Wasatch FERPA and Common Core

The School Board approved a 30 day comment period on the FERPA changes approved in April, without any review or public comment period.   As this reconsideration was done last week, the comment period ends about 15 June.    Residents may want to weigh in on the subject of releasing private student information.  From the School website:   "For comments on policies contact Vicci Gappmayer here.  Last Modified on Friday at 3:36 PM"     (For comparison the Kitchen Use Policy is also up for review; one might ask which is more important, but we won't.)  
 
An Open Letter to the Wasatch School Board  (sent via , and sent to as LTE to the Wave)

It is my understanding that Wasatch Schools are in the process of reviewing the modifications made to the local FERPA policy.    (Anyone of you is invited to join on the Impact program to provide the answers to these question and discuss the issue. It has been a item of discussion already and, thus far, no one has heeded the request to represent the school.)

1    I also understand that some people are saying it is necessary to make the changes because it is required by law.  If so, could you please provide a reference to that law?  Who gave the information to the school board?

2    If it is NOT required, what is the reason for the change?

3    While the DoE implementation of the Federal FERPA law was changed last year to allow (not require) more dissemination of personal student information, why is it beneficial to the student or parent?

4    If the information is to "prove" the value, or measure the success, of some 2020 goal (see below), how does that justify releasing private information to a database?

5    Do Wasatch County students really need or, benefit from, having K-12 information in some computer database that may only be as secure as the Utah medical records that were breached recently?

6    If it wasn't allowed before the change of rules by DoE; did, or does, the federal FERPA law allow it now?  Have your attorneys checked that?

7    I would also suggest that #8 "To certain designated government or educational authorities;"  is rather vague.   Designated by whom, designated where and for what purpose?

From the DoE for the proposed NPRM to allow release of more personal student info.

Concerning testing, FERPA and private student info dissemination, the DoE modified their regulations governing privacy.

"As States develop their longitudinal data systems, the Department has been informed of significant confusion in the education field surrounding what are permissible disclosures of personally identifiable student information from education records. . . "

"the NPRM proposes requiring a State or local educational authority or an agency headed by an official listed in 99.31(a)(3) to use a written agreement that designates any authorized representative to whom it will redisclose personally identifiable information from education records without consent."

Why is this change needed - according to the proposal? 

"High quality data and robust data systems will help us measure our progress towards President Obama's goal for us to be first in the world in college completion by the year 2020 and better meet the needs of parents, teachers, and students."


Apparently to prove this new program, whether federal or by a consortia, we need to allow the release and collection of MORE private information to "better meet the needs of " the education establishment, federal government and for propaganda and justification.

For more on the NEW Common Core see What is Common Core?  and Utahns against Common Core

SAO Audit Requested

As there has been little progress in recovering the remainder of the excessive pay received by the HL & P Board (see posts below) an audit request has been submitted to the State Auditor's Office

"The "State Auditor Hotline" provides an avenue for citizens, including government employees, to report suspected financial improprieties or violations of laws or regulations by state and local governments; waste of public funds or resources; and/or constructive suggestions for improving state and local governments regarding financial-related matters, internal control, or compliance. The Hotline coordinates the efforts of existing resources, rather than duplicating efforts of authority already in place."

****   ****  ****

We residents of Wasatch County and Heber Light and Power ratepayers hereby “report suspected financial improprieties or violations of laws or regulations by state and local governments; waste of public funds” and request an audit of Heber Light and Power and/or its owners, Heber City, Midway and Charleston.

We have contacted "the government officials (including the county attorney) directly involved in the issue(s) the chance to take action or modify procedures." They were "not responsive."

HOTLINE REPORTING FORM

Who is the person(s) the complaint is against? (Please provide name, position, agency, division, and phone #) Dave Phillips, Chair (Heber City)(654-0574,davphillips@gmail.com);  Connie Tatton (Midway) (654-2416,midwaycityut.org); John Whiting (Charleston)(654-2343, jcwhiting@yahoo.com) – (Human Resources Committee) - and possibly other members of the Heber Light & Power Board of Directors

Who is the above person’s supervisor? (Please provide name, position, and phone#) They are the governing board of Heber Light and Power.   There does not appear to be any supervision or oversight of the Board.

What is the assertion of improper governmental activity? Please describe in detail. Planning, preparing, instituting and accepting a four-fold plus pay increase for themselves, an annual amount which would have been more that half of the dividend normally paid to the cities owning HL & P and about the same as collected from residents in recently passed service charge fees.

When did the event(s) take place? Please include dates, time, and frequency. Specifically, at a meeting 16 Nov 2011, and some time period before preparing and continuing payments. In that meeting under an agenda item of “Employee & Exempt Employee Manual Amendments” the board (with two absent members) approved an effective monthly pay raise of $1,687, supposedly for “health care benefits.” That agenda item appears to be a violation of the intent of the Open Meetings Act; the discussion on the the pay raise (retroactive “health insurance” benefit) lasted less than one minute. (audio available) These “benefit” payments were made retroactive for a period of several months resulting in a payment in December 2011 of $10,122 per board member and continuing payments in January and February 2012 for $1687. This payment was in addition to their “regular” monthly payments of about $466 ($599 for chair). The board generally spends less than 2 hours per month in a board meeting. One board member refused to accept the payment as excessive and subsequently, after a citizen petition protesting the action, 7 or 8 of the recipients have reportedly returned, or agreed to return, the funds. The online petition collected about 570 signatures a few hundred were collected on paper. Mayors Philips and Tatton and Heber Councilman Patterson have refused to return the money as they indicated they believed it had been “earned.” Mr. Patterson was not even a board member in 2011, but received $4.050 as part of a shared compensation plan among Council members. The remaining Council members returned their share of the money. Charleston Town President John Whiting reportedly is returning the money by not accepting his monthly payment. Phillips, Tatton and Whiting were members of the “Human Resource” Committee and/or the Personnel committee which formulated the so-called health benefit plan over a period of two years. Other board members have reported they were unaware of the proposal until it was presented at the November Board meeting. The two members who were NOT present learned about it after the meeting. At a meeting of the Board in January, public comment were allowed, but no explanation was offered, no discussion on the issue was held and no questions were answered. At the February Board meeting, future payments were suspended. After pointed questioning, Chair Phillips indicated he would not take the February payment, but repayment was a “personal decision.”

