OCR Text |
Show A4 Sanpete Messenger/Gunnison Valley Edition Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Statement from the publisher By John Hales Managing Editor, Messenger Concerned Citizens are either misleading public, or just don’t understand After covering the courts controversy for months, including spending hours listening to county commissioners, opponents, and everybody in between, I have to conclude that many of the opponents either: a) do not understand the complexities of government, or b) are deliberately misleading people. I prefer to think the first option more likely, but can find no other explanation for things I have observed. For instance, leaders of Concerned Citizens have said that one of their main purposes is to inform the public and have gone after the county commissioners for not being open and forthright enough. In particular, they have mentioned the failure of the commission to publicize the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and the state, and also the design plan of the facility. Yet, they have had a copy of the MOU for nearly two months and a copy of the design for a month, and have made no active effort to inform the public of what those documents contain. The commissioners, however, within one week of reading an editorial in our paper in which we admonished openness in government, delivered a copy of the plans and a draft of the MOU to our office. It was by reading through the MOU that I discovered there was, at best, a good deal of misunderstanding on the part of the opposition. At worst, they were being deceitful. Leaders of Concerned Citizens had told me the MOU contained language indicating there were certain costs “to be agreed” or “determined” by the county and state. They said an attorney they were working with said the county could end up paying those costs. I asked the name of the attorney so that I could get more information. They wouldn’t tell me. So much for being open and forthright. After my reading of the MOU, I discovered, in fact, that the language is the opposite of what opponents said it was—it is actually the catch-all that ensures that every cost will be paid by the state. It basically says that if there are any costs that are not already specifically mentioned but are determined to be necessary, those costs will be paid by the state. That’s what it means, but it’s in legalese. Sort of like when a doctor says I have a “brachial contusion,” all he’s really saying is that I have a bruised arm. If I don’t understand the language used, I come away not understanding much of anything at all. Another thing opponents have said is that they don’t want the county managing the construction of the building. Yet the MOU clearly states that the Administrative Office of the Courts will designate the key people involved in the planning, design and construction of the project. I personally have spent time with some of the Concerned Citizens explaining the language in the MOU and the ballot proposition. I was dismayed to find out that, even after explanations that I thought they understood, they continued to disseminate information based on former misunderstandings. That makes me question whether their misunderstanding is unintentional or deliberate. Several other incidents lead me to believe that the opponents simply don’t have a very sophisticated understanding of law and government: • They don’t comprehend that a formal motion made in a public meeting is just as binding upon public officials as a resolution. • They exhibit an inability to consider statements in context. • They are not familiar with the way government negotiations are conducted. Government agreements are often negotiated without much public involvement until the final draft, at which point the public is generally invited to review and comment. The opponents to the courts building have a valid point in saying that the commissioners have, until recently, handled the issue badly. Yes, they should have listened to the concerns sooner. Yes, they should have dropped the fairgrounds from consideration and started work on another location the very minute the petition to put courts building bond on the ballot received enough names, if not before. Yes, they should have opted for greater openness, rather than less, earlier on, even if the reason for less openness was a sincere one to avoid division and contention rather than to be sneaky. The commissioners are susceptible to the charge that they took much too long to decide on and release details about the courts project. Now they have provided extensive detail. But rather than acknowledging the commission’s actions, the Concerned Citizens come up with a never-ending list of why the commissioners are wrong, even when they do what the Concerned Citizens want. Simply because the commissioners didn’t handle the process as well as they could have (and, by the way, that’s something they admit) is not a legitimate reason to hold up an otherwise good project. THESE ARE FACTS ABOUT COURTS BUILDING: Please consider the following facts in reading and evaluating letters to the editor this week: • The courts building will not be built on land that is now the Sanpete County Fairgrounds— not now, not ever. Because of public opposition to the fairgrounds site, the Utah Judicial Council, the panel that governs the courts system and the panel with the final say on the Sanpete courts project, has voted against locating the building at the fairgrounds and has approved an alternate site at the south end of Manti. • No Sanpete County tax funds will be spent for the courts project. A draft memorandum of understanding between Sanpete County and the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts makes clear that all land, construction and operating costs, foreseen and unforeseen, will be covered by the courts system. • Sanpete County will issue revenue bonds to cover construction costs, with Wells Fargo Bank funding the bonds. The bonds will be paid off from lease funds paid by the Utah court system. The lease funds are part of the current court system budget, which is covered from current state taxes at current state tax rates. Private experts on government bonding have said it is difficult to imagine any scenario under which state taxes would need to be raised to finance the Sanpete courts project. • The courts project will not change the basic use of the current, historic courthouse on Main Street in Manti. That building will continue as a county government center. Space freed up from vacating the current jail and one courtroom will be used for present and future county government office needs. This week, I’m doing something I don’t like to do and have only done once before. I’m shutting off further letters to the editor on a controversial topic—in this case, the courts building. The Messenger will publish one “opeditorial” piece in favor of the project, and one piece against, written by spokespeople for each side, in our election section next week, which will go to every household in the county. I’m taking this step for several reasons. First, in analyzing our letters pages, we found that many of the same people have written multiple letters on the topic over the past several months. They’ve had their say. In fact, it’s pretty clear there is an organized letter-writing campaign in opposition to the courthouse. To accommodate that campaign, we’ve added pages to our newspaper. We can’t afford to do that any