OCR Text |
Show Thursday, October 14, 2004 h PYRAMID THE Utah family calls in political favors, critics say votes to pass Senate Bill 140, giving his office regulatory THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE COPYRIGHT 2004 authority over Majestic Editors note: This story was Ranch, if only Stephens and originally run in The Salt Lake others had allowed it to come By Dan Harrie and Robert Gehrke Tribune Sept. 19, 2004. It is used in The Pyramid by permission. A bill permitting state regulation of boarding schools For troubled teens was quietly smothered in the Utah Capitol this year after the founder of a chain of controversial schools, who is a major Republican donor, lobbied key lawmakers. Powerful legislators, including House Speaker Marty Stephens, held back the measure until the Legislature's clock ran out at midnight on March 3, the final day of the sessioa Six days later, the bills biggest opponent, World Wide Association of Specialty Schools and Programs founder Robert Lichfield, presented a $30,000 check to Stephens' campaign for governor. Since then, one of the handful of Utah boarding schools, which would have been regulated under the bill, Majestic Ranch, near Randolph, Utah, has been investigated three separate times for alleged abuse, according to state Human Service officials. Only one ended in a criminal charge and conviction when a staffer, no longer employed there, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. Majestic Ranch is owned by Dan Lichfield's brother-in-laPeart, who donated $500 to Stephens. The ranch is among schools afseven troubled-teefiliated with World Wide in four states and two foreign countries. Several others have been shut down amid allegations of abuse or squalid living conditions, including the Casa by the Sea facility near Ensenada, Mexico, closed last weekend by government officials. More than 500 students were returned to the United States from the program. Ken Stettler, director of the Utah Office of Licensing, remains convinced he had the n up for a vote. "It still goes back to the old deal that, you know, if you are giving political contributions, then when the time comes and you need to call in your chips, you're going to have a listening ear, which is more than a lot of the citizenry has," says Stettler. If cash is the secret to opening political doors, Lichfield and his profitable network of schools are well on their way to securing the master key. The La Verkin entrepreneur, his family members and business associates have poured more than $1 million into political campaigns during tne 2002 election and so far this year. The contributions, all to Republican candidates and many to Utah politicians, have come like a desert downpour: fierce and sudden. The family donated no more than a couple of thousand dollars prior to Jan. 1, 2001. Lichfield told The Tribune there was nothing nefarious about his sudden plunge into the political arena. "We've been abundantly blessed and when you're blessed, we feel you have a responsibility to bless others," he said, confirming that World Wide member schools gross more than $70 million annually- The family's charitable contributions dwarf political doLichfield added, nations, putting the former donations at $3 million last year. Utah politicians who were among the biggest benefactors or the Lichfield election-yea- r largesse insisted they never had discussed issues with their patroa U.S. House candidate John Swallow has received $118,000 from Lichfield and his associates, more than any other candidate. Swallow's campaign manager, Tim Garon, said Swallow had not met Lichfield until 2002, when the Lichfield family handed over 30 checks on a single day totaling $30,000 to Swallow's campaign. "John and I are close friends," said Lichfield. "We just connected as families." After his 2002 election loss, Swallow did legal work for a Lichfield company in Nevada As a state representative, Swallow had twice sponsored legislation that would have allowed parents to get a tax break for enrolling their children in a private school Lichfield said he has "mixed emotions" about tuition-tacredits, although "you obviously see I have an incentive to be for them." Although such tax breaks would benefit private schools, including World Wide members, he said he has reservations about hurting public schools by draining resources. As with Swallow, Senator Bob Bennett met Lichfield just a few years ago, but has become a friend. They don't discuss policy, said Bennett's x spokeswoman, Mary Jane Collipriest. Lalst year, Lichfield sent Bennett a form letter supporting a Medicare reform bill, according to Collipriest. The bill expanded Health Savings Accounts, which allow parents to contributions to e make an account that can be used for medical costs, including the type of residential treatment provided by schools affiliated with World Wide. Lichfield said he doesn't remember the letter or the issue. He said he hasn't pressed his issues on Bennett nor any of the Utah gubernatorial candidates wno have received $140,000 so far this year from the Lichfield family and business associates. "I don't think I've ever sat down and given them a litmus test," Licnfield said. "There were so many good candidates." Republican gubernatorial nominee Jon Huntsman Jr. concurs. "We have not talked about any of his issues. I do not know a whole lot about his business," said Huntsman, who accepted $60,000 from Lichfield and $5,000 from Majestic Ranch. "What business tax-fre- is he in?" Former U.S. Representative Jim Hansen took more than $45,000 from Lichfield for his unsuccessful campaign for governor this year. "Bob Lichfield is a great American," said Hansen. I don't know a thing about" the string of schools for troubled youth. Stephens, the outgoing House speaker whose bid for governor ended unsuccessfully in the May 8 Republican State Convention, did not return eight messages for comment