PETITION: Stop Gov Herbert and UDOT From Continuing Their Fight Against A Private Citizen

Posted By on April 18, 2012

Denice Graham

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION!

What chance does a private citizen in Utah have against the political weight of Governor Gary Herbert and UDOT head John Njord? Not much. Read how they’re ruining the life of one Tooele grandmother and sign the petition to help her fight back!

Last week we brought you the story of Denice Graham, the UDOT employee who was blamed for the I-15/Herbert/UDOT scandal and subsequently fired. A judge eventually ruled that UDOT had fired the wrong person, but it seems that Governor Herbert and Njord aren’t quite finished with Denice Graham’s life yet.

Via Peg McEntee at the Salt Lake Tribune:

..in February, the state’s Career Service Review Office issued a scathing ruling that UDOT Executive Director John Njord’s firing of Graham “exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and rationality and amounts to an abuse of discretion….”

Now, though, Graham and her attorney are working to restoring the salary and benefits she was denied during her year without work. But UDOT has been recalcitrant, and Graham’s attorney, Brad Bearnson, said they’ll be going back to the review office to seek an order of reimbursement.

“From our perspective, UDOT was just trying to take advantage,” he said. “I think they’re going to lose.”

The back pay isn’t the only thing that didn’t go Graham’s way.

UDOT was ordered by the judge to give Denice her same job back, but instead they only gave her the title. She has the same job title but has been demoted to a different department doing, in essence, secretarial and clerical work.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION!

The Alliance For A Better Utah are fighting back with a petition, demanding that Governor Herbert and John Njord immediately give Denice the back-pay they owe her and reinstate her to her full position.

This is not what the power of the Governor’s mansion is for!

 

Share

I’m Endorsing Ben McAdams For County Mayor. Here’s Why

Posted By on April 12, 2012

This was not an easy decision for me. This year we have two incredibly strong Democratic candidates for Salt Lake County Mayor who I admire and respect a great deal. But after months of consideration, I finally came down on one side.

I have known both Senator Ben McAdams and Senator Ross Romero personally for years, and hold the utmost respect for their incredible work as elected officials in Utah. But after long consideration, I’ve come to the conclusion that Senator McAdams is the stronger candidate for 2012.

The 2012 election is not going to be an easy one for Utah Democrats. The eventuality of having (for the first time) a member of the Mormon church on the Republican side of the presidential ballot is all but inevitable, and Democrats in the Beehive State need to bring their A-game. Winning is not an impossibility, as some doomsday criers are predicting. But there is no question that it will require Democrats around the state to step up together, put our best candidates forward, and work together to show the people of Utah why it is the Democrats who represent the true values of our state.

Leadership, transparent government, community, fairness and justice. These are qualities and principles of Utah, and ones which  I have found most reflected in Ben McAdams. It was his ability to work with a city government which  passed the first non-discrimination laws in Utah, and his diplomatic prowess which then protected those laws from being overturned by hostile legislators. It was Ben who moved Trax projects forward, and who became one of the few Democrats on the Hill to pass nearly as many bills as the Republicans. It was Ben who has shown an unflinching, and unwavering commitment to the citizens of Utah, willing to speak out for the downtrodden even when he knew there was a possibility of kick-back from the GOP. It was Ben who, more than almost any other, has proven capable of bring together Democrats and Republicans to achieve the best solutions for Utahns.

That is what it’s going to take if we want to keep Salt Lake County blue. A steadfast commitment to your principles, backed by an unmatched ability to shepherd your initiatives forward by bringing unlikely supporters together.

As a proud liberal, a community activist and Chair of the Utah State Progressive Caucus, I’m honored to lend my endorsement to Senator Ben McAdams for Salt Lake County Mayor.

Mayor Peter Corroon’s leadership and effectiveness over the past 8 years has been remarkable, and has left a legacy to be safeguarded and treasured. We cannot afford to lose that seat in 2012, and I believe Ben is the candidate who can keep us on the path towards a better Utah.