Where did the event(s) occur? Heber City, UT

Are there any other persons who might provide information or who witnessed the event? If so, what are their names, positions, agencies, divisions, and their contact information? Other board members at the time: Mike Kohler (Wasatch Co.) (654-3728), mikekohler2009@gmail.com) Alan McDonald, alw_mcdonald@msn.com, Benny Mergist, 801 404-7765, bencajun@yahoo.com and management and employees of HL & P

Is there evidence that can be examined or documentation that can be reviewed? (Please provide any documentation you have) Meeting records, recordings, documentation can be found here with accompanying links.

How do you know about the improper action? Did you see it occur? Did you see documentation indicating it occurred? Did you hear about it from someone else? Documentation, reports from others, failure of response and explanation from those involved. No Board responses from petition submitted at meeting and numerous requests for an explanation. County Attorney was non-responsive in requests from several citizens to investigate the situation.

What specific law or state regulation has been violated? Possibly, Open Meetings Act, Municipal Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act, perhaps more, specifically 10-3-818.   Salaries in municipalities.      (1) The elective and statutory officers of municipalities shall receive such compensation for their services as the governing body may fix by ordinance adopting compensation or compensation schedules enacted after public hearing.      (2) Upon its own motion the governing body may review or consider the compensation of any officer or officers of the municipality or a salary schedule applicable to any officer or officers of the city for the purpose of determining whether or not it should be adopted, changed, or amended. In the event that the governing body decides that the compensation or compensation schedules should be adopted, changed, or amended, it shall set a time and place for a public hearing at which all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. 10-3-1309.   Inducing officer or employee to violate part prohibited.      It is a class A misdemeanor for any person to induce or seek to induce any appointed or elected officer or municipal employee to violate any of the provisions of this part. 10-3-1304.   Use of office for personal benefit prohibited. (b) use or attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to:      (i) further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest; or      (ii) secure special privileges for the officer or employee or for others; 17B-1-308.   Boards of trustees comprised of county or municipal legislative body members.      (1) (e) board members may not receive compensation for their service as board members in addition to compensation they receive as members of a county or municipal legislative body. Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act. 67-16-4 . . it is an offense for a public officer, public employee, (c) use or attempt to use his official position to:      (i) further substantially the officer's or employee's personal economic interest; or      (ii) secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others; 67-16-5 (1)(b) compensation received for private services rendered at a rate substantially exceeding the fair market value of the services. 67-16-11. Applicability of provisions. “The provisions of this chapter apply to all public officers and public employees”. 26-20-6. Conspiracy to defraud prohibited. “ A person may not enter into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the state by obtaining or aiding another to obtain the payment or allowance of a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim of a medical benefit.” 11-13-222.   Officers and employees performing services under agreements. (2) Unless otherwise provided in an agreement that creates an interlocal entity, each employee of a public agency that is a party to the agreement shall:      (b) continue to be governed by the rules, rights, entitlements, and status that apply to an employee of that public agency.

PAY Raise Rescinded, but Payback Refused

Update 28 Feb:  While the HL&P Board "terminated" their "health" benefit, no decision was made for returning the back (and retroactive) pay.  These amounts are what they were PAID for "health" insurance.    This does NOT include their 'regular' HLP Board pay of ca. $500, other board payments, or their regular pay as elected officials. As HC Councilmen "share" their board payments these amounts could be higher.   The HC Council (excl. the Mayor) have informally agreed NOT to accept the Jan and Feb payments per Email.  Proposals are being considered to modify board payments.

An updated list of the amounts received in this pay raise can be found here.

************** 

At the HLP Board meeting, the first action after a (very) brief discussion was a unanimous vote to TERMINATE (rather than rescind) the November stealth four-fold Pay RAISE. (disguised as "health benefits")

After being queried when the raise was terminated, Mayor Phillips finally said it would be for February and it was a direct deposit to him and he would return THAT payment.

When asked, repeatedly, if they would return the pay already received Phillips, Tatton, Bradshaw, and Patterson all refused to answer. (Kohler had already refused payment)    Phillips said it was a "personal decision" - the 50 or so at the meeting expressed their collective displeasure at that response.

The Board members were also silent in response to an invitation to present an explanation onthe radio -but were preparing a written explanation. (justification?) (thereby avoiding pesky questions)

Councilman Alan McDonald explained to his former the error of their ways - and was basically met with vacant stares.  (Click here for transcript of his remarks)

Click here for a recording of meeting comments.

KUTV reporter Dan Rascon was doing interviews and reported live after the meeting.

"From residents, to a radio talk show host, to a city councilman – they’re all angry and upset over what board members who govern the Heber Light and Power Company did at a meeting last year. . . . Hebery (sic) City Mayor Dave Phillips is the chairman of the board – he says he is going to listen to the outcry but doesn't believe the board did anything wrong."


Here's the SLTrib report on the meeting  

"Heber City • Rushing to quell a firestorm of angry rate payers, the part-time board of the Heber Light & Power Co. voted unanimously Wednesday to rescind a benefit of $1,687 per month.

