I love Utah politics

[Pelado]

Everybody at some point, I assume. What are you- OCD?

I believe "law-abiding citizen" is the typical nomenclature.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Before getting into this post, let me say that there are many wonderful and amazing foster parents. There are amazing people who take difficult kids into their home/lives and make them a part of their family, raise them, and give them a better life. I am not being critical of those people.

What I am being critical of is the way are bullshit representatives in this state are obsessed with making sure that child welfare system is some sort of adoption mill for married (mostly LDS) couples that cannot have children.

https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/HB0458.html

DCFS opposed the bill.
https://parentaldefenseallianceofuta...0(Sub%203).pdf

The goal of the Department of Health and Human Services is to strengthen families and empower them with the tools and resources needed to create stable, and loving homes. Placement with kin is a child best interest issue. Placement and adoption outside of a child’s extended family is not always the goal of foster care. It is an exception that should be utilized only when the fundamentals of preserving families cannot be safely achieved.

Current statute already requires that relatives “assert an interest” within 120 days in order to have priority preference over strangers. Nothing in current law requires the placement with kin, as best interests of the child are always paramount and ultimate decisions are made by a judge. HB 458 (3rd Substitute) places unnecessary burdens on relatives in order to be recognized as having preference for placement of a child in foster care compared to non-related foster homes. This bill:
● Significantly erodes the best practices codified in both state and federal law regarding the importance of placing children with relatives
whenever possible; AND
● It undermines the kinship friendly language in SB132 (Harper) and within other provisions of state and federal law.

Statement from Diane Moore,Director of the Division of Child and Family Services:

This legislation, though well intended, will place unnecessary and bureaucratic burdens and restrictions on families. It will inhibit the state’s ability to place children with loving relatives. The proposed bill is not based on research or best practices. This is a distinct step backwards in child welfare. In its revocation of the current preference standards it sends a message to relatives that strangers in the foster care system can do a better job at raising their children than they can. Ultimately, it is children who will be most negatively impacted over their entire lives.

Why are we making it harder for kinship placements? There is no justification for this. It is morally wrong.

[Eddie]

Before getting into this post, let me say that there are many wonderful and amazing foster parents. There are amazing people who take difficult kids into their home/lives and make them a part of their family, raise them, and give them a better life. I am not being critical of those people.

What I am being critical of is the way are bullshit representatives in this state are obsessed with making sure that child welfare system is some sort of adoption mill for married (mostly LDS) couples that cannot have children.

https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/HB0458.html

DCFS opposed the bill.
https://parentaldefenseallianceofuta...0(Sub%203).pdf

Why are we making it harder for kinship placements? There is no justification for this. It is morally wrong.

My own cut and paste of some thoughts on this from another site...

I honestly have no idea about the LDS church's involvement. It would not totally surprise me to have someone from the church say that - particularly now that they've closed LDS Family Services from doing adoptions. It's just the kind of dumb thing someone over there would say without thinking things through.

But my own experience - which is pretty extensive (though I admit to not having been there when this particular bill might've been debated and outside testimony given) - was that this was driven by foster/adoptive families more than by the church as a whole.

I've seen a number of cases where a permanency hearing was being held, (which means we're 12-15 months in, for those unfamiliar with child welfare) family hadn't been involved at all up until that point, and suddenly family (who was deemed to be inappropriate by DCFS) was filing a competing petition for adoption. The frustration was that suddenly foster/adoptive families would have to come up with the money to hire an attorney and fight the competing petition, because DCFS and the AG or GAL was not going to do that. In fact, the Social Services appropriations subcommittee reimbursed one foster/adoptive family for those costs - but also made it clear that they couldn't/wouldn't do that again going forward. I'm assuming that is where the change came from, recognizing those expenses, as much as coming from the LDS church's input.

And honestly - if what you say is true, someone needs to talk to the church. I'm guessing that with the church's focus on family, genealogy, and family connections they'd be hesitant to support a bill that means that grandparents don't get any more consideration than a stranger would as far as placement of their grandkids.

Frankly - it's a bit of a mess. I agree wholeheartedly that kin need to be considered through the whole case up until adoption. At the same time - foster parents are already taking on a financial burden to care for kids - the reimbursement rates don't fully compensate them for time and money spent providing for kids in care - so asking them to now hire an attorney to litigate competing adoption petitions doesn't make sense.