Share

LISTEN: Pete Ashdown & Scott Howell US Senate Debate

Posted By on April 11, 2012

Democratic candidates for US Senate Pete Ashdown and Scott Howell went head-to-head tonight in a debate moderated by KSL’s Doug Wright. Listen to the recording below!

pete ashdown, scott howell, us, senate, hatch

Democratic Candidates for US Senate: Pete Ashdown and Scott Howell



Video streaming by Ustream

Share

Rob Bishop & Jason Chaffetz Want Employers To Access Your Facebook Password

Posted By on April 3, 2012

Congressmen Rob Bishop (R) and Jason Chaffetz (R) voted this past week to allow employers to require you turn over your Facebook passwords. In a nearly party-line vote, House Republicans voted unanimously to allow your boss to require you give up your private Facebook and Twitter account info.

Republican Reps Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz

It’s a scary new phenomenon, but many employers are now requiring employees to give them access to their private social media accounts, such as facebook and twitter. This includes required lines on job applications where applicants must provide both their usernames and passwords to their online accounts so that companies can login as their employees and monitor what you are saying.

Congressional Democrats introduced a measure this past week that would ban companies from such egregious violations of employees’ right to privacy, but the measure was quickly voted down by every House Republican, including Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Democratic Representative Jim Matheson voted in favor of the bill to protect privacy.

Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO) had this to say:

People have an expectation of privacy when using social media like Facebook and Twitter. They have an expectation that their right to free speech and religion will be respected when they use social media outlets. No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment. Both users of social media and those who correspond share the expectation of privacy in their personal communications. Employers essentially can act as imposters and assume the identity of an employee and continually access, monitor and even manipulate an employee’s personal social activities and opinions. That’s simply a step too far.

Share

Utah Policy vs. PRIDEinUtah: Welfare Drug Testing. Round 4

Posted By on April 2, 2012

Jordan Garn of Utah Policy is once again going after PRIDEinUtah, attacking our defense of welfare-recipient’s civil rights. But does his latest argument represent a severely flawed view of welfare itself.

I was thrilled to see that Mr. Garn published a response to PRIDEinUtah’s rebuttal, the debate moves on!

After our reply to his piece, Mr. Garn has taken a new tactic: going after welfare as a whole. To most people it would seem quite obvious that the validity of welfare itself has very little, if anything, to do with the violation of civil rights of Americans who happen to temporarily need assistance, but let’s take a look anyway.

Garn claims that giving welfare assistance to people who need it serves no purpose, and provides no benefit to society as a whole, unlike state employees or legislators who directly contribute time/talent back to the state. He then goes on to attack welfare itself, implying that it is nothing but an “entitlement” that people should just be grateful for.

Let’s take a look at society as a whole, shall we? Does it occur to anyone else that perhaps there might indeed be a clear and enormous benefit to society to prevent citizens from financially crashing so hard that they end up on the street? To say absolutely nothing about compassion, isn’t it entirely fathomable that we the people have an intrinsic interest in working to make sure that all members of our society are able to maintain productive lives rather than being a permanent strain on taxpayers (to say nothing of lives being ruined)?

But no, that’s not (apparently) the conservative way. The new conservative way is to look at those unfortunate enough to need welfare, and instead of reaching out to them with a helping hand so that they can once again become productive members of the state, they would rather mock the system itself with claims of “entitlement” and “socialism.” Liberals recognize this. We recognize that helping those at the bottom not only keeps your soul intact, but is also smart fiscal policy.

Let’s take this one step further, because the constant conservative talking points about the evils of “entitlements” and “government handouts” is really getting under my skin these days.

Take a look at your last pay stub. Did you receive 100% of your gross income? Nope. Every time we get those paychecks, part go to pay for our healthcare (if we’re lucky enough to have coverage through our jobs), part goes to pay state and federal taxes, part goes to social security, medicare/medicaid etc..

And what is also included in there? Unemployment Insurance. That’s right, we actually pay into the welfare and unemployment pool in order to safeguard ourselves in the event of a personal catastrophe which leaves us unemployed. Welfare is not a “government handout,” it’s an earned benefit. We pay into unemployment and welfare our entire lives, in order to protect ourselves in the eventuality of a financial crisis.

