November Voucher Vote and Democratic Process
Utah is in a bad situation regarding the voucher referendum. Confusion abounds. In response to that, some say, “No special session.” Some say, “Special session to repeal HB 174 (the second bill, which is not subject to referendum).” And some seem to say both.
The citizens need to say what they want. If this poll is accurate, Utahns want a special session to clarify the mess. I believe we need a special session. Depending on how the situation is handled, the next 5 months either will be horribly divisive and tear at the democratic underpinnings of Utah (all for nothing, since courts will resolve things in any event) or this period will illustrate that the system is alive and well and still capable of handling our most pressing controversies.
Two observations:
1. The “no special session” position misses an opportunity to promote democratic process. At this point, people don’t know what they’re being asked to vote on. The situation requires clarification;
2. The “repeal HB 174” position could be used as a polemic. HB 174 is the product of a more collaborative effort, forwarded by voucher opponents, to fix some perceived shortcomings in HB 148. If HB 174 were repealed and those fixes were erased, those perceived shortcomings would become a centerpiece of the anti-voucher campaign.
Our response should be guided by 3 principles:
1. The people must have a chance to vote on vouchers;
2. The vote should be on the final draft (HB 174); and
3. People must agree to be bound by the vote of the people (no lawsuits to challenge that decision).
Here’s my suggestion for achieving clarity, while adhering to those principles:
1. Hold a special session to repeal HB 148 and HB 174;
2. Pass a new bill (HB 1001) with the same language of HB 174;
3. Delay the implementation date of HB 1001 until June 2008;
4. Before it takes effect, require that the people have an opportunity to vote whether they want HB 1001; and
5. Based on the vote, implement or repeal HB 1001.
The vote on HB 1001 would be a vote for or against democratic process – clarifying things for the voters. The vote to hold legislators responsible on vouchers clearly was HB 148. That being the case, people (including citizens, legislators, and education officials) should agree to be bound by certain principles before the special session. This is especially true, since – as I understand it – the ballot question would need to be a non-binding opinion question. It would have to be made binding by some type of agreement made beforehand. I’ve drafted the following, in the form of a petition, in an attempt to get the discussion going.
“Utah needs clarity for the November vote on vouchers. It is a matter of fundamental democratic process and voting rights. We, the undersigned, call on the Governor, the Legislature, the State and Local School Boards, and all citizens to work toward providing clarity – and we commit ourselves to the principles and actions stated herein. A special session must be called, wherein HB 148 and HB 174 will be repealed in their entirety. In their place, a new bill (HB 1001) will be passed, with the exact language of HB 174 and additional language specifying that the matter will be put up for a vote by the people in November 2007. As indicated by that vote, the governing bodies will either implement the provisions of HB 1001 (if the voters approve it) or repeal HB 1001 (if the voters reject it). Signers of this petition agree to oppose any lawsuit challenging the outcome of the people’s decision.”
“Legislators signing this petition further agree to vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174, to vote for legislation as outlined above, and, if a majority of the people vote against the new legislation, to vote to repeal it. We specify that we regard a vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174 and to enact HB 1001 to be merely a vote for democratic process; nothing more. The “voucher vote” took place on HB 148.”
“State school board members signing this petition further agree to implement necessary rules and regulations for HB 1001 to go forward, if a majority of the people vote for the new legislation.”
I’d love for people to provide input on (1) how to better handle the situation and (2) how to get the process moving.
The citizens need to say what they want. If this poll is accurate, Utahns want a special session to clarify the mess. I believe we need a special session. Depending on how the situation is handled, the next 5 months either will be horribly divisive and tear at the democratic underpinnings of Utah (all for nothing, since courts will resolve things in any event) or this period will illustrate that the system is alive and well and still capable of handling our most pressing controversies.
Two observations:
1. The “no special session” position misses an opportunity to promote democratic process. At this point, people don’t know what they’re being asked to vote on. The situation requires clarification;
2. The “repeal HB 174” position could be used as a polemic. HB 174 is the product of a more collaborative effort, forwarded by voucher opponents, to fix some perceived shortcomings in HB 148. If HB 174 were repealed and those fixes were erased, those perceived shortcomings would become a centerpiece of the anti-voucher campaign.