There's got to be a way to consider kin, place with them when appropriate and not when not, and not put the burden of financing a legal battle on foster parents when it's actually a legal battle that the state has an interest in (assuming the kin family isn't appropriate). I'm not sure what the answer is - but we certainly aren't there yet.

Just to clarify - I know that sometimes DCFS thinks kin isn't appropriate when maybe they are. That's just one more complex variable to the rest of the shit show.

The problem is, quite frankly, DCFS screws it up way too often. I know of at least one case that DCFS is being sued for allowing children to be adopted by a non-kin foster parent, who went on to abuse them (those kids are now placed with grandma). And I know of at least one other case in which a child was removed from a good foster parent to be placed with kin, who then abused the child for several years before it was discovered. So it isn't even about which is better - kin or foster parents. The answer is different for each situation.

The most true statement in all of this, Funk, is when you said that we need to not eliminate all options and tools from caseworkers - eliminating all options and not allowing one kind of placement to be considered over another is dumb practice and doesn't benefit children.

And perhaps one of the biggest problems in all of this is the lack of experience among caseworkers - which is up to about 38% this year. Meaning that nearly 40% of kids in foster care have a caseworker who has been on the job for less than a year. There's NO WAY they have the experience and knowledge to make the best decisions.

What are the chances that this thing passes? Right now it's still in the Senate Rules committee, no? Has the legislative website been updated? I'm not sure what else the Senate has on their agenda to finish up before midnight, but hopefully this one is far enough down the list it doesn't even get looked at this year.

[Eddie]

Went to my local Utah GOP caucus last night.

Let me start by saying I'm not sure they are even all that relevant at this point, since people can get on the Primary ballot via signature collection. But it's still interesting to me to see what people are thinking about various candidates and the state of politics in Utah as a whole.

In my little precinct, there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 voters who are registered Republicans. We had 18 credentialed voters in attendance. Maybe everyone else has come to the same conclusion I have and decided that it's pointless - their choice will be on the ballot. But it was still interesting.

The majority are in love with Mike Lee. Anyone nominated as a state delegate was required (by vote of the group) to say how they feel about Mike Lee and Mitt Romney - which is weird, since Romney isn't up for re-election this year. One dude made a point of saying that he believes Mike Lee more closely follows the official county party platform, so he's pretty sure Mike Lee is the best option ever.

It didn't make me popular, and I certainly was never going to challenge to be a delegate under those circumstances - but I couldn't help but express a little more support for Mitt than others were, and a little more concern about Mike than others did. I don't think they liked it when I said that Lee's description of Trump as a person who has no ego and doesn't seek power for himself causes me to think that either Lee is a horrible judge of character or completely comfortable lying.

But my bigger concern with Lee is that as much as I like his energetic defense of the constitution, he struggles to find common ground and work well with others to actually get anything done. This doesn't come from watching him - this comes from actually interacting with him and his staff, and is what I hear from the staff of other GOP legislators in Washington. I did have one woman who has worked with all Utah's elected officials in DC tell me that her experience with his office is the same. She works as a policy analyst for the AG's office.

I want to be optimistic that we can move on from a place of polarization to a place of disagreement but effort to work together politically - but it's hard to believe it's possible when even the people saying we need to be more kind in politics are saying some of the worst things about people who think differently than they do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Went to my local Utah GOP caucus last night.

Let me start by saying I'm not sure they are even all that relevant at this point, since people can get on the Primary ballot via signature collection. But it's still interesting to me to see what people are thinking about various candidates and the state of politics in Utah as a whole.

In my little precinct, there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 voters who are registered Republicans. We had 18 credentialed voters in attendance. Maybe everyone else has come to the same conclusion I have and decided that it's pointless - their choice will be on the ballot. But it was still interesting.

The majority are in love with Mike Lee. Anyone nominated as a state delegate was required (by vote of the group) to say how they feel about Mike Lee and Mitt Romney - which is weird, since Romney isn't up for re-election this year. One dude made a point of saying that he believes Mike Lee more closely follows the official county party platform, so he's pretty sure Mike Lee is the best option ever.

It didn't make me popular, and I certainly was never going to challenge to be a delegate under those circumstances - but I couldn't help but express a little more support for Mitt than others were, and a little more concern about Mike than others did. I don't think they liked it when I said that Lee's description of Trump as a person who has no ego and doesn't seek power for himself causes me to think that either Lee is a horrible judge of character or completely comfortable lying.