Nonetheless, board members got an earful from residents who called their actions "unethical," "self-serving" and "arrogant," among other things."

Questions to HL & P Board

Letter to Editor re:  HL&P Personnel Board votes to recommend termination of payment

While local electricity users may be heartened by the decision of the HL & P Board of Directors' “Personnel Board” to “recommend termination” of their massive pay increase, many are still awaiting the answer to how, and why, this all came about.

Somehow Mayor Phillips' rationale that “If the public is going to be upset we need to terminate this,” does not seem to be sufficient explanation. This answer sounds more like, 'whoops, we got caught enriching ourselves, so we'd better back off a little.' 

There was no mention of an apology or an admission of an erroneous policy, no mention of returning the money being repaid.    

By the time of the Board meeting Wednesday, some members will have received about $15,000 under the guise of health benefits.

One former Councilman has declared this simply a “bonehead decision,” others conclude that it was a calculated plan of greed.

Here are a few questions that need to be asked - and answered: 

• Where are/were checks and balances against this type of action? 
•  By whom was this idea concocted and promoted? 
• Why was there no proper notification or explanation for this action? 
•  When will the money be returned? 
• Why are board members paid for not attending meetings? 
•  Are there other entities who have, or are, doing similar things? 
•  If not paid for by increased electric rates or taxes, how was it paid for? 
• Last, but not least: How do we prevent this type of misfeasance from occurring again?

As Mayor Phillips promised in January, the HLP Board meeting is the proper place for a discussion and an explanation. We will eagerly anticipate that at 4:15 PM today (Wed.) after the petition is submitted.

MANY more comments can be found on the petition by signers.   Here are a few of recent ones, posted in the last two days:

• "This smacks of the outrageous salaries opted by California municipalities. Check out what happened to them. Remember who we are! And what we can do if provoked."
• "Too angry to comment."
• "In my opinion, they should be removed from the board and banned forever from any board, and banned from running for any type of public office. It might help also if their businesses were boycotted. That might help send a very clear message that " ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" 
• "How disgusting that these leaders feel like they deserve such outrageous compensation. The ones that voted for this do not deserve our votes in the next election. If they can be so blatantly unethical on this, what little things are getting by the public where they are cheating on?" 
• 'Doesn't seem ethical at all to me. Let the people who pay vote on such changes. Wow, it sounds about like what is going on in our national government! Hope we can stop this now!" 
• And from an Email in response to this from a Board Member "The personnel committee met yesterday.  No decision was made to make any recommendations to the full board as of yet.  We will be meeting again but not meeting date was set.  No minutes were taken.  There will be a press release to the media in next week’s paper.  I have not seen the press release so I can’t give you any information regarding that.  I am sorry I am such a disappointment to you.  Perhaps you should consider running for office."    ==      "No need to be nasty I only spoke the truth about your responsibilities to your constituents it has nothing to do with whether I run for office, you did run for office and answer to your constituents and ratepayers.   You are showing a great deal of arrogance.  Why was their no minutes of this latest meeting  isn't that something that has to be done.  How can there be a press release that you haven't seen?  Who wrote the press release this just doesn't sound right.  I will pass your response to all the people I know.  You broke the trust and feel justified in being sarcastic to someone who has the right to question you.  When I first called you should have responded with an explanation of why you voted the way you did.  Each time you avoid speaking to the citizens it appears that you can do what you want and just really don't care.   I also asked you to let me know what other boards you serve on and what the compensation is.

Hmm, has anyone seem that press release?

++++++++++++++++++             ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here are a few more questions:

How are Board members chosen? 

Is it required that elected official must be members?    If so, by what, or whom?

How often do board members missed meetings?

How long is the average meeting? 

 

Who set up the Human Resources committee?         In which meeting?

Members?    Who chose them?

What is the difference between the HR and Personnel committees?

Are there any minutes of "committee" meetings?

How many other subcommittees are under HLP Board?

When was the comprehensive review study initiated?    When completed?

Why wasn't the item placed on the agenda earlier that November?

When was the item placed on the agenda?

When were McDonald and Kohler excused from the meeting?

In your opinion, did the notice and agenda effectively explain the meeting?

Did anyone suggest that a more informative notice might be required?

Did you have any idea this might be controversial?

When was board eligibility for health benefits discussed?

Is any other Wasatch County entity offering in-lieu of payments?

Has this idea of in-lieu of payments been rejected by any  other entity in the county?

Are in-lieu of payments being made for employees? How many are taking that option?

Where was a notice made of this action so the public would know about it?

Why is there no mention of providing health insurance in the Manual changes?

How were the manual change proposals distributed to the board for their consideration?

Who wrote the press release to the Trib?    Who approved it?

Why did that notice refer to an effective date of July for benefits?

If changes were made for new hires (effective July) to SAVE money, why increase board benefits to SPEND money?

Was there specifically a question asked about the legality of this action? when?

Where, when, and how was the decision made to allow insurance for board members written?

How many Board members took advantage of the health Insurance in 2011?  2012?

Where in the 2011 budget was this item - or was it adjusted in Dec to accommodate the pay raise?

How much input did you receive from the public before approving this?

Who is PAYING for the RAISE?

Wasatch County residents want to know!

It is now over two months since the decision was made for a fourfold pay increase by a few of our elected officials,and nary an explanation, justification or rationalization has been offered.  Adequate opportunities have been available when asked at Council meetings, or after a bevy a comments at the HL&P Board meeting, or in responses to Email queries on the subject.

Perhaps those recipients of this bountiful, self ordained, Christmas present compliments of those paying for electricity think that the public will grow weary and they will be able to keep their ill-gotten gains. 