Our response should be guided by 3 principles:
1. The people must have a chance to vote on vouchers;
2. The vote should be on the final draft (HB 174); and
3. People must agree to be bound by the vote of the people (no lawsuits to challenge that decision).
Here’s my suggestion for achieving clarity, while adhering to those principles:
1. Hold a special session to repeal HB 148 and HB 174;
2. Pass a new bill (HB 1001) with the same language of HB 174;
3. Delay the implementation date of HB 1001 until June 2008;
4. Before it takes effect, require that the people have an opportunity to vote whether they want HB 1001; and
5. Based on the vote, implement or repeal HB 1001.
The vote on HB 1001 would be a vote for or against democratic process – clarifying things for the voters. The vote to hold legislators responsible on vouchers clearly was HB 148. That being the case, people (including citizens, legislators, and education officials) should agree to be bound by certain principles before the special session. This is especially true, since – as I understand it – the ballot question would need to be a non-binding opinion question. It would have to be made binding by some type of agreement made beforehand. I’ve drafted the following, in the form of a petition, in an attempt to get the discussion going.
“Utah needs clarity for the November vote on vouchers. It is a matter of fundamental democratic process and voting rights. We, the undersigned, call on the Governor, the Legislature, the State and Local School Boards, and all citizens to work toward providing clarity – and we commit ourselves to the principles and actions stated herein. A special session must be called, wherein HB 148 and HB 174 will be repealed in their entirety. In their place, a new bill (HB 1001) will be passed, with the exact language of HB 174 and additional language specifying that the matter will be put up for a vote by the people in November 2007. As indicated by that vote, the governing bodies will either implement the provisions of HB 1001 (if the voters approve it) or repeal HB 1001 (if the voters reject it). Signers of this petition agree to oppose any lawsuit challenging the outcome of the people’s decision.”
“Legislators signing this petition further agree to vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174, to vote for legislation as outlined above, and, if a majority of the people vote against the new legislation, to vote to repeal it. We specify that we regard a vote to repeal HB 148 and HB 174 and to enact HB 1001 to be merely a vote for democratic process; nothing more. The “voucher vote” took place on HB 148.”
“State school board members signing this petition further agree to implement necessary rules and regulations for HB 1001 to go forward, if a majority of the people vote for the new legislation.”
I’d love for people to provide input on (1) how to better handle the situation and (2) how to get the process moving.
posted by steve u. at 5/29/2007
Subscribe
27 Comments:
My first response would be agreement. It's a different way to get to what I think we agree should be the end result: clarity in a single public vote.
It'd certainly save some political bickering between now and Nov.
I think the better approach is a bill stating that should HB 148 fail, so does HB 174. That makes it crystal clear that both bills would be removed from a failure at the polls.
Jesse,
If a new bill should be passed, as you suggest, why not make it an HB 174-type bill with the ballot trigger? My concern is that voting on HB 148 would be a vote on a bill that is not and cannot be law, since 174 passed.
instead of talking to us about it, why don't you tell Valentine and Curtis to get off their duffs and hold a special session? Or ask Huntsman to order one?
It is nice to talk about what should happen but right now what IS happening is trumping and mooting this discussion.
The issue is indeed a divisive one.
Let's examine your arguments:
"1. The people must have a chance to vote on vouchers;"
We the people don't need you to tell us this :-) We gathered 124,000 valid signatures. The vote is going to happen because we want it to happen and it is our right for it to happen.
"2. The vote should be on the final draft (HB 174)"
The vote should be on HB148 because that is what the petitioners decided to challenge.
This lends credence to the point I made on SenateSite that blogs are indeed "push writings." Your subtle presupposition is that HB174 is not an amendment and does not coordinate with HB148. A "final draft" would have likely followed the "repeal-reenact" pattern. This bill does not do that.
HB174 was brought forward to fix obvious flaws in HB148; regardless of the reason the amendments were brought forward, they clearly coordinate with the original bill and I expect any court challenge to the State Board's action today to say as much.
To suggest that HB174 is a "final draft" given it's fragmented nature and coordinating clauses doesn't speak to the reality of the bill.
"3. People must agree to be bound by the vote of the people (no lawsuits to challenge that decision)."
