I read with concern a recent article in the Daily Herald about some residents complaining (again) against Councilmember Steve Turley. I am concerned because this appears like an early shot in the campaign for next year’s council races. Ask yourself, what business owner is willing to face unsubstantiated complaints like this? I say unsubstantiated because from what I’ve heard, these are old complaints that have already been dismissed but now brought up again in a new way. This appears to be is a sneaky move to influence the current council decisions and further discourages other business owners from participating in the process for fear of similar tactics against them.
That is why this complaint is so troubling; it undermines the process and disenfranchises participants. In addition to a dampening effect on future candidates for office, this is a veiled attempt to reverse the voters will. We have elections in America. In other countries, if your majority or coalition is questioned then the leaders can call for a vote of confidence and appeal to the voters for support. In America we hold our elections on set dates and this is the process established to hold accountable our officials.
In addition, this is a supposed call for increased transparency. But how can a call for transparency mean anything when those issuing it hide behind a spokesperson? When will the list of 23 be made public?
As I understand one of the alleged complaints is that Mr. Turley has diminished the council because he was involved in as effort to replace a member of the council: the Stop Cindy campaign. Did Turley hide behind his efforts? No. He published his support for a new voice on the council and stands behind the record of votes and facts that he was concerned with. I ask those bringing this complaint; Why the need to hide behind a spokesperson? In a call for accountability, I challenge the 23 to stand up and be accountable.
I also am not blind to the obvious attack against commerce that this complaint represents. How so you ask? Well one neighbor of the group’s spokesperson 2 months ago attended a council meeting and objected to a land proposal because, in part, the owner may make some money. And another associated with this group has attacked other developers, Realtors, landlords, and property owners. Yet another has proposed to change Provo’s ethics rules, already more strict than the state laws. He admitted his proposal would be nearly impossible for business and property owners to comply with.
This effort reminds me of how I felt when I heard President Obama describe the only member of his cabinet from the private sector as a spy behind enemy lines. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Barak Obama his disdain for the entrepreneurial spirit of America. We have now seen firsthand how this president feels about commerce. His headlong rush toward socialism has us nearly bankrupt. But should we condone this attitude here in our valley? I say no.
Some I guess just feel more comfortable that government has the answers to our economic woes. I for one am not supportive of that idea. I support the notion that the best government is the one that governs least; I support a part-time council made up of residents from a diverse background of businesses and community interests. We need our council to understand how when the city sets a budget they do so with tax funds; after all, when government spends money they are spending our money.
Taxpayers voted in the recent elections with a load voice that we are taxed enough already and that property rights are the foundation of this great community and nation and should not be taken without due compensation.
A narrow group of residents, hiding behind a call for increased ethics sounds all too familiar with the sham ethics proposal that was rejected by voters across the state. We don’t need a biased panel dictating what is ethical according to their standards. We as voters demand that elections mean something and that a small group should NOT be allowed to push their narrow and biased agenda through complaints and law suits.
I sure hope that the Mayor’s office, in working with the County Attorney and Attorney General can put this to rest with a quick dismissal.
I wonder at the motive of those brining up old news now. It seems obvious it is designed to influence Mr. Turley’s judicial proceedings, upcoming council leadership elections, next year’s elections, and other business endeavors of part-time council members.
I’m grateful that we have a courageous public servant willing to put up with this defamation and harassment. I hope that other business owners won’t be discouraged from stepping forward because what type of government do we have when good business-minded individuals stop serving? I dare say that the public won’t like the result. We’ll have our rights stripped and increased taxes and costs.
I’m hopeful that individuals that understand what it means to make payroll, and understand property rights will take the risks and stand for better government and help defend the process of holding accountability and it is done at elections.
