OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand Page 10 The Utah Independent February 27, 1975 Our Legislatures Are Putting Us In Which Is Correct Bondage by Ray Huffman I have seen first hand how innocent and watered-dow- n so-call- ed bills are taking away our constitutional freedoms. I would like to share with you the recent experience which I have had as a member of the Rule Review Committee regarding the Utah Uniform Land Sales Practices Act. This apt was passed by the Utah State Legislature in 1973 as Senate Bill 165. However, as of this writing the validity of the lav is questionable. On Thursday November 21. 1974 about 50 men and women crowded into the hearing room at the Utah Department of Business Regulations at 330 East 4th South in Salt Lake Gty. I attended as a concerned citizen. The purpose of the meeting was to satisfy a ruling in the bill which requires that a public hearing be held prior to enacting rules. This ruling is found in Section II Subsection I where it states: The division shall prescribe reasonable rules which shall be adopted, amended or repealed only after a public hearing with notice thereof published once in a newspaper or newspapers with statewide circulation and mailed to any nonprofit organization which files a written request for notice with the division; said notice shall be published and mailed not less than 20 days prior to the hearing. (The division refers to the Utah State Real Estate Division.) It was obvious that the purpose of the hearing was not held .n the division to receive suggestions or approval from anyone present. The obvious purpose was to satisfy the requirement in the bill that the hearing be held. Not only was it obvious by the way the meeting proceeded, but this was stated by the division director Stephen J. Francis. He stated that the hearing was being held because an organization protested that they had not been notified of the previous hearing when they had previously requested that they be notified of all hearings. There were statements made by several in attendance at the hearing that no requests or suggestions made in previous hearings This inhad been considered. cluded suggestions made w hich the division had verbally accepted in the hearings. Richard prows, a building contractor, received a hearty applause when he stated that he can see from the divisions abuse of the hill and their total lack of responsiveness to the public that he had undoubtedly voted incorrectly when he has voted in favor of the Utah Land Use Planning Bill. (Which hill was overwhelmingly defeated in a referendum vote last November.) Steve Harmer of the Utah Legislature stated that the bills intent was to be a disclosure bill and that the rules developed by the division were a gross injustice. Of all those present (other than for those representing the division) there was no one who spoke fav orably about the bill or of the rules which the division presented. In addition to the division the Utah State Attorney Generals office (representing the division) and the Utah House of Representatives. the following are some of the special interest groups which were represented at the hearing: Utah Home Builders Association. Board of Real Estate Examiners. Concerned Citizens and Land Owners. Mortgage Bankers. Land Development Companies. Building Contractors. Utah Council on Housing and Land Use. Real Estate Brokers. Land Developers. The division obvi usly found themselves in a very uncomfortable situation. They gladly accepted the suggestion that a committee be appointed from those attending the hearing, to review the bill and the rules and regulations and make suggestions for any amendments. 1 received a letter from the division dated December 2, 1974 inviting me to be on this committee. The letter contained the The rules following statement: and regulations will he adopted in their present form, but, as you recall, it was suggested that a committee be formed to review said rules and regulations and sugges-fo- r any amendments thereto. questioned how much good could come from a review committee when the division stated the rules and regulations will be adopted in their present form. However, 1 did accept the committee assignment. I then went to work to become as familiar as possible with the bill and the resulting rules ' and regulations. The more 1 studied, the more 1 disliked the bill. As far as I could tell the bill gave the division (individuals not elected but appointed) complete dictatorial rights to control in any wray they see fit the sale of almost all privately owned property in the state of Utah. The restriction is that a hearing is to be held whenever a rule is added or changed. (And it was obvious from the previous hearings held that the division had no legal responsibility nor felt any moral responsibility to satisfy anyone attending such a I was therefore conhearing.) vinced that the amendments to be proposed by the committee should be to the bill itself. Because of the Christmas holiday season in December Mr. Francis scheduled the first committee meeting to be held in You can probably January. imagine the dismay 1 felt when I heard on a news broadcast over a Salt Lake City radio station on December 16. 1974 that the rules and regulations to the Utah Uniform Land Sales Practices Act of 1973 would become effective on December 19, 1974. Upon hearing this news I called Mr. Francis and asked him why the rules and regulations were becoming effective prior to the review committee meeting in He told me that the January. division had fulfilled its obligations by holding the hearing on November 21, 1974 and that any amendments proposed by the review committee could be taken care of after the bill became effective just as easily as before. The first review committee meeting was held on January 21. 1975. Prior to this first meeting I inquired of several of those present at the November 21st hearing for any suggestions. Everyone with whom I talked had arrived at the same conclusion as myself. We 1 needed to make drastic amendments to the bill itself. A list was made of suggested amendments to the bill. These suggestions had been obtained from many sources. The list was made available to each member of the review committee and to the division for use in the first comEach of the mittee meeting. proposed amendments was discussed, with most being unacceptable to the division. There were ten members on the review committee. However, it has been most disappointing that no more than four members have been present at any of the five meetings which have been held. Even though everyone seemed to have excellent excuses for not attending the meetings, 1 will give you my own opinion as to why some did notattend: either directly or indirectly, most members of the review committee depend on the division to make a living in the vocation of real estate. These individuals are willing to suggest that anonymous amendments be added to the bill amendment list or even in a public take hearing, but