Regardless of the issue, citizens have a right to petition the courts should they feel an unjust or unconstitutional law is foisted upon them. You guys on the hill get it right most of the time but not all of the time, and, in my opinion, y'all really laid an egg on this one. The problems with vouchers are so widespread I would imagine a variety of challenges will take place over time.
I'm also not sure that creating an HB1001 with the "exact" language of HB174 will work, either. The "exact" language of HB174 contains references to HB148 and is missing key components as you know.
It seems that with this post you would like to whitewash the history of these two bills, and, through legislative action, rewrite legislative intent to breathe life into a severed appendage. I'm reminded of the line in a Monty Python skit "but the spot flourished."
And notwithstanding that polemic, I could be eating major crow soon since this situation is changing by the hour. I do predict, though, that the "manifest destiny" of this issue will be the courts.
Thank you for letting me share my criticisms of your post.
Your Crazy, Illegal Ideas
http://davisdidjeridu.blogspot.com/2007/05/urquharts-crazy-illegal-ideas.html
I'll agree to what you suggest, Steve, if you also create bill #1002 to let voters decide whether or not they want tax dollars to subsidize a soccer stadium. While we're at it, let's open up a forum to allow citizens to request that any bill they dislike that passed and was signed in to law during the last legislative session be put up for a public vote. Let the mayham begin. But wait a minute, that's not the way democracy works is it. Democracy doesn't mean that whiners get there way. Democracy means that we are a law abiding people. And while we're at it, we're actually a Republic which means we have a Representative form of government. What has evolved over this voucher situation helps us to see the wisdom in that. Look at how we're trying to circumvent legal process now simply because some of the citizenry acts like up until this point they have never had a say in this matter. Apparently they've been helpless to learn where their legislator stood on this issue before electing them last November, unable to contact their legislator during the session to tell them their position on vouchers, nor were they able to stay abreast of what was going on during the session. And don't try to tell me you all did and we just have a GOP legislature who doesn't listen. Hogwash and a cop out excuse for the opposition! In fact most of you (I said most, not all) who are whining have never read the bill, don't know how it works, don't know how education is funded in this state, and yet you want to vote on it.
The process of democracy has already taken place. Citizens had seven years to weigh in on the matter. They didn't. This year lengthy hearings were purposely held by both the House and Senate to allow the public to participate in a discussion on the voucher bill. I was there. Several citizens showed up to declare their support in favor of the bill. The education establishment, plus Kim Burningham's brother, spoke against it. Regular citizens did not. Check the records of the hearings if you don't believe me. Steve, you were there. You know that's true.
Again, the voucher debate has gone on for seven years, two bills finally passed by majority vote (doesn't really matter that 148 only passed by one in the House), and 148 is now subject to a referendum due to Utah statute requirements that were met. Like it or not, 174 is not subject to a referendum. By law it is to be implemented. We have a "rogue" (words of the Attorney General) School Board, led by Chair Kim Burningham who also headed the referendum against vouchers, refusing to obey the law. Gee, I wonder why? That's not a hard one to figure out. Nice example to the kids, Kim. I guess when they don't agree with a law they can just ignore it.
Here's your lesson in democracy. The law is the law. If you don't like it, you must work within the parameters of the law to change it. That process may be messy. Legal matters oftimes are. It will continue to unfold in the courts based on what the law dictates. Be patient. The referendum against 148 does not entitle the citizenry to an up or down vote. Get over it.
Bottom line, if you're going to run into a special session to fix this because people feel it is unjust, there are a few more unjust bills I would like you to fix while you're at it. Yeah, yeah, I know I didn't get a successful referendum run against any of those. The same can be said for HB 174!
Oldenburg,
Dialogues have value. If people like what I'm laying out, I'm sure they'll improve the idea and deliver the message far more effectively than I could.
Craig,
I didn't mean to be subtle. My legal position on the effect of HB 174 differs from yours. That legal dispute is the issue at hand. We can let the courts tell us who's right after we vote, or we can work to clarify things and then vote. Regardless, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I have to agree with Rep. Urquhart and Tom on this one. The idea seems to be a good one.
Oldenburg and Craig,
Before anything constructive can take place in this mess we need to find people on both sides who are arguing in good faith. I'm willing to take Rep. Urquhart at his word that he really wants a solution that allows both a public up or down vote on vouchers in Utah and a workable program for vouchers if the people approve of the legislation. The time for harping on Republican boogiemen has passed when someone on the right proposes a workable way for everything to be decided fairly. Maybe it reflects my lack of experience with Utah politics but I'm willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt and a little bit of trust on all of this if they'll follow Urquhart's plan.