over a period of more than two weeks. "Believe me, the check had nothing to do with SB 140," Lichfield. said "Marty Stephens was going to get a donation from me no matter what happened to SB 140. Marty Stephens is a quality guy." Lichfield shrugs off any suggestion he has, in just two years, become a political power broker. "I'd like to use my means and resources to bless peoples' lives. Does that also imply ins to fluencing make good policies that support good family values, quality education and the things I believe in? Definitely. I'd like to have some influence in that," he said. Steve Representatives Urauhart and Dave Clark, both St. George Republicans, helped stall SB 140 in the Legislature's House Rules Committee after consulting with Lichfield family members and their business associates. Each received $2,500 in donations in 2002 from Lichfield. Urquhart, who said he was representing a constituent and his philosophy of limited govpolicy-maker- ernment, acknowledged con- sulting with Stephens. Stettler identified Stephens as a key player in the demise of SB 140, a claim confirmed Chris Buttars, Jordan. "He was determined it wasn't going to pass," said Buttars. Buttars, who shepherded the bill through the Senate, came under attack himself because he is the head of Utah Boys Ranch, which also treats R-W- a full, licensed residential program and I think that makes me a better facility," he said. "I'm prejudiced and I admit that. I think every "Mine is kid deserves to have his food, safety and shelter guaranteed by oversight." Buttars declined to comment on Lichfield or his affiliated companies directly. "There are some huge forces that I took on there. ... I really don't want to talk much about that," he said. "This is a mean, ugly game with money going in lots of directions." Ken Kay, World Wide's president, questioned Buttars' sponsorship of a bill that would affect his competitors. "Personally, I found that dazzling that here's a guy that has something to do with this Utah Boys Ranch in there trying to do this," said Kay. He dismisses as "baloney" the claim by Stettler and Buttars that the bill simply would have allowed state licensing officials to inspect Majestic Ranch twice a year, including once in an unannounced visit. "Should Spring City Ordinance 2004-0- 1 be rejected? The measure establishes or amends certain Spring City ordinances. The focus is on Building, Land Use, and Zoning. If accepted, the Ordinance chances the residential lot size from 1.06 acres to one half an acre. If rejected tne lot size remains at 1.06 acres. Other areas of the code addressed include: Home Business, Zoning Permits, Historical District, International Building Code, Site Plans, Adoption of and Conformance to a General Plan, master Street Plan, Zoning Plan and Establishment of Zones and Maps. This measure establishes and regulates nine (9) types of zones." (The above is from the official Ballot Title) Argument For Referendum Please vote in favor of the referendum on keeping historic lot sizes in the Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons. schooL George'" twice asked '! the Justice Department to vestigate the schools and)f more recently Representative made a y Jack Quinn, similar request. The Bush ajU,j ministration has said it lacs;;; Congressman Miller, DCA., has ft-',- ,! the authority to initiate such a it. r probe. The Justice Department ,. said it has forwarded the: complaints to the U.S. Attor- ney for Utah and the FBI!.: field office, but a spoken1'; woman for the U.S. Attorney i said nothing has come of tlieiA referral. vji Meantime, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose of---" fice two years ago unsuccess' j fully prosecuted the director'" of Majestic Ranch on abase' I said the Kay legislation charges, as recently as last ;; affiliate of week toured one the would have required of the 65 ed schools in St. George with at Majestic Urquhart. Shurtleff 's cam- - ' youngsters Ranch and allowed regulahas received no lich-- 1 tors to pore through "private contributions, a spokesfinancial records" and dictate woman said. Lichfield said in his two or' .; "how you conduct operations and train staff and three meetings with Shurtleff,;! he has never attempted to get ; f who they are." is said no Shurtleff to rein in investiga-!(- ;' there Kay simply need for the state to have tors or prosecutors. He saia he, ;, such a strong hand in the doesn't have that kind of influboarding schools' operations. ence and wouldnt use it if he.- , We see certain bureaucrats did. t Scott Simpson, a former ex-- j v that want more control. I think it has a lot to do with ecutive director of the Utah, power," said Kay. "I think we Republican Party, spoke with., are every bit as sensitive, if licnfield often during the 2002 not more sensitive, to chil- campaign. , "From my perspective, it dren's rights and safety. We e have a total stand, seemed based on ideology," 100 percent." said Simpson. "There are a But the Association-affiliate- d few ways you can get in-- ' schools have a checkered volved in politics. You can run .. n record. Government agencies for office, you can be in the Czech Republic, Costa guy pounding in Rica and, most recently, Mexi- the lawn signs or you can be co have shut down schools. the guy who writes the In South Carolina, inspec- check." tors put Carolina Sprmgs dharriesltrib.com; Academy's license on proba gehrkesltrib.com Cofiy Keferemduinni Title: tion after administrators failed to report child abuse. They also found students sleeping on stained, tom mattresses ft' unfit dormitories and prob-- ' lems with how students were1- ;'7 3 restrained. 7 Regulators also banned Lichfield's brother, Narvin, from the facility based on his operation of the Costa RicahU profes-sionaldiagnos- es . anti-abus- ; ; CITY IPKDM CMseins Senator bv troubled youth. Mmnnrobeir 11 Argument against Referendum This ordinance was made to allow ALL Spring City land owners within the Spring City limits the same and equal opportunity to have the option of splitting lot size to one half acre. PREVIOUS to city ordinance 2004-0the only land owner with the right to split lot size were those inside the historical district. 