when they come face to face with their bosses in a committee meeting they get a little concerned about their bread and butter. (I was told by one committee member that 1 was being depended on to present many of the proposed amendments because of the others involvement with the division.) I also witnessed committee members making compromises in the meetings on points on which they previously expressed to me as being very firm. In addition. Jim Barker representing the attorney pot-shot- s" office, made the statement that he was the legal generals counsel for the division and was therefore working for them. You might ask what the review committee accomplished. Well. Ill tell you. An amendment bill, number HB-26- 2. sponsored by the division, was added to the list of bills to be considered in the 1975 Utah Legislature currently in session. It was recognized by the division and the review committee that in order for the amendment bill to be considered in the Legislature it should be submitted as soon as possible. Much pressure was required by the committee members to get the division to submit the amendment bill at all. At one time, days before it was finally submitted, Mr. Francis (the division director) told a committee member that it had been submitted. It was not discovered until later that Mr. Thurman (the division attorney-commonl- y making authority over to apAppointed representatives. be tend to pointed representatives more responsive to those that give them the appointment than to the citizens. Elected representatives on the other hand, can be voted out of office if they do not represent the citizens properly. 1 do not blame the division or the attorney generals office for the problems which are occurring over this bill. These people are appointed and are only doing their best in the job which they have been appointed to do. They have at no time overstepped the responsibility given to them in the bill. You might consider this: If the division takes full advantage of its rule making capabilities and becomes dictatorial in like manner as OSH A or the EPA, who will the citizens blame? It is my opinion that each time a legislature (whether national or state) passes a law which grants appointed (rather than elected) representatives the right to establish and change their own rules, these legislatures are putting the citizens in bondage. This is exactly what the 1973 Utah State Legislature did when they passed this particular bill. I can now understand 2. better why special interest groups are willing to pay thousands of dollars to provide professional lobbyists to lobby in their behalf during legislative sessions. Once dictatorial type bills become law. jobs can be at stake if the appointed represenrepresentatives d are not to. tatives) Its also easy to see how bribes and blackmail can enter politics. Just imagine how the right appointment in the right place could provide easy street for a particular special interest group for many years. On the other hand, you can imagine how the wrong appointment could result in the forced closing of a business. 3. More than ever I have a bad taste in my mouth about laws which are passed supposedly for the purpose of protecting the citizens. I resent so much protecWe are being so overly tion. protected that it is costing us our freedom. Also all of these vast protective laws are costing the citizens far too much tax money. Have you considered that some of these consumer protection laws may be repealed when the time comes that taxes will be so great that there will be no assets left to be protected. As citizens, I encourage everyone to let your legislative representatives know that you would like to have the freedom to make a mistake. That you consider yourself intelligent enough to decide what is best for you. And that laws arc not required to insure that you are prevented from doing something which the government feels would be harmful to you. 4. The citizens of this great country have got to wake up referred to as the hatchet man) had not submitted it. It was finally submitted on the last day which bills were accepted. This amendment bill includes less than 10 of the needed amendments to prevent the bill from being a dictatorial land control bill. (Of course the division didnt want to allow more amendments and be handicapped in its ability to protect the citizens.) It is now hoped that when the amendment bill goes to committee at the legislature Representative Sherm Harmer. a member of the review committee, can convince his fellow representatives to remove the rule making capability currently allowed the division. I would like to point out some in lessons of the government which have been forcibly brought to my mind through this experience. It is an incorrect prinI. :: ciple for elected representatives of u the people to turn law or rule . (so-call- ed cow-towe- WASHINGTON - - Deputy Secretary of Defense William Clements made this statement to the Navy League: Soviets maintain the largest strategic force in the world, and it continues to grow, not only in numbers but in quality. They have a family of four new intercontinental ballistic missiles under active development. Three of these have ICBMs been demonstrated with a capability to direct multiple warheads to widely separated targets. On June 1, 1972 President Nixon, elected spokesman for the K i s s i nge r N i x o n Administration, made this public statement: No power on earth is stronger than the United States of America and none will be in the future. - The Councilor - JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES Brigham Young I myself am not an enemy to any man, yet I am an enemy to some actions, if you undertake to drive a stake in my garden with an intention to jump my claim there will be a fight before you get it; if you come within an enclosure of mine with any such intent, I will send you home, God being my helper.. ..and we cannot tamely suffer strangers, who have not spent one days labour to make these improvements, to wrest our homesteads out of our hands. There is land enough in the country: go to and improve it, as we have improved our possessions; build cities, as we have done.... Journal of Discourses VoU II, pg . 260 to what is happening. We cannot continue to leave the responsibilities to the professional politician and the special interest groups alone and expect to remain free. . law-maki- The current ng trend in government is towards more and more bondage. American cannot continue to be a country of freedom if we as citizens dont become more involved in the lawmaking procedure and reverse this trend. I challenge you to attend your legislature sessions and find out for yourself how representatives you. your elected are representing MUSIC COMPANY 65 South West Tomplo Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 NEW & USED PIANOS Across from Salt Palace Silver and Cold O ftlW COINS Any Quantity MONARCH COIN CORPORATION Phone 211 East 3900 South 4 Salt Lake City, Utah 262-587- |