But my bigger concern with Lee is that as much as I like his energetic defense of the constitution, he struggles to find common ground and work well with others to actually get anything done. This doesn't come from watching him - this comes from actually interacting with him and his staff, and is what I hear from the staff of other GOP legislators in Washington. I did have one woman who has worked with all Utah's elected officials in DC tell me that her experience with his office is the same. She works as a policy analyst for the AG's office.

I want to be optimistic that we can move on from a place of polarization to a place of disagreement but effort to work together politically - but it's hard to believe it's possible when even the people saying we need to be more kind in politics are saying some of the worst things about people who think differently than they do.

You are way more diplomatic than I would have been.

[beefytee]

I went to the caucus last night and kept quiet. I managed to last through the first two votes of five before leaving.

[Eddie]

I went to the caucus last night and kept quiet. I managed to last through the first two votes of five before leaving.

We were voting for the new precinct chair first. Some lady I've never met was sitting next to me and elbowed me, asking if I'd please nominate her. I figure sure - most people really don't want that job - so I did.

Apparently she thought we were nominating people to be state delegate. She came to the meeting with that being her one goal for the night - but wasn't even paying attention enough to know what position is up for election before deciding she wants to throw her hat in the ring.

Spoiler - she did not win state delegate.

[MartyFunkhouser]

You are way more diplomatic than I would have been.

Me too. Mike Lee is a [redacted] [redacted] who should go and [redact] himself and with a [redacted] and die.

Romney is cool in my book and the only federal representative from Utah that isn't a [redacted] embarrassment.

[BigFatMeanie]

I went to the United Utah Party caucus in Riverton. It's the first time I've ever gone to any caucus meeting for any party in my life. They were hoping to get 6 people and 12 showed up. I'm officially a UUP member but UUP has an open caucus - anyone can show up. Also, they don't elect delegates to the state convention because the party is still small enough that every party member can vote in the state convention and nobody primaries each other.

Here is how it went:

First 30 minutes - Played a video that included speeches from the State Party Chair and Vice Chair. I thought the Vice Chair was a better speaker than the Chair. After those speeches, they had video speeches from the congressional candidates.

• Jay McFarland (former KSL radio host) is running for the 2nd district seat: https://www.unitedutah.org/jay_mcfar...tives_with_uup

As a professional talk show host he seemed, by far, the best speaker.

• Some lady named January Walker is running for the 4th district seat against Burgess Owens (my district). https://www.unitedutah.org/january_w...ted_utah_party

Burgess Owens is a Pizzagate-believing Q-believing nutjob but he's also getting challenged in a primary. If Burgess wins his primary, which I think he will, I would definitely vote for January Walker even though she wasn't that great of a speaker and I don't think she has a sniff of a chance. If Jake Hunsaker manages by some miracle to win the Republican primary I would like him a lot better than Burgess but I would probably still throw away my vote on January Walker as a show of support to UUP. I'm not aware of any Democrat that is running for District 4.

• Last of the videos was Evan McMullin (yes, same guy who ran for President as an independent and got 20% of the vote in Utah) who is running as an independent against Mike Lee. He was a guest speaker even though he isn't a UUP member. He was articulate and a decent speaker. If Mike Lee wins the Republican primary as expected, I would definitely vote for McMullin over Lee.

After the videos, they had local candidates for state legislature speak. This year there are 24 UUP candidates on the ballot. They had 1 candidate for the Senate and 1 for the House although because of the recent redistricting most folks in the audience, including myself, were unsure of what their new districts are.

UUP candidates in general aren't that strong but I think over time the quality is slowly getting better. I mean, it's hard to be worse than Burgess Owens. They also had some lady who is a Democrat and is running for state house in one of the other districts get up and speak. She wasn't that strong of a candidate either but there is no incumbent in her race (new house district due to the redistricting) and her district actually has a decent proportion of registered Democrat voters so I don't think her chances are completely hopeless.

