Jim Dabakis, Chair of the Utah Democratic Party (“I once caught a fish this big…” he might be saying. But probably not.) (Photo Credit: Salt Lake Tribune photographer Francisco Kjolseth)
Utah Democratic Chair Jim Dabakis is on the hunt. Or perhaps more accurate, a fishing expedition.
He’s trying to force the Utah Legislature to let him play by different rules than other tax payers by giving him documents for free just because he claims to smell a rat, never mind that he lacks any proof.
Like Harry Reid claiming Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes, an assertion that can only be disproved by exposing Romney to undue scrutiny, Dabakis is claiming a foul against the Utah Legislature that can be disproved only by granting Dabakis special privileges not given to other mere humans (i.e. tax payers).
The Legislature should uphold its duty to the people of Utah and requiring Dabakis and the Democratic Party to pay for the documents Dabakis has requested, just like everyone else. Allowing Dabakis a special priviledge and to have them without paying would set a bad precedent of the Utah Legislature bowing to pressure from political party leaders.
It’s ironic, really. That’s a complaint that Dabakis is usually leveling against the Legislature about Republicans, not the other way around. Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
____________________
Last year, redistricting conducted transparently and according constitutional parameters redrew the political lines across Utah, adding a Congressional seat and compensating for shifts in population across Utah’s geography. Because Republicans control majorities in the Utah House and Senate (not to mention Republican Governor Gary Herbert), it was Republicans who made the decisions about where the lines were drawn. As Speaker Lockhart said during the redistricting process:
We’ve been elected as legislators to make tough decisions. We look at all sides, hear all arguments and do some serious soul-searching. And though the Legislature is constitutionally mandated to draw districts, we have involved the public at every turn.
That wasn’t enough for naysayers, though, and Speaker Lockhart foresaw there would be those who would never agree to the results.
It’s willful ignorance or outright self-importance on [the naysayers’] part that they won’t acknowledge that the very demands they are making are the very things that will get us successfully sued at a cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
Their talk is cheap. Their threats are opportunistic. Their verbal bomb-throwing is meant to obscure the reality of a fair process.
Now, over six months after the Governor signed the bill adopting the redistricting maps created by the legislature, Utah’s Democrats are doing exactly what Speaker Lockhart predicted. Jim Dabakis, “Rumpelstiltskin” of the Utah Democratic Party, has gone to great lengths to make gold out of straw. Upon making a GRAMA request for all documents related to the redistricting, the Democrats found out that there were more documents than they bargained for–or could afford.
Like every other tax payer, requests for public documents must be paid for by the requesting party. Because Utah Democrats had only paid for a portion of the documents, they were given only the first third of the documents, until the paid for the rest. According to the Salt Lake Tribune
The party was allowed to take one of three boxes of prepared documents for the $5,000 it had paid, but was told which box it had to take. The Legislature will not give it the other two boxes unless it pays the extra $9,250, but the Legislature’s top leaders are currently considering the party’s appeal of that.
Apparently, the first box was, well, unhelpful to Utah Democratic purposes. Rather than showing a pattern of Republican conspiracy to corrupt the process, the box showed careful attention to tax payer comment and participation in the redistricting. The attention was so careful, in fact, that many of the documents showed material that was already available through open sources on the internet.
Unfair, cried Dabakis. Rather than fork over the extra $9,250 (like every other tax payer, journalist, or watch dog group that requested documents would have to do, or has done), he claims that the Utah legislature is hiding something by requiring him to pay for them.
“It appears to be clear that they sifted through and picked all the completely inane things and put them in the first box, with the idea that they could cover up the rest of whatever is there. I think it’s pathetic,” Dabakis said. “This has all been manipulated.”
But, remember, there isn’t any proof that it’s been manipulated. Never mind that he could have found any evidence just by purchasing the remaining material. Just think–at the low cost of just $9,250 he could have proved corruption in redistricting and started a law suit to reboot the process. Instead, he’s waited until just before campaign season and used it as a way to paint Republicans as corrupt and making laws out of the public’s eye. It’s an assertion that couldn’t be further from the truth.
In fact, Robert Rees, of the office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, said to the Salt Lake Tribune: “There was no sifting through documents to pick out the bland ones. … The box provided happened to be the first set of documents produced through [our search] process.” As a member of the Utah Bar, Rees is under an ethical, and legal, obligation to tell the truth. Further, the members of the staff of the office of Legislative Research and General Counsel are non-partisan, serving the members of the legislature from both parties.