Davis Didjeridu,
The applicable statutory language on the referendum process (20A-7-301.2) states:
"(2) When a referendum petition has been declared sufficient, the law that is the subject of the petition does not take effect unless and until it is approved by a vote of the people at a regular general election or a statewide special election."
I am not a lawyer but the statute doesn't seem to disallow the legislature from repealing a law before it is subjected to a referendum ballot. It only states that the law may not take effect until approved in an election.
Finally, on first reading of this post and Rep. Urquhart's plan I was a little concerned with the "no lawsuits" provision. When I realized that this provision only applies to lawsuits on the procedure used to arrive at a final answer on vouchers and not on the constitutional issues inherent in any voucher program I decided I like this idea.
Thanks to Rep. Urquhart for honestly considering a way out of the current mess for people on both sides of this divide. I think your proposal seems very fair. It also might save the state some legal fees in the end. Relying on a legal battle to solve this whole issue will be a huge waste of money for taxpayers...and I'd like to think we don't really need to go through all of that. (Ok...maybe I'm being way too optimistic)
Heh...I missed "Anon's" post while I was typing mine.
This comment thread might prove that Urquhart is on to something. If Craig and the ubiquitous pro-voucher Anon are both against this it must be a great idea.
Anon. 9:39.
Is my idea illegal? Or do you just think vouchers will do better in a roll of the dice with the Supreme Court than in a clear election?
If you were at the hearings, you might have noticed me at the presenter’s table, thanking speakers on both sides for participating in a great debate on an important issue. This has nothing to do with “whiners” and “mayhem.” It’s simply democracy working through a tough but important issue.
Jeremy,
Thanks for your comments. I sincerely hope that you and others can draw a distinction between the tone and style of my remarks and the snide comments of the 9:39 anon.
Regarding the plan (which Rep U. asked for input on), remember, as H.L. Mencken wisely said: "For every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong."
I'm more than willing to work together with folks, always have been. The relative role of HB174 is a key to the arguments on both sides and its importance in this discussion cannot be overstated. I imagine Rep. U and I will disagree but I'm not sure I would classify such disagreement as "harping"; just good honest dialog.
The intent to clarify the issue before voters is admirable but we shouldn't rewrite history to do it. Based on a) comments from Republican and Democratic legislators alike; b) transcripts from legislative sessions, and; c) reading of the bills themselves, it is clear and reasonable that basing any program (or even a new bill as suggested) solely on HB174 does not correspond to legislative intent. And that is what I read in this post - basing a hypothetical new bill on HB174. In this ongoing chess match, I'll say that voucher opponents have upper-hand arguments in a court challenge which, I believe, is what prompted this "trial balloon" blog entry from Rep. U. proposing a solution to keep the matter *out* of the courts. It's easy to speculate but I don't see that outside of the realm of possibility.
Such unprecedented action in a special session, however, would give a false claim of legitimacy and circumvents the referendum process outlined in state statute. We followed the legal process to gather signatures. Our intent as petitioners was *very* clear - to place the matter of vouchers before the people to let them decide. IF the courts rule that HB174 must be coordinated with HB148 THEN there is NO confusion and crystalline clarity is the result. IF we do a diff-merge of the two bills and have a single public up-or-down vote on the resulting statute, I imagine we could obtain clarity from that scenario as well. BUT basing a new bill SOLELY off of HB174 and requesting that folks forego their rights to judicial review to me muddies the waters significantly.
So, Jeremy, the heart of my comments is that I think we all agree that we should obtain clarity from the public vote. How we accomplish it is up for discussion. Personally, I thought the State Board did the right thing today. They couldn't possibly implement the program given their concerns. I see some real problems with the first pass scenario posited by Rep. U but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the process. If we're committed to a sincere dialog on the issue (recognizing there are significant opposing forces and some of us are squarely in the middle of it all) I completely agree with you that we should all judge our motives to be sincere. In any event, it beats watching TV or sitting around the house :-)
Thanks for the reminder of civility.
How about a slightly different version of your plan that involves compromise and good will.