We pay into Social Security, we pay into Medicare, we pay into Medicaid.. and yes, we pay into unemployment. So the next time, dear readers, you consider attacking these “handouts,” think again. The only true government handouts? The continual push by Republican leadership to lower the tax rates on the wealthiest percent of the country, even when it’s been proven time and again to be one of the most ineffective economic tools to create jobs we could ever use.

But all these sidebars and tangents aside, forced drug testing without probable cause is a violation of an American citizen’s civil rights. Mr. Garn can rationalize all the reasons about why welfare is bad that he likes, but there is no argument that can possibly justify targeting a specific group and labeling them as potential criminals.

 

Share

Average Utahn Caught In A Republican Political Scandal

Posted By on April 2, 2012

What happens when an average, everyday Utahn gets caught up in the middle of a Republican political scandal? Nothing good. Just look at the story of Denice Graham and the lives that were hurt because a campaign needed someone to blame.

In December of 2009, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) was getting ready to award a bid for a billion dollar contract for the I-15 construction project in Utah County – the largest single contract ever given by the state of Utah.

denice graham, utah, udot, scandal, herbert, njord, governor, contstruction, fired

Denice Graham

On December 2nd, 2009, Denice Graham, a mid-level manager at UDOT, was called by Laurie Wadsworth from Provo River Constructors, one of the companies bidding on the project. Laurie told Denice that she was hearing from several other bidding companies that UDOT had finalized their decision and had selected competitor FSZ as the winner of the contract. Denice looked on UDOT’s public website (emphasis on public) and confirmed what Laurie could have looked up for herself, that it appeared FSZ had won.

Concerned about the call, Denice immediately went to her boss, Kris Peterson, who at the time was the UDOT Director of Construction Materials. Peterson told Denice that the information was not supposed to be public yet, and that his office had failed to place a block on that section of the website. Peterson said that the public shouldn’t have seen the information yet, and then instructed Denice and all of her employees to not talk to any of the bidding companies until he had fixed the mistake.

Meanwhile, Laurie Wadsworth had contacted her boss with the information from UDOT’s website, who, in turn, reportedly contacted both Mike Deavers, with Governor Herbert’s campaign, as well as Herbert’s Chief Of Staff.

Within a short time, the winning bid was not FSZ’s, but Provo River Constructors – who had coincidentally donated over $80,000 to Governor Herbert’s campaign. Additionally, a $13,000,000 payout had been made to FSZ to “avoid a lawsuit.”

For nine months, the public was not made aware of any of this, and life went on as normal for Denice at UDOT until September of 2010, when the scandal broke in the media during the final months of the Herbert vs. Corroon gubernatorial campaign.  Answers were demanded of Governor Herbert as to why Provo River Constructors got the contract and why $13M had been paid to a losing bidder (none of the other losing companies had received any payments). Herbert claimed that he didn’t know anything about the payout. John Njord, the head of UDOT, was also questioned about who authorized the $13 million and he announced an ‘investigation’ by UDOT was underway to determine what had happened.

This is where Denice Graham found out what lengths a political campaign will go to in order to duck the swinging sword of negative public opinion. John Njord and UDOT came back to the press after his “investigation” and announced that a person to blame had been found. It was not Njord’s fault, even though he oversaw the bid and the payout process, nor was it Director of Construction Materials Kris Peterson’s fault, even though he was the one who let confidential information be posted publicly on the company website, nor, coincidentally, was it the fault of any other high-level UDOT official.

Instead, Njord blamed Denice Graham, the mid-level manager who had no say or authority over the bidding process or payments. UDOT and Governor Herbert quickly claimed that because she had given out proprietary information (reminder: the information she gave out was already posted publicly), the whole thing was Denice’s fault, and she was immediately fired. As far as Governor Herbert and UDOT were concerned, the responsibility had been placed with Denice– that was the end of scandal.

But for the Graham family, the next year became a nightmare. Fired, UDOT denied Denice, an employee of 11 years, unemployment benefits and refused to give her any form of recommendation. Denice and her husband, both in their 50′s, found themselves without their primary income just as they were getting ready to retire. Unable to find another job, and living off the salary of her husband’s letter-carrier job provided, Denice pursued the only avenue left open and hired a lawyer to fight back.

