I’ve shared some ideas (and will be doing whatever work I can to see that they get implemented) about how to make caucus meeting accommodations that are better suited to having productive and effective caucus meetings. I realize that having comfortable accommodations does nothing to address the issue of having ill-informed or single issue participants.

I don’t know the numbers (I doubt anyone does) but many people were elected as state delegates this year based solely on their position on the senate race. It’s possible that some of the county delegates were elected based on their positions on one specific race or another. As I pointed out before the caucus meetings, there were at least four races for each of these delegates to vote on in my precinct.

The solution to having informed participation is to have ongoing discussions about politics. I have learned through my years of experience that having a loose community online where people discuss things is not as useful for making a real political difference as having people who share a geographic location which focuses the issues that they deal with. This would require that politics be taken back from among the taboo subjects that are not discussed in polite society.

While having a group that share a geographic identity is important it is also important to allow for asynchronous communications so that people who are not generally available during traditional meeting times can still participate. This is where online discussions are very advantageous. I was very pleased to hear at the convention that there are a number of precincts in Davis County that have created Facebook pages for political discussion in their precinct.

As I discussed this issue with some friends at the convention the issue was raised of anonymity and authentication. Allowing anonymous contributions to the discussion can be valuable but it also opens the door to outsiders manipulating the discussion. I think that a good site for local discussion should allow anonymous comments but also provide a way for those who are local to be authenticated so that the anonymous comments can be treated with the proper weight – representing outside opinions available for consideration but not necessarily representative of a local perspective.

Online discussions should also be augmented with physical meetings with some degree of regularity – every few weeks perhaps, where the discussion could go synchronous and people could get to know each other.

If such discussions were taking place it would be possible for people to be more informed on the issues of current importance and also to be more informed on who they can trust in their area. That would allow people to be informed as caucus participants when the time comes to decide who to vote in as delegates. In fact it would allow them to know not only who they trust, but who they trust on specific issues. I know that in my precinct I was elected as a county delegate even though I was more prepared for the state races and at the same time one of our state delegates was more prepared and informed on the county races and issues than I was.

I’d love to hear what other people think about this. Any experiences you have had or ideas about solutions or potential pitfalls to creating a forum for continuing discussion at a local level.

I was mildly impressed with the statistic that 97.7% of delegates made it to the convention but considering that they (we) were elected only 18 days ago I would consider anything under 95% to be disappointing. I can’t wait to see the attendance at next year’s convention. Then I would be pleasantly surprised if we got 75% attendance.

I have come to the conclusion (again) that conventions could operate more quickly if we could reduce the amount of generic campaigning such as having current officeholders speak if they have nothing more to say than we are fed up with the actions of the other party and we’re going to take back the presidency/House/Senate/governorship/state legislature (whichever ones apply). We could also save time by skipping the speeches that say nothing more than give ourselves a pat on the back for the great things we have done in {whichever of the above we control currently}. (That might also save some hospital bills.) For example, my reaction when Orrin Hatch spoke was that even when he said the rift things he completely failed to convince me that he cared about anything more than getting to stay in the Senate.

If all speeches were focused on “here’s what we are or should be working on going forward” the time would be more valuably spent.

Our precinct had 91 people sign the rolls. I’m confident that this failed to count people who came and then left because of the cattle-chute conditions. (I know of people who came and then left but I cannot confirm how many of those signed the roll.) Those who stayed were packed into a room that was designed to seat perhaps a dozen students at a local junior high school. I’m sure a firemarshall would never allow more than 30 people in a space that size even if the desks were removed. It was not even a regular classroom.

Many people who stayed were out in the hallway where they could not hear from the candidates for the various positions nor the questions that were being asked. All they could do was pass in their ballots.

I am told that our precinct was in the same room in 2008 when only 56 people attended. (I was not living in this precinct until shortly after the caucus meetings that year.) The party leaders did not adjust the accomodations despite the fact that they were clearly inadequate two years ago and despite the fact that there was a great deal more poliical energy in the state before the caucuses this year than I have ever felt in the past.