2, Many issues for and against the splitting of lot sizes have been discussed. The main issues are the historic lot size of 1.06 acres. The city never specified a lot size until August 7, 1979. The lot size specified then was one fourth acre. Not until 1993, were lot sizes requirements changed to 1.06 acre and became historical. 2. It has been stated that the change of lot size will cause the overall value to current property owners to decrease. Property values fluctuate based on supply and demand. One half (12) acre will always cost less than an acre. 3. It has also been stated by those against the Ordinance, that increased demand on culinary water will be challenging to accommodate the increase in building lots. Increase demand on culinary water will only occur if new homes are built or older homes restored and lived in. Apparently, the opponents to the ordinance believe building renal cottage apartments on 1.06 acre lots will not increase the use of culinary water and culinary water use will only increase if lots are split to one half acre. 1. example of a Spring City is recognized nationally as the Pioneer Mormon Village. People come from all over the country to see our unique historic district. Our historic status has worked repeatedly to our benefit when we have applied for help with flood control and other municipal needs. This economic and cultural value would be seriously threatened by reduced lot size. Heavily developed areas such as the Wasatch Front and even in Ephraim, Mt. Pleasant and Manti have their value and their place, but we also need distinctive communities FACT: The city previously had to file a non water use application with like ours to enjoy and to remind us, our grand children, and visitors of state to maintain its current water rights because of non usage. the our precious heritage. e our should be that characterizes 2. The feeling community THE MAIN ISSUE IS: Do you want the control of your property or do maintained! Many people have moved here, have moved back here, you want the special interest groups to determine what you can and canand vacation here to enjoy the room to stretch out and relax away not do with your property? from the congestion felt in other cities. demonnumerous citizens and 3. Several surveys of the public meetings Vote against the referendum. Rebuttal: strate that a majority of our residents want to maintain the Historic 1.06 a lot size where it is still in force. Many who have no firm opinion No zoning ordinance allows all property owners to do the same things. one way or another on this issue do feel that consideration should be For example, parts of the current ordinance, which are accepted by all The in the ordinance quesmajority. given to the feelings expressed by the parties, call for different requirements for commercial, public, and of this and the the over was tion objection majority passed against residential property. wishes of the Spring City Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. Many of the citizens who were strongly in favor of a change to smallPreservation of the unique character of Spring City is always more about er lot size have already split their lots and no longer need to have the what we are doing now than what we may have done in the past. We can ordinance changed. Their legal lot splits are now recorded and cannot be rescinded. We ask these citizens to now consider the strong desires value now and continue preserve now the best example in Utah of the kind and size of lots laid out by our town founders over 150 years ago. of those who feel such lot splits should not continue indefinitely into the future. Some property will increase in value and some will decrease no matter 5. Many residents of Spring City value the right to keep livestock in lot size option is chosen. We ask the voters to consider important which town. Smaller lot size ultimately leads to heavy restrictions on the factors other than economic gain. almost in every other community keeping of animals, as has occurred be will as sacrificed values and Economic in Sanpete county. The fact that this desert and drought prone community is not presently farmers and others are prevented from keeping livestock on their using every drop of water available to it does not mean that we should property. citizens behalf of on senior 6. Concerns that have been expressed needing disregard the challenge of meeting future demands on this precious resource. Water is a limiting factor in growth. more be can addressed land to sell parts of their effectively though such measures as reverse mortgages. The same logic that says people The only special interest group that should have a say in how Spring City need to sell off half acre can and will be used to argue for the splitting is governed ought to be tne majority of its voting citizens. Proponents of lots. of lots into one fourth and smaller this referendum are prepared to accept a majority vote as a binding decivalue of the will some for values 7. While property probably increase, others property, especially that of persons adjoining the split lots, may sion on us all and call upon all parties to do tne same. actually go down. Overall value to current owners will likely decrease. Thank you for taking the time to consider these arguments. If you want 8. It will be challenging to address the demand for culinary water that to of in preserve the number Spring Citys unique rural, agricultural and historic heritage, increase the accommodate will increase to building please vote for the referendum. lots. 1. best-preserv- ed ) V P r 4 V If: open-spac- t i I ij' M hi ' .1 life-sty- le h ?l ii 0 Ml .l h u Ml |