Without Denice’s income, the only purchases she and her husband have been able to afford in the last year were groceries and the basic necessities. They skipped birthday and Christmas presents for their children and grandchildren, they had to sell off personal possessions, and were forced to borrow from family members just to keep their electricity on. The stress got so bad that Denice has been under the care of doctors because her health is at risk.

It’s taken a year, but last month an administrative judge finally ruled that Denice wasn’t guilty of any wrongdoing and UDOT was ordered to reinstate her to her position. As a matter of fact, the Administrative Judge and Commission said that UDOT’s decision to fire Denice “exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and rationality and amounts to an abuse of discretion.”

But the tale doesn’t end there. Despite the judge’s strong words and the difficulty caused to a loyal employee, UDOT has not apologized for the trauma and nor has UDOT welcomed back a great employee. To the contrary, Denice has been informed that while UDOT will comply with the judge’s order in the sense that they will reinstate her to the same position title, she has been stripped of all her previous responsibilities and staff and relegated to an entirely different department. UDOT is also refusing to pay Denice any back-pay from the year she was out of work, even though the judge ruled that UDOT was wrong to terminate her in the first place.

Utah Republicans are constantly selling the tale about Utah being the “Best Managed State” in the nation. But what’s so “Best Managed” about a Governor giving out a billion dollar contract to companies that gave him more than $80K in campaign contributions, and then his Department of Transportation paying out $13 million in what appears to be hush money? What’s so “Best Managed” about John Njord, head of UDOT, authorizing the $13 million in payouts (supposedly without the knowledge of either the Governor or the Legislature) and shifting the blame for the mess to a powerless mid-level manager?

Before the firing, Denice Graham and her husband were getting ready to retire. But now, because she unfairly found herself in the center of a Republican political scandal, her family is facing more than $40,000 in legal fees, thousands of dollars of debt to family members, and zeroed-out retirement accounts that will now force them to work for the next 20 years to try and build the account back.

As for those who are actually responsible for the bid appointment and the $13,000,000 in what looks like hush-money payout? Governor Herbert is still the Governor. John Njord is still the Executive Director of UDOT (where he makes $239,000 per year), and Kris Peterson has been promoted to Division Director ($179,000 annual salary).

Share

Response To Utah Policy’s Critique Of PRIDEinUtah

Posted By on March 30, 2012

Utah Policy’s Jordan Garn published a piece going after PRIDEinUtah for our commentary on the new law requiring drug tests for welfare recipients. Well, we here at PRIDEinUtah always love the debate, so let’s break it down.

First, let me say that I commend Jordan Garn for tackling this troubling issue. Too often in Utah we don’t get to hear all the arguments on any issue, so I appreciate his willingness to participate in the debate.

Jordan Garn

Jordan starts his piece by mocking our mention of the GOP’s widely-recognized War On The Poor, but he doesn’t actually provide any evidence to the contrary, so let’s leave that one alone.

Garn’s argument in favor of this law involves the idea that a law which requires welfare-recipients to undergo drug tests  doesn’t indicate a pervasive assumption of guilt among this targeted group of people. Rather, he says, it provides a “safeguard [for] taxpayer money and serves to help people stay away from drugs.”

That’s a fair assumption if you examine the bill’s intent on a surface level, but it doesn’t hold up if you go any deeper.

First, if the intent of HB 155 is to safeguard taxpayer money (a worthwhile endeavor if you ask me), then the requisite of a drug test should be place on all recipients of taxpayer money, such as state employees, legislators, and the owners of businesses who receive government funds. This of course is not the case, so we find that the only targeted group of these forced drug tests are individuals who’s financial predicaments have forced them to use the welfare system temporarily to get back on their feet.

Any rational person would conclude that if you target only one specific group of people you are assuming that those people are more likely than others to perpetrate a crime. So obviously the effort is not to safeguard taxpayer funds, but rather to weed out supposed drug users from among welfare recipients.

Garn goes on in his article to describe HB 155 as providing “a path of recovery for drug users.” Now, I’m fully supportive of efforts to help people off of drugs, but unfortunately this is a rather flimsy description of HB 155. A responsible path to recovery would be to provide voluntary addiction-recovery programs for welfare recipients, providing them with the opportunity to help themselves out of the dangerous situations addiction can create.