Some people at the caucus were registered Republicans who were there to see what it was like and considering switching their affiliation. Their main concerns were not being able to vote in the Republican primary. I spoke up and told them why I had switched my affiliation and officially joined UUP and I don't regret it. Not being able to vote in the Republican primary is a small price to pay to keep a clean conscience. I don't know if I persuaded anyone or not. UUP is still the smallest party in the state - way smaller than the Constitution Party, Libertarian, and Independent American. The Green Party lost their party status and disbanded in Utah. But 30% of Utah voters are officially unaffiliated so I think eventually one of these third party candidates will put someone into the Utah Legislature.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I went to the United Utah Party caucus in Riverton. It's the first time I've ever gone to any caucus meeting for any party in my life. They were hoping to get 6 people and 12 showed up. I'm officially a UUP member but UUP has an open caucus - anyone can show up. Also, they don't elect delegates to the state convention because the party is still small enough that every party member can vote in the state convention and nobody primaries each other.

Here is how it went:

First 30 minutes - Played a video that included speeches from the State Party Chair and Vice Chair. I thought the Vice Chair was a better speaker than the Chair. After those speeches, they had video speeches from the congressional candidates.

• Jay McFarland (former KSL radio host) is running for the 2nd district seat: https://www.unitedutah.org/jay_mcfar...tives_with_uup

As a professional talk show host he seemed, by far, the best speaker.

• Some lady named January Walker is running for the 4th district seat against Burgess Owens (my district). https://www.unitedutah.org/january_w...ted_utah_party

Burgess Owens is a Pizzagate-believing Q-believing nutjob but he's also getting challenged in a primary. If Burgess wins his primary, which I think he will, I would definitely vote for January Walker even though she wasn't that great of a speaker and I don't think she has a sniff of a chance. If Jake Hunsaker manages by some miracle to win the Republican primary I would like him a lot better than Burgess but I would probably still throw away my vote on January Walker as a show of support to UUP. I'm not aware of any Democrat that is running for District 4.

• Last of the videos was Evan McMullin (yes, same guy who ran for President as an independent and got 20% of the vote in Utah) who is running as an independent against Mike Lee. He was a guest speaker even though he isn't a UUP member. He was articulate and a decent speaker. If Mike Lee wins the Republican primary as expected, I would definitely vote for McMullin over Lee.

After the videos, they had local candidates for state legislature speak. This year there are 24 UUP candidates on the ballot. They had 1 candidate for the Senate and 1 for the House although because of the recent redistricting most folks in the audience, including myself, were unsure of what their new districts are.

UUP candidates in general aren't that strong but I think over time the quality is slowly getting better. I mean, it's hard to be worse than Burgess Owens. They also had some lady who is a Democrat and is running for state house in one of the other districts get up and speak. She wasn't that strong of a candidate either but there is no incumbent in her race (new house district due to the redistricting) and her district actually has a decent proportion of registered Democrat voters so I don't think her chances are completely hopeless.

Some people at the caucus were registered Republicans who were there to see what it was like and considering switching their affiliation. Their main concerns were not being able to vote in the Republican primary. I spoke up and told them why I had switched my affiliation and officially joined UUP and I don't regret it. Not being able to vote in the Republican primary is a small price to pay to keep a clean conscience. I don't know if I persuaded anyone or not. UUP is still the smallest party in the state - way smaller than the Constitution Party, Libertarian, and Independent American. The Green Party lost their party status and disbanded in Utah. But 30% of Utah voters are officially unaffiliated so I think eventually one of these third party candidates will put someone into the Utah Legislature.

That is interesting. But it sounds like a gigantic waste of time. SJBH

[BigFatMeanie]

That is interesting. But it sounds like a gigantic waste of time. SJBH

I think it probably was/is a gigantic waste of time if I went more than once. I had never been to any caucus before so i had no idea what it would be like. It was interesting from a "satisfy my curiosity" standpoint but it didn't really get me all jazzed up and wanting to get more involved in politics, so I'm not sure if I'll ever go to another one.

I did get one side benefit out of going. I was pressuring encouraging Mrs. Meanie to go with me but she was completely uninterested. That afternoon I said, "OK, I'll stop pressuring encouraging you to go if you promise that I can get some tonight". She quickly agreed. Sitting by myself through an hour of UUP caucus meeting was the price I had to pay to ensure last night was a sure thing.

[Shaka]

January is a friend. She's quirky but quite smart. She had designs on Mike Lee's job but I guess they persuaded her to go after Owens. She wanted me to come to the Saratoga Springs caucus but I had a date with a hot blonde and Batman. I also still identify as a Republican so there's that.