To put this Pay Raise in perspective, the $10,000 that each of the board members received in December simply for RETROACTIVE benefits (that could not even have been used), is approximately equally to the total of all of the $12 service fees paid by all electricity users for several months.

Consider this,  the amount the Heber City Mayor and  HL&P Board Chair Phillips will be paid for ONE board meeting ($2,300) will be more than ALL of the payments that my business pays for electricity for twelve months.  Those payment also would NOT cover the amount he will receive for the meeting he did NOT attend in January to hear the public!

 What about that frugal widow lady paying $48 per month (including the $12 service fee), ALL of her electric bill payments, for nearly three years,  could just be forwarded directly to Midway Mayor Tatton to cover the cost of ONE month of her in-lieu-of health payments ($1689). 

Heber City council members currently share their board payments.   Three Council members, (Horner, Mergist and McDonald) are repaying their portion of the retroactive bonus of $4,000 for December, for a total of $12,000.   That's a bit more than Town President Whiting received.
Councilman Patterson has reportedly said the council "earned" it and he will not be returning his shared payment.  Former Councilman Straddeck  has given no indication of his decision;  an email query received no response.

Then, of course, we have to raise the exorbitant cost of this pay raise by another 7.65% to pay for the employer portion of FICA - unless this is be given as a no-taxable fringe benefit.

Whatever the cost it will have to come from one of two places - the taxpayers' right hand pocket or the HLP rate payers' left hand pocket.  

Will there be an explanation forthcoming?   Doubtful.   Will that pay raise decision be rescinded? Possibly.   Will the  money already paid be returned?  Only if public pressure is continually applied.    

The "rescind and return" Petition is still up at  http://sn.im/heberlight  or linked at Wasatchlive.com More detailed information can be found at www.wasatch.blogspot.com.

The petition will formally be presented at the next HL & P meeting Wed, Feb 22, 4:15 PM (if they allow it on the agenda this time).

Open Letter to Pay Recipients

Enough is Enough - Wasatch County residents want to know

An Open letter to recipients of the HL & P pay raise
(1/27 Via Email to: David Phillips, Connie Tatton, John Whiting, Mike Kohler, Benny Mergist, Alan McDonald, Nile Horner, Robert Patterson, Eric Straddeck, Erik Rowland, Jeff Bradshaw)

First, let me offer my apologies for the delivery of my comments at the recent Heber Light and Power Board meeting; some have said I may have sounded "angry."  I felt it was not proper that an explanation was not offered and that no question were answered by those who made that decision.

Be that as it may, I'm sure you are all aware that the decision to award "in-lieu" of pay to the members of the the  has not received overwhelmingly approval by the community.

As a strong believer in openness and transparency, I am therefore offering any of you the opportunity to:
 1. Join the IMPACT program to express anything you have to say on this subject;
 2. Join the IMPACT program answer questions this subject;
 3. Respond via email with your comments; OR
 4. Call me to explain or discuss the issue. 
I have substantial information about the decision, but there are still many question to be answered.

Last, but certainly not least, I would strongly urge that each and everyone of you NOT to be recipients of ANY payments dispensed from HL&P until the situation is resolved, AND better yet, that any and all funds be returned in the name of fairness to those who pay the bills.

Regards,
Bob Wren.

Response, I've had a few,

But then again, too few to mention. . . . 

It did bring this:

Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 4:00 PM

Hi All,

I was finally able to visit with Tony about the decision made at the last Heber Power board meeting.  I apologize for not being there but our Council meeting ended up conflicting with it.  I will try to do better in the future.

That said, I am concerned about the decision made by the board to offer health insurance (or equivalent cash)to themselves.   I can’t think of any reason to justify that amount of money coming to the board.  The $500.00 per month is at the top side of anything justifiable based on the amount of time and effort spent doing that job.  I could even support  reasonable extra compensation to those board members who spend time over and above normal board meetings to help manage the company, but not this. 

With all due respect to the board’s actions, I would request that this item be reconsidered and reversed at our next meeting.  In my opinion, it is this kind of excesses that turn the public against those in political office. 

We represent the people and should be doing all possible to deliver government services at the best price possible.   We, the board of Heber Light and Power, recently imposed a rate increase on our customers.  It was calculated to be the least cost amount needed to deliver an expected rate of return to the company to help maintain good long term financial health.   I was opposed to that increase based on timing and present economic conditions.  I am opposed to this increase in Board compensation, not only because it is excessive, but also because it will use up about 25% of that rate increase, possibly requiring another increase in rates to compensate for it.   It is excessive based on any reasonable compensation for time spent.  Please let us reconsider our actions.

Respectfully, 

Mike Kohler

Wasatch County Council

And this:

Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:38 AM

Fellow Board Members

After some thought on this matter I support Mr. Kohler's opinion . I have ask Mark Anderson to return my portion of the insurance stipend to Heber Light and Power.

Thank you,

Benny Mergist

Further on 2/1/2012:

At the end of 2011, Heber City received a check for $20,249.28 from Heber Light and Power, to cover the insurance benefit appointed to myself and Alan McDonald, who were representing the Heber City Council as HL&P board members for 2011. (I wish to note that Alan was not present for the vote regarding this insurance benefit.) The current Heber City policy divides any and all board payments received from any paying boards in behalf of its council members, between all five council members. Thus when this payment was divided by 5, each Heber City council member’s portion was $4049.86. (I also wish to note the other Heber City council members did not participate in the vote regarding this issue or ask to receive this payment.) We each received a net amount less social security and taxes. I returned to HL&P the gross amount of my portion which was $4049.86.

I wish to clarify I did not return “a” portion, but the entire portion of which I received. To quote me as saying I returned as much of the money as I had available, that I wished it were more, or that this depletes everything my wife and I have in savings was also incorrect.