Either Mr. Garn missed the entire point of my previous post, or (entirely possible) I didn’t do a good enough job communicating my feelings.

The issue of HB 155 is every American citizen’s right to privacy. Their right not to be targeted as a potential lawbreaker just because their financial status is not the same as others. A government forcing citizens to undergo drug tests violates our civil rights, no matter what reasons or rationalization it gives. And when they violate the rights of one of us, they violate the rights of all of us.

 

 

Share

Welfare Drug-Screening Bill Dehumanizes Utahns

Posted By on March 26, 2012

Governor Herbert signed HB 155 by Representative Brad Wilson (R) into law this afternoon, continuing the GOP’s attack on the poor and working-class. While the bill may have been well intentioned, it crosses the line of failing to recognize a human being’s intrinsic worth and labels them as nothing but potential criminals.

HB 155 requires that all recipients of welfare in Utah complete a survey questionnaire designed to determine their likelihood of participating in drug use, and placing mandatory drug screenings on those who are determined to be at a greater risk.

Rep Brad Wilson (R)

Let me say that I understand the ideals behind Representative Wilson and Senate-sponsor Aaron Osmond’s bill. The motivation arises from the idea that some welfare recipients may use welfare monies to fund drug habits, which isn’t a pleasant thought. Who among us would be pleased to think that our tax dollars might be used to purchase illegal substances?

But the fact still remains that HB 155 makes the automatic assumption that Utahns are little more than potential criminals.

I had a brief conversation with Representative Jeremy Peterson (R) about the bill, and his words truly summed up the Republicans’ arguments on this for me. “Wouldn’t you agree that drug-use is more prevalent among poor people?” he asked. No, I do not agree with that. Perhaps certain kinds of drugs are more prevalent among those unfortunate enough to be down on their luck, but that doesn’t mean that other kinds of drugs (like crystal meth or speed) aren’t just as prevalent among those in other tax brackets. Illegal substances are rampant among all economic groups, some are just more noticeable than others. The simple fact is that the percentage of drug users among welfare recipients is actually significantly lower than among the general population.

To suggest that someone is more likely to be on drugs just because they are poor, is little better than suggesting that a black person is more likely to rob a bank, or someone of middle eastern heritage is more likely to be a terrorist. All are arguments of those more willing to embrace stereotypes than to delve into the waters of indicative factors and individual situations.

Now I do have to give some credit to Representative Wilson and Senator Osmond, at least HB 155 does include the additional step of the questionnaire rather than to force all welfare recipients to directly take drug screenings. It’s less abrasive than the now infamous proposed bill in Florida which didn’t have the slight buffer of the survey.

But we have got to start viewing people for who they really are. Despite the stereotypes, the majority of people on welfare aren’t there permanently, but rather use the program as a temporary crutch after a devastating life event until they can get back on their feet. These are fathers and mothers and families who are going through the hardest moments of their lives, and are now being told by their government that just because they are temporarily in a tough spot they’re probably going to start shooting up. To place such an egregious assumption on them is not only immoral, but dehumanizing.

Want to make sure tax dollars aren’t being used to pay for coke or heroin? Perhaps we should look at those who have excessive tax-payer-provided income. Perhaps legislators should be required to take drug tests randomly during the session.

Share

Before You Believe GOP Talking Points On “Obamacare,” Remember This:

Posted By on March 23, 2012

It seems that every Republican candidate is all in a twist over so-called “Obamacare” and the absolute “evils” it is perpetuating on Americans. But on the 2 year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, let’s look at what it has actually done.

All we hear from most of the Republican candidates in Utah (whether for Governor, Congress, or the State Legislature) is how absolutely horrendous the healthcare-reform law is. It will destroy America! “It’s a government takeover! It kills the rights of citizens!”Any of these ringing a bell?

Even Rick Santorum claimed at a speech on Tuesday that, “After and if Obamacare is implemented, every single American will depend upon the federal government for something that is critical, their health and their life.”