It’s akin to Harry Reid asserting that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes–just because Romney hasn’t released his taxes. The difference is that Dabakis can prove that he’s right–or that he’s wrong–just by playing by the same rules as everyone else and paying for the documents. It’s a fishing expedition, pure and simple, that hurts your opponent, but does little to advance the public interest.
Dabakis’ rants to the news media from the empty steps of the Capitol building isn’t about policy, redistricting or process–it’s about election year politics and finding an excuse for attention when Democratic policies are failing across the nation. That alone should be enough for the state legislature to ignore his request for special treatment; that it sets a bad precedent, though, is sufficient.
Related articles
- Democrats say turn the documents over to ABC 4 (abc4.com)
- Democrats want Utah redistricting documents made public (abc4.com)
- Matheson campaigning at taxpayers expense (hollyonthehill.wordpress.com)
About Daniel Burton
RSS - Posts
I think that your analyses is great, and that you have summed up your points beautifully. However I would like to express a couple of other fore sights that have gone unnoticed in your article.
First- The Committee to which Mr. James Dabakis was working with gave him a price of $5,000 to receive the documents. To which the democratic party of the state gladly followed through with. When they went to Capitol Hill to pick up their documents they had been told that the cost was now going to be triple (roughly) that amount.
As a consumer, I get upset when I am told that a bill is going to be one price, and then it is raised triple the price. This happened to me at a mechanics shop in Clearfield a number of years ago, and I have yet to go back to that shop. I feel like this is the same type of sticker shock that Mr. Dabakis went through.
Second if the Democratic party is purchasing a product, that would make them the customer. That then makes the state the retailer. What the state of Utah has done to the Utah Democratic party showed very poor customer service skills. What company would state that your bill would be one price, then ring it up at triple the cost. This is lousy service that the state offered to the consumer, and frankly, anyone who received such service from any private or public organization would be very upset with the offending party, and throw up a bit of a stink.
Third- When Mr. Dabakis was told that he would only be allowed to buy one of the boxes that was prepared for him, why was he not allowed to choose the box he wanted. Again I fall back to the State of Utah as the retailer, and the Utah Democratic as the consumer. Why was the party not allowed to look through all three boxes and choose what box they were purchasing. I find it slightly odd that the retailer would not allow the customer to choose what they were buying. Would you continue to do business with a company that would not allow you to pick what you were paying for? I know that I would not.
Lastly- and I know that this ties into a previous point, but I am stating it here. I think that it is irresponsible of the State of Utah to triple charge a client, and not notify the client of the changes, so that the client has the say in what the provider is doing. It raises personal questions of my own. How often does the state of Utah create bills of double or triple the cost, and the consumer refuses to pick them up, because they have not been notified? Is this a common practice? Is there literally hundreds of thousands of wasted tax payer money that is being used because of the states lousy customer service? I hope not, and that this is a one time clerical mistake.
Now let me be clear on my stance on the subject. I hope that the state did nothing wrong, as I am a glass full type of guy. I hope that my elected officials are of good character, and that they are doing things on the up and up. However, when someone accuses them of wrong doings, I would hope that they would be a lot more affable to the accuser. I think that the State of Utah has made it, either intentionally or unintentionally, on Mr. Dabakis. I took take issue with that.
Brandt, thanks for commenting. However, respectfully, I don’t agree that your analogy carries to the end you take it.
If Jim Dabakis was purchasing a car, or a boat, or a prepackaged item, I would agree that the cost should be as labeled on the sticker. However, there are many items that can exceed, or fall short of, a quoted amount. Other products, however, are bidded out and begin as estimates. Home building contracts will often have clauses that allow changes in price due to changes in the cost of materials or interest rates. A car may have a sticker price, but when the buyer adds in extra like a dvd player, leather seats, and GPS, the price goes up. A contract to create software or to build a website may be for a flat fee, but just as often it is based on an hourly rate.
I suspect that what Dabakis thought was a flat fee was actually a quote. The good staffers of the Officer of Legislative Research and General Counsel quoted him what they thought was the cost, and then, in their effort to be thorough ended up finding more documents than they expected.
For that, Dabakis should be thrilled! There were more documents than he had anticipated and for him to use in his fishing expedition. On the contrary, Jim did not exult– he complained. He got more than he expected, and he felt he shouldn’t have to pay for what any other taxpayer would have to pay. Back to your analogy: if Dabakis had contracted for a house, and the house ended up costing more than he had expected, he would have had to pay.