I sincerely apologize for my error in judgment on this matter and I am earnestly striving to make restitution.  I no longer serve on the HL&P board, but appeal to all current board members to rescind the decision regarding insurance benefits paid to board members.

Sincerely,

Benny Mergist

Heber City Council Member

And This

To Heber City Council and former Members:

We are all aware of the HLP health benefits package and the extra compensation that has been given to the City Council.  I am informing the city council that I am returning the portion of the money that I have received due to this health benefits package back to HLP.  What you decide to do with your portions is up to you.

  I would like to make a statement to the council concerning boards and committees that the city council members have been appointed to.   When a city council member has been asked to fill an appointed position on a board or committee, they represent the whole governing body of the city, and should act in the best interest of the city.  Their actions or in-actions, must reflect the position of the governing body of the city and not their own personal interests.  We do no sever on these committed and boards due to any personal achievement of our own; rather we serve on these positions because the Mayor has asked us to represent the governing body of Heber City.

   With that in mind, I feel the governing body should make a decision concerning the HLP board health benefits package as a body, and voice that opinion through our representatives on the board.  I ask the City Council representatives on the HLP board to reconsider the actions take by some of the HLP board members in November and remove from the amendments of HLP Employee and Exempt Employee Manual the health benefit that the board members receive.  I would like the City Council to resole to a vote on how the city and the governing body should be represented on the board by the council's representatives.

   I vote to rescind this health care benefit that has been extend to the HLP Board members and to remove the amendments allowing it.  I respect each of you and your position concerning the best interests of the council and the city.  But we need to make it clear to the public and to HLP Board what the city council's position is on this issue.  So I would suggest to the council, that we have  Mark Anderson  put this on the February 2nd regular meeting agenda, so the council can take a vote on it.

   What each council members does with the money that they have received is up to each individual, but I recommend that the council and former council member return all monies received from this action. 

Respectfully:

Alan McDonald

HL & P Board Comments

While the recent HL & P Board meeting allowed comments from the public, many questions raised but NONE were answered.

Acting Chair Connie Tatton, sitting in for the 'vacationing' Chair (and Mayor) Dave Phillips, prefaced the comment period with a statement than no explanation would be made, no questions would be answered and no discussion would be held.   After the comment period the meeting was recessed and Mayor Tatton declared that no decision would be made because Mayor Phillips was absent.

• Click here for the SLTrib report of the meeting: "Heber City • Dozens of angry Wasatch County residents blasted the part-time board of Heber Light & Power Co. on Wednesday evening for voting themselves a so-called health benefit of $1,687 a month."   (Comments can be made there, several interesting ones have already been posted)
• And here for a local report by HeberValleyInfo:   "It was standing room only when by my estimation, approximately 150 citizens showed up to voice their opinion. To give the board credit, they did allow an ‘open mike’ process, rather than limiting comments to those who had requested time on the agenda. However, they refused to answer any questions, Heber City Mayor Phillips was a no show.    .  .  .  . .    Also let me preface the following comments with the caveat that the sentiments were reserved for the members of the board, and NOT for employees of Heber Power & Light."  
• And here for an audio recording of the comments made at the public meeting.

Lest anyone might misunderstand what was done at the meeting and for those desiring even more actual information, here is a 4 minute excerpt of the "discussion" around the pay raise at the Nov 16 meeting and here for the entire meeting to get the full report.  The Employee Manual changes begin about 1:00 into the meeting, the discussion specific to the "in-lieu of Pay Raise" last about 15 seconds.

The petition for rescission (and RETURN of the money already received) is still alive and active passing 450 signatures earlier today with an additional several hundred paper signers.

Click Here for the  the two ethics laws  or acts that apply to elected and appointed officials

HL & P Board Pay Raise Update

The health insurance benefit (aka pay raise) for the Board of Directors (Elected Officials) was approved in the November 2011 meeting.  The meeting agenda  shows this item:
Administration – General Business
*2012 Preliminary Budget
*2012 Operating Resolution
*Employee & Exempt Employee Manual Amendments

The minutes of the meeting for this item report:
"Employee and Exempt Manual Amendments
The Human Resources Committee of the Board presented amendments to the Employee and Exempt Employee Manuals. Benny Mergist moved to accept the amendments to the Manuals with changes as discussed. Motion seconded by John Whiting. Motion passed all in favor."

Members in attendance:  Mayor Dave Phillips, Mayor Connie Tatton, Town President John Whiting, Councilman Benny Mergist

Excused:Councilman Alan McDonald, County Council Chairman Mike Kohler

Who is on the Human Resources Committee?
David Phillips, Connie Tatton and John Whiting

***Click here for all of the approved changes 

 Included is a cap on employee retirement allowance, an increase in education allowance (with a decrease in grade requirement), limiting changes for "new" employees, one more paid holiday and a LARGE pay increase for the Board. *****************

From these approved changes:

"HR Committee revisions to Employee Manual

Purpose:  To ensure fair compensation and benefits for employees, the continued solvency of the Company and value for customers.

On page 8 of these manual changes, -apparently an addition to the manual:
"Exempt Employees Manual

Directors’ Compensation In-lieu of Health Insurance Benefits: 

The Company will pay to a Director the premium normally paid to the Health Insurance carrier for the Medical, Dental and Vision coverage.  When premium rates are increased or decreased by the insurance carrier, compensation in-lieu of benefits shall be adjusted by an equal amount. "

One can easily conclude that, rather than providing health insurance, this change simply increased the Board member by the amount of the insurance. 

For more information see the Salt Lake Tribune article here. which refers to  "the board released a prepared statement Wednesday"  reported in the Tribune article.