In many places I know that caucus meetings have been held in neighborhood homes. While that may provide enough space in many cases, few homes could really accomodate the crowds we had this year in many places and even if they could, I know some people who do not feel comfortable in a private residence for this kind of official community meeting.

Knowing that parties often do not have a good idea in advance (like they should have this year) regarding how many people will show up, they need to hold caucus meetings in locations that can accomodate large or small groups. Schools might sound ideal for that but few schools can really handle more than two large groups individually and the junior high where I was had ten precincts attending. Parties should break their precincts out into more locations using schools, churches, city halls, and community centers so that they are able to keep people close to home and have space to accomodate unexpectedly large groups when necessary. I can’t say for other churches but virtually any LDS chapel has rooms to house at least two large groups comfortably. I would imagine that many churches of other denominations can also house mutiple good-sized caucus meetings. If we were to add these locations along with libraries, city offices, community centers and other such locations we should not need to feel like cattle headed for slaughter when we attend precinct caucus meetings.

Ideally I would love to see one meeting location in each precinct where both Democrats and Republicans hold their caucus meetings. If the emphasis were on “neighborhood” rather than “party” they might even say the pledge of allegiance together before splitting for their separate meetings.

There seems to be some confusion in the public mind about the purpose and nature of caucus meetings. For example Thomas Wright, chairman of the Salt Lake County Republican Party, is quoted in this article on KSL.com saying:

{the candidates have been busy recruiting people to show and get elected at those meetings.}

“That’s why it’s more important than ever for the everyday citizen who hasn’t been recruited by a candidate to go to their caucus meeting and run to be a delegate. If they allow the candidates to recruit and get their people elected as delegates, then ultimately the voice of that neighborhood has been taken away.”

This statement implies that those who have done their research before the caucus meeting and settled on a candidate are not “everyday citizens.” I freely admit my own reservations with choosing candidates who are focused only on one of the races they will be expected to vote on, but simply because a person has already chosen their senate candidate does not mean that they are not everyday citizens in their neighborhoods.

Another comment I heard directly contradicted the quote above and belied a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and function of representative government. One person stated that the caucus meetings were a failure because so many of the state delegates who were elected were not already committed to any senate candidate.

I would consider it a good attribute in a state delegate that they were already aware and engaged in a major race such as our senate race this year. That indicates a level of preparation that should make them more prepared to cast informed votes. On the other hand, the purpose of the caucus meeting is to choose delegates whose judgement the people of the precinct trust who will be prepared and informed in time to cast a vote at the convention, not to choose delegates who are necessarily already committed to one candidate without the extra weeks of close investigation to make their decision. What would such a delegate do if the race were to change because of their candidate getting out of the race – could their neighbors trust their secondary choice?

A proper understanding of the meetings highlights the underlying problems that we must solve to make any political system work. Over the weekend my father-in-law expressed his wish for a primary system rather than a caucus system. He asked why he could not have a chance to vote on all the candidates. I asked him why he could not vote on every piece of legislation that came before the state legislature or Congress. The answer is that not all people have the ability to get informed in the time available which is why we choose representatives at various levels.

The idea of representative government is that we choose people we trust to take the time and exercise their judgement in making decisions that we are not always able to be fully informed about. Of course those representatives should not ignore those they represent and should work to help their constituents become informed as much as possible but their job is not simply to parrot the will of the majority.

My father-in-law then exposed the fundamental problem when he confessed that after seven years in his neighborhood he still did not feel that he could trust the judgement of any of the candidates for state delegate from his precinct. That tells me that the community is too loose, either politically or generally, if seven years is not enough time to find others in your neighborhood whose judgement you trust in such matters. If you can’t trust anyone in your neighborhood how can you hope to trust any of the senate candidates who are not even that close to you and who will be making even more complex and binding decisions than who to put on the ballot?

• We need to accomodate the crowds better.
• Some informality is nice but there must be some clarity about how things are supposed to work – especially for people who have never attended before.
• Two hours is not long enough to deal with such an important task. People need to get prepared in advance so that they do not end up ignoring or passing over issues of importance.
• One issue or one race should not dominate the decisions that will decide who is in power for two years.

