had on education in a very long time. Though over-the-top commentary frequently gets reported and facile or fictional talking points find legs, I enjoyed many tremendous conversations with (often tremendously informed) individuals, both favoring and opposing vouchers. Those conversations involved people earnestly trying to figure out how to best educate our children.

Such discussions form a potential basis for significant improvement – if we can figure out how to keep the discussions going and how to collaborate on possible approaches and solutions. I would hope we have broad agreement that (1) parents need to be more involved in their children’s education, (2) Utah’s educational system needs to adequately (and, some day, exceptionally) prepare our children for college, the workforce, and the world, (3) incentives need to be in place to attract/retain great teachers and encourage bad teachers to improve or, if not, leave, and (4) public education needs greater funding.

I’m not sure the Legislature can do much about Point 1. I’m confident that the Legislature will take care of Point 4.

Points 2 and 3 are the wildcards. Without the serious involvement of informed citizens, nothing will happen on points 2 and 3. And, far more than the fate of one piece of legislation, that would be tragic.

On a personal note: Utahns have class. I’ve received many calls and emails. Surprisingly few suggest that I throw myself off a cliff. Most (from both sides of the issue) said they enjoyed the debate and hope that we can use the increased attention to further improve education in Utah. My sincere appreciation goes out to everyone who gave their time to engage in the political process. To my friends on the winning side: congratulations; please don’t gloat over the rest of us too long; we have work to do. To my friends on the losing side: I’m very sorry – especially if I came up short in any way; please don’t be bitter or disengage; we have work to do.

Utah Voucher Information

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:44:00 +0000

If anyone is looking for last minute information on vouchers, several posts and comments can be found below. Also, I'll refer you to this blog I just discovered and the analysis there.

My summation is that vouchers surely wouldn't hurt public education and surely would improve the lives of some children who need something different.

Vote!!!

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:02:00 +0000

This campaign cycle, I have put some work into Referendum 1 (vote “Yes!”) and the St. George City Council race (vote for Almquist, Pike and Shakespeare!). Thank you and congratulations to everyone who has spent time on the process! Regardless of outcomes, I think a few beneficial things have emerged from the campaigning.

Through the dialogue on Ref 1, I think the people of Utah have dug into details about education (possibly like never before). Good things come from informed dialogue. While I am confident that the record levels of education funding will continue, I also am hopeful we will have an evolved dialogue on steps we can take to further improve the system.

Regarding the St. George City Council election, it is apparent to me that the City is getting big enough to have some us/them concerns. Though some people always will peddle doom-and-gloom, everything-is-horrible, and everyone-is-corrupt campaigns, the key is to make sure that reasonable people feel wanted and needed in the decision-making process. I’ve been asking people what they think could be done to encourage people to get involved locally. Any thoughts would be welcome.

University of Utah/Dixie State College

noreply@blogger.com (steve u.) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:48:00 +0000

The UofU and DSC are contemplating a more formal affiliation. I think it is a wonderful idea – and have for years. I think it needs to be publicly stated that members of my community overwhelmingly think it is a wonderful idea. Sure, there are some concerns over the governance of the institution and its name, but those are details that can, and will, be worked out. The Commissioners Office has put together a task force, comprised of members of both institutions, to work through some of those issues. This is a golden opportunity for higher education.