Here is that statement:

“Last summer the HR committee of Heber Light & Power’s Board undertook a comprehensive review of all the benefits offered to the Company’s employees and Board Members.

The review included an assessment as to the Power Board Member’s eligibility to participate in the Company’s health benefit plan and it was determined that Board Members were eligible to receive the health benefits plan.  Upon approval by the Board, effective July 1, 2011, the Board Members were offered the Company’s health benefits plan.

The Heber Light & Power Board is committed to providing its member’s and employee’s reasonable compensation and benefits to maintain a highly skilled and motivated team. This team works to ensure reliable, reasonably priced electricity is available to all of our customers; extension of these benefits will not result in a rate increase to customers nor affect service.”

Does this mean that the pay raise was also RETROACTIVE???

For even more here to read Councilman McDonald's report. 
    and further here in the Wasatch Currant 

Heber Light and Power Board PAY increase

Elected Official have historically served on subsidiary boards with no, or a token, payment. They are paid for their official duties and are, or should be, aware of both the duties AND the pay before they were elected.

In recent year, the trend has been to offer pay for board service. This decision has NOT been made by those paying the bill, but by those receiving the money. In particular, early last year the governing board of Heber Light and Power was being paid $400 or so for one meeting a month.

Late last year, the board approved an effective pay raise to $20,000 to $30,000 per year.

This increase should be rescinded immediately and better yet, anywhere possible, board membership should be returned to the (non elected) service oriented residents. Many would be willing to do so if invited. Government of the people, by the people and for the people
Enough is Enough

A petition has been posted here for those asking HL & P to rescind their unwarranted pay increase.

Free Petition by iPetitions.com

The Petition

Whereas, Late last year some members of the Heber Light and Power governing board, decided to provide themselves with fully paid health insurance or the option to receive an equivalent amount in payment.

Whereas, The Board is constituted of self appointed elected officials.

Whereas, The total cost of this benefit is estimated to be in excess of $150,000 annually, which will be paid by the users of the service.

Whereas, This amount will be paid from either excess charge already received or a future increase in utility rates.

Whereas, While portrayed as a health "benefit," the 'option' indicates this is simply a substantial pay increase (possibly disguised as a tax free benefit).

We, the citizens of the Heber Valley, hereby call on the HL&P Board to rescind this decision and return to proper fiscal policies of conservative operation for the public service which the utility is supposed to be.

Current Board members: Dave Phillips, Chair (Heber City)(654-0574,davphillips@gmail.com);  Mike Kohler (Wasatch Co.) (654-2300, mikekohler2009@gmail.com),  John Whiting (Charleston)(654-2343,jcwhiting@yahoo.com),  Connie Tatton (Midway) (654-2416,midwaycityut.org), Jeff Bradshaw (Heber City)(bradshawcpa@wasatch-wireless.com),  Robert Patterson (Heber City) (654-2648,rmpatt@gmail.com)
The decision was made by an affirmative vote of the previous Board.   Members Kohler and MacDonald were absent but have expressed disapproval. 

Alan McDonald was recently replaced. Prior member Benny Mergist has also been replaced.

Heber Election Update

With the election tomorrow, I hope apathy is not the winner in the municipal election in Heber City.  The choice is clear - more of the same or a return to representative government. 

The primary winnowed the field down to, apparently, two groups - the status quo vs. change.  Here's an update to my recommendations for return to checks and balance and fiscal responsibility.   

While you have the option to vote for UP TO 3 candidates, voting for fewer may be helpful.


I am a supporter of the old adage; “he governs best, who governs least.”   My personal preference is for small government with maximum openness, transparency and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I’m a strong believer in citizen involvement in government and would like to see separation of powers and a cessation of favoritism.  Government should make good laws, people (including those in government) should follow those law and if the laws are not working, changes should be made through the proper process.

The Heber Valley needs to retain its rural, small town atmosphere, not become another bedroom suburbia, with no character, or worker housing for Park City   Residential growth is not a general benefit to the community.  I spent six years on the county planning commission trying to explain this philosophy with mixed success.   (Freedom 21, NOT Agenda 21)

Given those parameters, I believe change is necessary in Heber City.  The past few elections have indicated that citizens also agree.  A multitude of surveys have shown that residents like what the Heber Valley IS - not what some what like to see it become.

While I am NOT currently a resident of Heber, I do operate a business in the city.  I have followed the operation of Heber City government for many years.   The actions of Heber City does affect the entire valley and county.


Recommended:

Nile Horner: Running for his second term he has been consistent in working toward what he promised while campaigning - fiscal responsibility.  While some feel he may be a little brusque at times, he will, and does, listen to the people.   Heber voters should keep him around for a second term.

Tracy Taylor: An activist and fiscal hawk.   Those who know Tracy know that she will not back done easily when she believes in something.  She has strong beliefs and opinions (many of which I would disagree with), but would be an asset on the council.

Moving Up with his recent answers to debate questions:

Jerry Duke: I’ve known Jerry for 30 plus years, we agree and disagree - always as friends.  He was the only candidate who failed to answer “NO” to the question “If you had been on the Council would you have supported the property tax increase.  









Dropping a little, with his email campaign and support group:

Erik Rowland:   Has aligned himself with the status quo group.  Presents himself well, but has no track record except service on the Airport Board, where he apparently felt the $400K snow removal building was a necessity. Good business background, which would be helpful.




The cadre of more of the same, tax and spend

Jeff Bradshaw: He has spent many years in community service in many capacities.  As a councilman, he supported the MURCZ which ushered in the Valley Station with a multitude of forthcoming apartments.  As a CPA and a financial man, I believe he should have been a better proponent of a proper fiscal analysis of that, and other, projects and annexations.