Ok.. let’s walk a few steps back towards sanityville folks. First The Affordable Care Act in no way creates any individual dependency on the government. Just because insurance companies can no longer turn people away for preexisting conditions doesn’t make someone government dependent. And on that note, what on earth is wrong with insurance companies accepting people with preexisting conditions?? This is one of those incomprehensible arguments for me, I just cannot fathom why the Republican Party is so up in arms over citizens of America having access to health insurance from private companies (which they’ll pay for).

It also seems that no matter how long it has been, we can never fully shake that old conservative talking point of “government takeover of the insurance industry.” Repeat after me: There. Is. No. Takeover. – in fact, there isn’t even a public option mentioned in the bill.

But of course, the biggest argument against the Affordable Care Act is the requisite that Americans obtain and maintain health insurance. Now there is legitimate debate about whether or not that is a good thing, but what gets me a little red in the face is the hypocrisy  of the way most conservatives are arguing their side. The Party which has built itself on a platform of “personable responsibility” and “no government welfare” sure seems to be going out of their way to destroy a law which by definition encourages personal responsibility and will go a long way towards decreasing the number of people who need medicaid. Think about it, if everyone has insurance and access to regular checkups and doctor visits, diseases are much more likely to be caught early on, which naturally decreases the number of people who end up on medicaid because of unnoticed ailments. Less people on medicaid and less uninsured sick Americans showing up in the emergency room = less money taxpayers have to shovel out for healthcare! Come on Republicans, this is exactly what you’ve been demanding for years!

Still not convinced that “Obamacare” isn’t the evil we’re being told it is? Well let’s take a look at some of the incredible positive impacts it’s had on the average, everyday American citizen shall we? I’ll leave you with this spectacular graphic from ThinkProgress:

(Click The Image to Enlarge)

 

Share

Is Sutherland’s “Abstinence-Only” Data True or Bogus? Some Thoughts

Posted By on March 18, 2012

Utah – I watched with interest last night as Paul Mero (of the lobbying group The Sutherland Institute) argued with reporters on Twitter, trying to get them to use his study “proving” that abstinence-only education works best. True study? Or bogus?

Currently, there are a handful of districts in Utah which already teach abstinence-only education, rather than the rest of the state where abstinence-centered is taught. The lobbyists at Sutherland Institute are claiming that these numbers prove that the areas with abstinence-only education is taught have lower rates of chlamydia, thus abstinence-only education works the best.

Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s look at the raw data and see what it tells us. Here’s what Sutherland is placing their stance on:

Well, according to the numbers it seems that the abstinence-only school districts of the Canyons and Jordan do indeed have lower rates of chlamydia than some other school districts. That settles it then, yes?

But wait, can that conclusion really be attributed to abstinence-only education? Look at the numbers again, what do we not see? How about any mention of what education was received or not-received by those who caught chlamydia? Were they predominantly home-schooled, did their parents opt them out of sex ed at school, are their societal differences between the school districts? What about race and social class – are the districts with lower chlamydia rates more wealthy or more poor? What about other STD’s and teen-pregnancies – do the same trends in the districts hold true?

Paul Mero

Sutherland Institute’s data may be valid, but their lack of any control over the study means that we can’t actually draw any valid or verifiable conclusions from that data. There’s nothing to base any solid theories on. Could they be right? I guess.  But with the broad data provided, we could just as easily conclude that living in a school district that starts with a C or J decreases the hormonal rate in kids.

The data in Sutherland’s model just doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

Oh, and not to pour salt in a wound or anything, but did you notice Alpine School District in the numbers? Their chlamydia rates are even lower than the abstinence-only districts Canyons and Jordan. So…. that doesn’t completely throw off Sutherland’s claims or anything right? And as PRIDEinUtah reader Madelyn pointed out:

* Canyons/Jordans rates went up from 09 to 10, despite the abstinance-only education and a smaller population
* Rest of SL’s rates went down, despite a growing population
* Alpine’s rates went down, despite a growing population
* Rest of Utah’s rates went down, despite a growing population
* Provo and Nebo’s rates and populations both went down.

Perhaps Paul Mero’s time would be better spent coming up with some conclusive research, instead of twitter-ranting at political reporters who refuse to print conjecture.

Share