[Eddie]

I went to the United Utah Party caucus in Riverton. It's the first time I've ever gone to any caucus meeting for any party in my life. They were hoping to get 6 people and 12 showed up. I'm officially a UUP member but UUP has an open caucus - anyone can show up. Also, they don't elect delegates to the state convention because the party is still small enough that every party member can vote in the state convention and nobody primaries each other.

Here is how it went:
....

I like a lot of what I hear from the United Utah Party - but until they gain a little more traction, I have a hard time totally walking away from the Utah GOP.

I anticipate that I'll vote for the Republican candidate I like in the Primary - like I always do - and then weigh them against their challenger. Obviously, if I like the GOP candidate I vote for them as my first priority.

It is rare than a Dem candidate gets my attention enough that I want them to win - being in Davis County, there's little chance of them winning anyway. But it isn't uncommon for me to not love the GOP candidate and then vote for Dem - as much to let the GOP candidate know not everyone loves them as anything.

I love having a United Utah Party - as I think there will be better options moving forward. I think I'd much rather throw a vote their way than at the Dem candidate anyway - I think the GOP needs to learn that they could lose people to this new group that is generally conservative but somewhat moderate if they insist on being crazy and inflexible. At my own caucus last night I wanted to ask people - "you clearly disagree with some of what I believe in - and I'm OK with that. But do we disagree enough that you'd rather me and people like me go vote for your opponent's candidate?"

I've got 4 voters in my household living at home with me right now, so 5 voters including myself. Unfortunately, I couldn't talk the other 4 into coming with me to the caucus or I might've succeeded in being a state delegate in spite of the Mike Lee lovers at the meeting.

Unfortunately, when my wife started pulling on sweats and asked "you aren't really going to make me go, are you?" I wasn't nearly as smart as BFM and didn't even think about initiating negotiations for post caucus activities.

[Copelius]

My experience was opposite yours. We only had 9 from our precinct and all but 2 expressed serious reservations about Lee. I shared why I was part of the 59.4% that voted for Bridgewater at the 2010 convention and was nominated for state delagate. Fortunately not even I voted for myself and the guy who nominated me was the only one who did, which may have made for an uncomforable ride home since his wife, an ardent Edwards supporter, was on the ballot as well.

We also agreed as a precinct that the precinct chair would automatically get the other state delagate position as a reward for all the crap she will have to do over the next couple years. I did wind up consenting to be a county delagate because the county convention is the Saturday at the end of spring break and there were literally only 3 of us available for 3 positions because of the timing.

[Eddie]

Maybe this isn't the right thread for this...

Yesterday afternoon I had a chat with the VP for the Utah United political party. He was hardcore GOP in the past - precinct chair, etc., and decided he had to get out when Trump was elected. He had a really hard time watching the GOP embrace a lot of what Trump was selling and not calling him out on his frequent stupidity - his words. He invited me to jump on their official caucus last night - all online - so I figured I'd listen in while watching BYU on TV.

They're planning to endorse Evan McMullin running as an independent against Mike Lee - which is interesting. They've also got Jay McFarland running against Chris Stewart. On top of those two, they've also got several candidates for the Utah legislature.

I'm not sure what to make of McMullin, to be honest. But I do like Jay McFarland, and frequently found myself agreeing with him on his takes when he was on KSL replacing Doug Wright. I'm not sure how he gave up that gig - he was probably set until retirement if he wanted it.

One of their selling points, interestingly enough, was that a senator/representative not affiliated with either major party is a huge power broker in DC. They pointed to Romney, Manchin, and Sinema as examples of people that both sides were working with and negotiating with precisely because they couldn't count on them to just vote the party line. Someone asked them the question who they would caucus with, and the response was "whoever invites us" - though it was a little awkward as they acknowledged that at least initially they wouldn't fit in anywhere and may not participate in any committees, etc.

Jay pushed the narrative that right now the GOP and Dems are both set on division and steamrolling the other side. Neither is interested in compromise or working together to find consensus. And pushed his belief that it is better for the county as a whole when both sides come together, work to understand each other, and find common ground. Sounded way too logical and grounded to get much traction - because he's right, most involved in politics are more concerned about winning and pushing their agenda on everyone than on actually governing in a way that represents the interests of everyone.

It will be interesting to see if they get much traction over time.