Robert Patterson: An incumbent who chose NOT to come on the radio for an interview, one of the two current Council proponents of the 45% property tax increase.

Redistricting followup

The latest edition of the "approved" redistricting maps can be found here

The new proposed legislative district containing Wasatch County,  maintains the integrity of the county as a whole and combines it with some of Summit County (PKC).  While my preference would have been to remain united with Duchesne, this is probably not a bad alternative.  Wasatch fared much better than Duchesne, see below.

The consensus of those who "should" be concerned seems to be, as long as Wasatch is maintained as a whole entity in the legislative district with a 2 to 1 voting majority, it's fine.

Many also believe it is better to have more Senators representing us, as we would have problems influencing that election as a small county.  An interesting idea, but my comments are posted in the redistricting website (which is still soliciting comments - and the time is short, as the decision is scheduled to be made Monday in a Special Legislative session). 

 "I still maintain that community integrity is more important than the artificially forced goal of 0% deviation of population on already old data (census) to be used for the next decade during which the population distribution will obviously change. A multitude of unnecessary community division can, have and will, be reported. These will created problems for county clerks in modifying precinct boundaries to conform to these broken town et al boundaries.

If the intent is to avoid a lawsuit with 0%, I fear that will NOT work - logical natural geographical and community boundaries would be more defensible, and acceptable.

It is a difficult enough process as it is, without imposing this unnatural meaningless artificiality for a count in a moment of time.

These comments apply equally to the legislative and congressional districts. 

Duchesne:  From the Vernal Express  “On the floor there can still be amendments and changes, but after taking all of the public input in the summer this (House base map) is the consensus of where we’re at,” said Van Tassell, who conceded that the approved map affects Duchesne County “pretty severely.”

From the same article: “I have not decided whether I will be seeking reelection, no matter what the boundaries are in any seat in 2012,” (Rep. Kraig Powell) said Friday. “The Legislature is a very demanding job, especially in Utah, where it is always a second job. With family obligations and work obligations, I’m always struggling as to how to fulfill my legislative duties best.”

Redistricting ALERT

There will be a Special Session of the Legislature to finalize the plans on October 3rd. (In less than 3 weeks) That accepted plan will govern for TEN Years.

 

Wasatch County needs a united front and it is needed NOW or we can hope our friends in PKC or elsewhere will look out for us.  

 

In case you haven't seen the recent Redistricting Committee recommendations, be aware that Wasatch County is not being "treated well."

 

The approve plan for the House (District 9) proposes to join some of  Wasatch with Park City (and surrounding) which (I think) would have the population majority; rather than joining with Duchesne Co. as we have for years.    (Each District must have a population of

 

The Southern part of Wasatch would be joined (gerrymandered) with Duchesne, Carbon and Grand. 

 

This quite possible could politically neuter Wasatch in the legislature.  

 

I posted this comment on the redistricting site ( comments are invited - but very few - and are read by the committee):

 

"Community integrity is far more important than numbers.  With the allowed 3.5% deviation flexibility more communities could remain intact.   The Census figure are already history and have certainly changed since the count.

With that flexibility, if not maintaining intact communities, you might at least be able to align some of the Senate and legislative boundaries.  For example, Wasatch County is divided in the Senate along 2400 S and in the House along Center St.

County integrity, at least, should be retained where feasible."

 

Yesterday I submitted two proposals to correct this and keep Wasatch whole.  There are other plans which also maintain our county integrity (e.g. 35238 & 35239).  This particular proposal is a modification with "minimal" changes affecting only 4 districts 9, 53, 55, and 69:  

 

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/house-wren-modifieddist-9-53-55-69  which reunites Wasatch with Duchesne and keeps Wasatch intact.

 

Second, a proposal combining a WHOLE Wasatch with PKC. (I don't see it up on the website yet???)

 

The Senate approved map divides Wasatch into THREE districts.  The main part of Wasatch goes as before with PKC, Duchesne and Uintah.    A second part (Wallsburg) is joined to Utah Co. and the third (Daniel, some of Heber and Midway, Independence and more),  is joined  again with Grand County and extends to MEXICAN HAT.

 

This could also be corrected (or at least easily minimized) to keep Wasatch whole by using the allowed 3.5% variance.

 

I had earlier submitted a plan which kept 21 of the 29 counties intact and divided 2 smaller counties and the six larger ones. 

 

http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/senate-wren-senateredist

Heber Council Candidates

I am a supporter of the old adage; “he governs best, who governs least.”   My personal preference is for small government with maximum openness, transparency and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I’m a strong believer in citizen involvement in government and would like to see separation of powers and a cessation of favoritism.  Government should make good laws, people (including those in government) should follow those law and if the laws are not working, changes should be made through the proper process.

The Heber Valley needs to retain its rural, small town atmosphere, not become another bedroom suburbia, with no character, or worker housing for Park City   Residential growth is not a general benefit to the community.  I spent six years on the county planning commission trying to explain this philosophy with mixed success.   (Freedom 21, NOT Agenda 21)

Given those parameters, I believe change is necessary in Heber City.  The past few elections have indicated that citizens also agree.  A multitude of surveys have shown that residents like what the Heber Valley IS - not what some what like to see it become.

While I am NOT currently a resident of Heber, I do operate a business in the city.  I have followed the operation of Heber City government for many years.   The actions of Heber City does affect the entire valley and county.

Here is my ranking and brief analysis of the current ten candidates for the city council, based on interviews with the candidates, and some research into their records and background. Many I have known for years, some I met only recently and one I know nothing about.  All are good people, but only three can be elected.

Recommended:

Nile Horner: Running for his second term he has been consistent in working toward what he promised while campaigning - fiscal responsibility.  While some feel he may be a little brusque at times, he will, and does, listen to the people.   Heber voters should keep him around for a second term.