more. Moreover, many of the letters, like the word-of-mouth campaign that is going on in the community, contain false and misleading statements. Permitting the page to be a vehicle for dissemination of misinformation is a violation of journalistic ethics. Finally, I believe the campaign against TO the courts building being orchestrated by a group called Concerned Citizens of Sanpete County is Suzanne Dean as much based on mistrust of our current county commission than on problems with the project. The problem is that mistrust has turned to animosity and has taken on a vicious tone. When we received a letter, after deadline, obliquely referring to the commissioners as “indolent, irresponsible charlatans,” I decided it was time to shut off the spigot. Aside from the letter described above, all letters on the courts building received to date, pro and con, have been published. Before you vote on the courts building bonds on Nov. 6, please be sure you have the facts. This week, the Messenger is posting a special website, www.sanpetecourtsbuilding.com, containing a variety of straight-facts articles, documents and responsible opinions on the project. And we’ll provide additional, responsible information and advertising in our election issue next week. THE EDITOR... FOR LETTERS-TO-THE-EDITOR POLICY GO TO WWW.SANPETEMESSENGER.COM, CLICK ON ‘OPINIONS’ THEN ‘LETTERS TO THE EDITOR’ Courts discussion deteriorated to near libel It is altogether fitting and proper for citizens to express personal opinions about issues which concern communities. And it is to be expected that citizens will disagree with one another and should express those feelings. However, the issue of the proposed court facilities in Sanpete County has deteriorated to the near libelous stage. I have known our present county commissioners for many years and know them to be conscientious, considerate, civic minded, honest servants in the positions which they now hold. They believe the actions they take are for the benefit of the entire community or they wouldn’t make those decisions. Those decisions and actions are made in sessions which are (under law) open to the public. It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with them, but when we begin to unfairly accuse them of lying, being “sneaky”, etc., and other untrue characteristics, it borders on libel and slander. There are some things said about them that would probably be basis for legal action against those who make those accusations. In our desire to emphasize our point of view, we have a tendency to fantasize all the remote negative possibilities which could possibly occur. Many of these possibilities actually happening have about as much chance of happening as my winning the national lottery. Some of the expressed concerns sound more like “dark fantasies” than reality. In making our decisions about the issue, let’s try to be realistic about our conclusions. And let’s refrain from denigrating our county commissioners, and others in authoritative government positions, with unfair statements, which infer other than their honorable intentions. Max Call Manti Sanpte in trouble with jail, let’s not make it worse As I listened to two of the Sanpete County commissioners at the Mt. Pleasant meeting, I really had to ask myself, “Is this the right time for a new courts building?” Maybe the commissioners think that they need a new building, but why now? And why at our expense? The state can fund this building on their own timetable when it comes up on the list. What is the hurry? At our town meeting there was much discussion about the new jail even though the meeting was supposed to be about the courts building. In the discussion, it was hard to separate the two. The jail facility has now gone up to a little under $17 million. Taxes have gone up. Citizens are not ready for another project right now. Sanpete citizens were told, before the jail election, that the jail bond would only be used if there were “any revenue shortfall.” We are already being taxed for that bond. And now, our county has to step in and pay, out of our county taxpayers’ pocket, for many of the expenses for the jail, to keep the costs down on the bid. In the recorded minutes of commission meeting (Sept. 4) and from an article in the newspaper (Sanpete Messenger, Sep. 12, p. A4), the contractors for the jail said that Sanpete County will be responsible for the following items: TV sets, video visitation equipment, appliances for the laundry room and kitchen, the radio antenna, etc. The county has been responsible for excavating, and it was mentioned that the county will do the landscaping, “install utility lines and do paving at the site.” When all of those items have to be purchased for the jail, and work is done by the county, how is Sanpete County going to come up with that money? Will this happen with the courts building, too? Let us not rush into anything right now as they did on the jail. Let’s wait and see what the added space (from vacating the old jail) will do for our present courthouse, before we jump into a project that we have to borrow the money from CIB and Wells Fargo for the bond. In an ad last week, it said that it would be a bad business decision to wait “...while building costs escalate, when lease money is available right now...” In response to that, no one can predict what building costs will be in the future and this kind of lease money is readily available. We have enough on our plate right now. I’m afraid that Sanpete County is in trouble with this jail project and is going to be in real trouble if we continue with this excessive spending. We need to stop it now. And then, when the time is right, let the state fund the building. Vote against the issuance of bonds for the courts building! Do we really need this courts building as the commissioners’ legacy? Jan Smith, Mt. Pleasant Gunnison middle, high schools leave much to be desired Every day I’m amazed at the efficiency and integrity, or rather lack there of, of our schools here in Gunnison, the elementary excluded. Take for instance the recent production of “Oklahoma.” During seventh period of the day of the first performance, my daughter was called into the office and was informed by Mr. Kent Larson that she was not eligible to be in the play. Now mind you, this is the day of the first performance. She had spent countless hours memorizing parts and songs, painting sets, getting up at 5 a.m. for play practice, staying after school and staying sometimes until 10 p.m. for practice and helping with costumes, not to mention the hours I spent making costumes for the play. Now I’m not saying she should have been allowed to be in the play if she was not eligible, but if for some reason she was not, they should have told her long before the afternoon of the first performance. I wonder where Mr. Larson’s loyalties really lie, because he not only hurt my daughter but the whole production of the play. If she had been told before then they could have worked the play differently so she was not needed in the production. Someone should have figured this out long before that day, but that is how these schools work. It’s no wonder when you get an exceptional teacher that they leave to teach somewhere else. The elementary is the best school my children have ever been to and they have gone to schools all over the state from Salt Lake to St. George, but the middle and high schools leave much to be desired. Theo Christensen Gunnison |