Convene a meeting with legislative leadership, the state school board, the governor and the AG. Get them all to agree on simple ballot language that asks the voters if they want vouchers. Then get them all to agree to abide by the will of the people.
If the people say yes, they work together to do it. If the people say no, the issue dies.
Too simple-minded?
Craig,
The "harping on Republican boogiemen" comment was directed more at Oldenburg's reference to Rep. Curtis and Sen. Valentine. I have nothing but respect for your work throughout this whole discussion. If I offended I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. This may be yet another example of why I shouldn't be allowed behind a keyboard after 10:pm.
Jeremy,
Please no need to apologize - I think both sides of the debate appreciate your open-mindedness and your reasoned, well-thought approach. Did you see you were cited on UtahPolicy.com this morning?
Thanks...Craig.
Tim,
I like your idea. Such talks should be the kernal of whatever we do.
As Craig pointed out, though, the referendum backers moved their mountain, and there will be a vote on HB 148. My point is that a vote on HB 148 has "disputed" -- shall we say -- impact on HB 174, the final version that was passed. Whether by the courts or the legislature, HB 148 and HB 174 should be addressed, so that the voters can have a clean run at the issue.
My tone with anon 9:39 probably was too abrupt. But that's what I see going on: rather than assess what is best for democratic process in this case, people are assessing what the Court might or might not do with their position or how one action or another might impact their poll numbers. Of course, people could argue I'm just doing the same. Fine, push me out of the way. But someone has to lead. Maybe (probably) I'm naive on this one, but I think it should be Joe Q. Citizen who values democracy above any particular outcome on this one issue.
With the tools that exist for mass collaboration, I'd love it if someone would take this one on. Just talk with some Utahns with common sense, figure out a possible solution, and run with it.
Steve,
Could the legislature in a special session repeal the HB 174 language contingent on the vote of the people on the referendum? So that if 148 is repealed, then the new law passed in the special session would repeal everything in the vouchers section of law. Or the new law would say that if the vote on 148 approves the law, then the law voted in by the special session would have no effect.
I don't know if that is a possibility but that would seem to clear things up without actually repealing the voucher law.
Did anyone see my comment on the Voucher Title entry?
Next question would be if nothing is cleared up prior to the vote, can an inititive be written to repeal existing law? If the legislature refuses to allow the issue to come to a vote of the people as the people who signed the referendum expect and a majority votes against 148, I would expect it to be much easier to do an inititive, if you can do an inititive to repeal existing law.
Stacey,
An initiative works just like any law passed by the legislature. If the requirements are met, the people can enact or amend any law they want. It then occupies a spot in the code like any other law. Some (me) think that an initiative would have been the proper way to handle this, rather than file a referendum against an amended/superseded law. Nonetheless, we are where we are -- a messy place that needs clarification.
Things could be done to make HB 174 contingent upon the vote on HB 148 -- but my question is, if we are going to take legislative action, why would we go that route? The final version was HB 174. If the people want a vote on vouchers, why not vote on the final version -- if it's not just so voucher opponents can use the lack of the "fixes" that were incorporated in HB 174 to campaign against HB 148? Let the people vote on the final version, and let's live with the result.
Steve,
Thanks, but you are not talking about just 174 are you? You are really talking about the final voucher code which encompasses both 148 and the changes made by 174. That is the total voucher law. Voting on 148 or 174 alone would not be enough, though I think voting on 174 alone would probably be enough to make it clear whether the people want vouchers or not.
Seems like Speaker Curtis is moving closer to the hardline that 174 enacts vouchers and there is nothing the people can do to stop it. Is he planning to retire after this next session because with the close election he had this last time and his stance against the people's right to voice their opinion and approve or disapprove laws in Utah, I expect he will have an even more difficult time in the next election.
Do leadership get voted on at the beginning of each session or only after an election? Do you think his stance will have any detrimental effect on his ability to retain his Speakers position or his power in the legislature?
Seems to me that there are probably a minority of people who agree with his hardline stance and that would be the hardline voucher supporters. Your position here even seems to put you at odds with him.
Stacey,
Thank you for clarifying the point about HB148 and 174 being the combined final outcome. I should have been clearer on that.