Tracy Taylor: An activist and fiscal hawk.   Those who know Tracy know that she will not back done easily when she believes in something.  She has strong beliefs and opinions (many of which I would disagree with), but would be an asset on the council.

Second Tier: (the four “R’s” - in no particular order)

Dennis Roberts: New to me for this election.  Good background in court and law enforcement and education.   Seems to be a thoughtful person that comes to good conclusions.

Murl Rawlins: Mild manner and soft spoken, but seems to understand proper principles.

Erik Rowland: Presents himself well, but has no track record except service on the Airport Board, where he apparently felt the $400K snow removal building was a necessity. Good business background, which would be helpful

David Remington:   A surprisingly successful (but losing) candidate in recent County office election.  Well spoken and worthy of consideration.  Not much track record.


Someone has to be eliminated:
(Four will not make it through the Primary, based on my parameters and with no offense to these gentlemen, I’d prefer to see the others move on.   This is not a prediction as they have long time valley and family connections and consequent support, but probably they are not what is needed if change, fiscal responsibility and transparency is desired.)

Jeff Bradshaw: He has spent many years in community service in many capacities.  As a councilman, he supported the MURCZ which ushered in the Valley Station with a multitude of forthcoming apartments.  As a CPA and a financial man, I believe he should have been a better proponent of a proper fiscal analysis of that, and other, projects and annexations.

Jerry Duke: I’ve known Jerry for 30 plus years, we agree and disagree - always as friends.  He was the only candidate who failed to answer “NO” to the question “If you had been on the Council would you have supported the property tax increase.  

Robert Patterson: An incumbent who chose NOT to come on the radio for an interview, one of the two current Council proponents of the 45% property tax increase.

Unknown to me - no comment:
Brian Berg: I have never met him, he wasn’t able to come to the IMPACT interview

Stop Sign Study Released

Two years after the proposal to reconsider four way stop signs, the County Council met (10/6 - no minutes available, but Neil Anderton's report below) and decided 5-2 to continue the use on 1200 South and 2400 South.


Contrary to the local action, Cottonwood Heights (with input from GILSON ENGINEERING, INC.)  has adopted a Stop Sign Removal Policy declaring "it is very important to use stop signs only in locations that warrant their use. . . . As explicitly stated in the MUTCD, stop signs should not be used for the purpose of calming traffic. Some of these signs are poorly or improperly placed, and, as a result, many motorists fail to stop, which decreases safety and increases the potential for an accident."  . . . 


Further they cite:

• "STOP Signs should not be used for speed control."
• "STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the number of  vehicles having to stop."
• "In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped."
• "A stop sign should not be installed on a major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study"

The vote was theoretically based on the report done by Civco Engineering from Vernal and public input.  The report issued 15 September has the appearance of the same study done in 2003 which initially recommended all way stops.  The charts with the report all bear the 2003 date, with a recent revision date.


The "study" itself states, "The placement of stop sign recommendations will  be based upon . . . a field review of sight distances, . . . traffic volumes" and some other items.  "data . . . will be . . . analyzed and tested against AASHTO design standards. . . "information based upon the AASHTO design . . . will (be) included . . . "

Immediately following that description of what will be studied and reported, the report continues by giving the recommendations that ALL, but one, of the intersections on 1200 and 2400S should have ALL way stop signs.  The reasons given:  "sight distance from all directions . . . is good" = 4 way stop; "sight distance . . . is fair to poor" = 4 way stop; ". . . is good" = 3 way stop (ALL directions); ". . . average to poor" = 3 way, 4 way stops, etc. etc.



The only intersection recommended as a Two Way stop is 1200 East and 2400 South with "a sight distance of average to poor" - which is exactly what currently exists and what was recommended in 2003.



The report given to the public (me) includes NO traffic information, and no designated standards referenced to AASHTO.   (Those standards are not readily available, except by purchase for $233, and are not available in the local planning office.)


No mention on traffic volumes other than they "indicate these roadways are classified as residential usage."   No mention that the East West traffic on both streets accounts for 80 to 90% of the traffic.  No mention that the current stop stop signs (east and west) are treated, at best, as 'yield' signs. No mention that these streets are designated as Major Collectors in the County general plan.


Questions:

• Why not use a local company for the study? 
• Did the Council actually read the study?
• How much money was paid for the study?
• Why wasn't the Planning staff involved in the process?
• Was there more to the study than the 4 page report and 4 page of stop sign pictures?
• Why doesn't Wasatch County adopt Cottonwood Heights policy?

A companion study on speed limits in the county was also submitted (dated Aug. 31, 2010).   Recommendation for 1200 South  -  40 MPH (one can only assume, with the 4 way stops)  It is unknown whether that recommendation was accepted by the County Council.


Anderton Report of meeting: "The Council reconsidered the study and report completed by CivCo Engineering firm of Vernal, Utah. Their recommendation was to keep everything the same as now exists on 1200 So, 2400 So as well as other travel patterns in the County. Yours truly and Mike Kohler on the Council argued that there are still concerns by citizens that at least the 4-way signs at 1200 So and 4800 East, 3600 East and 2400 East ought to be only 2-way signs. The Sheriff, Tod Bonner and Kent Berg, County Director of Public Works spoke in favor of keeping the 4-way signs intact due to the safety of many including children who ride bikes and walk on the road way since the area has no side walks. Several other citizens gave their view in favor of keeping the 4-way signs. After some discussion the motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation of the engineering company completing the study. The vote was 5 aye votes and 2 nay votes. Yours truly and Councilman Kohler opposed wanting further study done. The data given by the company doing the study will by requested by yours truly to see what additional material was given from the original study."