What is tragic about Dabakis’ actions is that they are imputing partisanship on non-partisan legislative staffers. The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel is non-partisan, and I know they go to great lengths to avoid attending, participating in, partisan events. They must work for all legislators, regardless of party. Dabakis, however, isn’t trying to work with them on the same terms–he’s using them to get free publicity and to slant the Republican Party in the run up to elections.
To your point about looking at the boxes in advance: allowing him to do so would effectively have been granting him the same right as taking all three. He would receive the benefit of the work done without having actually paid for it.
I think that your analyses is great, and that you have summed up your points beautifully. However I would like to express a couple of other fore sights that have gone unnoticed in your article.
First- The Committee to which Mr. James Dabakis was working with gave him a price of $5,000 to receive the documents. To which the democratic party of the state gladly followed through with. When they went to Capitol Hill to pick up their documents they had been told that the cost was now going to be triple (roughly) that amount.
As a consumer, I get upset when I am told that a bill is going to be one price, and then it is raised triple the price. This happened to me at a mechanics shop in Clearfield a number of years ago, and I have yet to go back to that shop. I feel like this is the same type of sticker shock that Mr. Dabakis went through.
Second if the Democratic party is purchasing a product, that would make them the customer. That then makes the state the retailer. What the state of Utah has done to the Utah Democratic party showed very poor customer service skills. What company would state that your bill would be one price, then ring it up at triple the cost. This is lousy service that the state offered to the consumer, and frankly, anyone who received such service from any private or public organization would be very upset with the offending party, and throw up a bit of a stink.
Third- When Mr. Dabakis was told that he would only be allowed to buy one of the boxes that was prepared for him, why was he not allowed to choose the box he wanted. Again I fall back to the State of Utah as the retailer, and the Utah Democratic as the consumer. Why was the party not allowed to look through all three boxes and choose what box they were purchasing. I find it slightly odd that the retailer would not allow the customer to choose what they were buying. Would you continue to do business with a company that would not allow you to pick what you were paying for? I know that I would not.
Lastly- and I know that this ties into a previous point, but I am stating it here. I think that it is irresponsible of the State of Utah to triple charge a client, and not notify the client of the changes, so that the client has the say in what the provider is doing. It raises personal questions of my own. How often does the state of Utah create bills of double or triple the cost, and the consumer refuses to pick them up, because they have not been notified? Is this a common practice? Is there literally hundreds of thousands of wasted tax payer money that is being used because of the states lousy customer service? I hope not, and that this is a one time clerical mistake.
Now let me be clear on my stance on the subject. I hope that the state did nothing wrong, as I am a glass full type of guy. I hope that my elected officials are of good character, and that they are doing things on the up and up. However, when someone accuses them of wrong doings, I would hope that they would be a lot more affable to the accuser. I think that the State of Utah has made it, either intentionally or unintentionally, on Mr. Dabakis. I took take issue with that.
Brandt, thanks for commenting. However, respectfully, I don't agree that your analogy carries to the end you take it.
If Jim Dabakis was purchasing a car, or a boat, or a prepackaged item, I would agree that the cost should be as labeled on the sticker. However, there are many items that can exceed, or fall short of, a quoted amount. Other products, however, are bidded out and begin as estimates. Home building contracts will often have clauses that allow changes in price due to changes in the cost of materials or interest rates. A car may have a sticker price, but when the buyer adds in extra like a dvd player, leather seats, and GPS, the price goes up. A contract to create software or to build a website may be for a flat fee, but just as often it is based on an hourly rate.
I suspect that what Dabakis thought was a flat fee was actually a quote. The good staffers of the Officer of Legislative Research and General Counsel quoted him what they thought was the cost, and then, in their effort to be thorough ended up finding more documents than they expected.
For that, Dabakis should be thrilled! There were more documents than he had anticipated and for him to use in his fishing expedition. On the contrary, Jim did not exult– he complained. He got more than he expected, and he felt he shouldn't have to pay for what any other taxpayer would have to pay. Back to your analogy: if Dabakis had contracted for a house, and the house ended up costing more than he had expected, he would have had to pay.
What is tragic about Dabakis' actions is that they are imputing partisanship on non-partisan legislative staffers. The Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel is non-partisan, and I know they go to great lengths to avoid attending, participating in, partisan events. They must work for all legislators, regardless of party. Dabakis, however, isn't trying to work with them on the same terms–he's using them to get free publicity and to slant the Republican Party in the run up to elections.
Also, to your point about looking at the boxes in advance: allowing him to do so would effectively have been granting him the same right as taking all three. He would receive the benefit of the work done without having actually paid for it.