I want to focus on the voucher issue and don't want to sidetrack to inside politics issues regarding House leadership. Though I haven't had a chance to talke with the Speaker on this issue lately, we do seem to be approaching it from different points. I'm fine with that, and I'm sure Greg is fine with that. That's something the media completely distorts. Greg is a gifted thinker and strategist -- and a good fighter. But by good fighter, I mean it as in effective AND fair. Some of the best fights I've ever had have been with Greg -- and I'm alive to talk about it with zero repercussions. Most of the people I see complaining about how he fights are people on the losing side of issues who figure it helps their issue to malign the speaker. I have no qualms about going against Greg on an issue -- because that's what the process requires at times, and he knows that and respects it. If we do disagree strongly on this one, he will work to beat me like a drum. I know that and I respect it.
An interesting thing that might be pointed out in the DNews poll that you link to indicating people in Utah want a special session.
One of the other questions asked was if they signed the petition. 21% +- 5% say they did. The petition required 92,000 signatures and got 124,000. So it got 135% of the 10% of voters in the last gov race requirement. But 135% of 10% is 13.5%, so how did 21% sign it?
Is the poll that far out of wack? Or are people not telling the truth to the pollsters?
Thanks, Steve for your response. I just feel that Speaker Curtis is trying to go with black and white definitions here and legal technicalities (which based on his arguments I understand) to win the battle.
I don't want to see the legislature go into special session and simply repeal HB 174 or even the parts of HB 174 that are not part of 148. That serves no good because everyone seems to agree that the current law is better than what it would be with only 148 language.
But at the same time, I would rather not have vouchers implimented with only the 174 language if the people reject 148.
I also understand the argument put forth comparing this to the Trax vote/debate.
I don't think that the people are always right, but I believe you better have an extremely good argument if you are going to go against the will of the people. And a 1 vote majority on 148 is not ample to go against a majority of people in a statewide vote, if that is how they vote. The 2/3rd majority on 174 which made it unreferendable (is that even a word?) was not a 2/3rds majority of the legislature in favor of vouchers. But the speaker seems to be using that to claim a victory.
Did you see his quote in the Trib's Out of Context blog? The one titled A Little Bit of Luck?
"I believe in the referendum process," he said. "But I also believe when fate and luck happens to fall your way, smile and be gracious and move on."
One other thing about your suggestion to hold a special session to repeal both 148 and 174 and reenact them as 1001.
Did you see what happened in Riverton with regard to a referendum where the council repealed the ordinance that was the subject of the referendum and then reenacted the exact same ordinance but in 4 separate ordinances? The Supreme Court determined that the referendum was null and void and didn't need to be held because the law that was the subject of the referendum no longer existed.
At the time it seemed as though the City Council simply repealed the first law and replaced it with the exact same wording in 4 different laws to avoid having the first subject to the referendum.
I would hate to see this referendum thwarted by something like that? And of course your suggestion is contingent on a majority of the legislature going along with it. Obviously, not a fore gone conclusion.
Again, I would be more in favor of a special session bill that conditionally repeals 174 based on the outcome of the vote on the referendum on 148.
And like I have said before, I am not sure which side of the vote on the referendum I am going to be on, but I really want to make sure that which ever side I end up on, that my vote means what I intend it to mean.
Steve, you got it right before and, given the harsh reality of the petition, you got it right now. Voin Campbell
Hi Stacey,
You asked an excellent question regarding the poll. In the poll, 21% of the respondents indicated that they had signed the petition, yet if you do the math it ends up that a significantly smaller percentage were actually counted.
When we gathered the signatures we were counting on a rather high error rate. Better to be safe than sorry!!! Some of the reasons for a signature not being counted may include:
- The signature was illegible.
- The voter's registered address is different from the one on the petition (county clerks have discretion on the tolerance for what to count and what not to count).
- The individual is not a registered voter.
- The individual signed a petition destined for one county yet they live in a different county.
All in all, the percentage rates of the poll are fairly close to our original pass rate estimates.
Thanks...Craig.
So you really collected about 190K signatures? I'm impressed. I thought it was closer to 140 or 150.
I don't have the exact count but it wasn't that high.
We should connect sometime. We're just down here in Draper near your neck of the woods.
Craig.
Craig,
I am not in Riverton but having been involved in a referenda myself I follow them closely. It is amazing how many happen here in Utah.
I am actually up by Ogden.
Post a Comment
<< Home