I recognize that this list could expand but as you can see there are issues that should be dealt with by the community, the party, and individuals. I plan to take action on all those fronts. In fact I have already started trying to ensure that there is an ongoing forum for political thought and discussion within our precinct so that we can stay informed rather than simply brushing up on the issues in the days before the meeting and more importantly so that we can have an idea of where we stand relative to others in our precinct.

I woke up this morning incredibly frustrated. The fact that I am not a state delegate as I had hoped to be is a surprisingly small part of the reason for my frustration. The majority of my frustration is with the way the caucus meeting was held and conducted. I’ll skip the details for today but if you want to get an idea read Tyler Riggs’ caucus experience – it’s remarkably similar to mine.

If you had asked me yesterday I would have told you that professional or career politicians were at the root of our political problems at all levels of government. As of this morning I’m convinced that political novices are either aiding and abetting them or else giving them a run for their money regarding how much damage they can do to the cause of good government.

As much as I love becoming informed and discussing political issues, the experience from last night had me briefly flirting with the idea that I might abandon the field and leave the mess to some other sucker. Instead I got up this morning (because I could not go back to sleep) while my county party leaders were almost certainly still awake and trying to record the information (such as the names of attendees) from the caucuses. As I wrestled with my frustration I determined that I would not let this pass. Starting today I will pursue a crusade for freedom in which we will reform the way such grassroots participation as precinct caucus meetings take place. We will turn them into events that people in the community are comfortable attending and make politics a subject of widespread public discussion as it should be rather than being, with religion, one of the taboo subjects that are not discussed in polite company.

I am under no illusion that this will be easy but I will start with the Bountiful 18 precinct. I will start today and within two years, by the time of the 2012 caucuses, the harried and frantic atmosphere will be replaced with one of thoughtful and spirited, but civil debate conducted in an efficient and trustworthy manner.

Join me in my quest or start your own quest in your own precinct. I’ll be documenting my efforts, ideas, successes, and failures here.

At the caucus meetings it is important for those running for state delegate positions (and those who are voting for delegates), regardless of which senate candidate they may favor, to keep in mind that delegates have more to do than pick and support a senate candidate. For example, in my precinct there are three offices that have intra-party challenges (assuming nobody files to run for the Republican nomination against Rob Bishop today):

• Governor — Gary Herbert, Richard Martin, and “SuperDell” Schanze
• U.S. Senate — Bob Bennett, Tim Bridgewater, David Chiu, Cherilyn Eagar, Leonard Fabiano, and Mike Lee
• House District 20 — Becky Edwards, Chet Loftis, and D J Schanz

Interestingly the incumbent is alphabetically first in each of those races.

All caucus attendees need to keep in mind that a state delegate must attend to each of the races, not just the one they are most interested in. We may give more weight to the race that we are most concerned with but we must realize that the position encompasses all the races.

Now is the time to more actively campaign among my neighbors and let them get to know more about my political interests than could be displayed within the limitations of a caucus meeting. In addition to sharing reminders about the caucus meeting that would inform people about my intent to seek a state delegate position, I’m thinking about holding a small pre-caucus meeting where people in the neighborhood could come talk together about issues.

Anyone have any thoughts about such an idea?

Out of respect for the seriousness of this situation and the honor that should prevail within the elective body this should have been handled somwhere other than the floor of the house. Regardless of where the public announcement was made it should not have been followed with applause for any reason. (I might make an exception if he had chosen to announce his resignation in the same prepared statement.) I’m not saying that his colleagues should have publicly castigated him when he made the announcement but there was nothing to applaud in his admission of shameful past actions.

I believe that anyone who participated in that inappropriate applause should publicly explain their participation. Anyone who does not do so in the next few days should face at least a token opposition in the primaries by an opponent who will demand an explanation of that action. There are only two possible explanations: “I was foolishly caught up in the crowd” or “I was coerced to join in the applause.” Either reason should be publicly acknowledged.

I questioned my own representative relative to what happened and her explanation was in line with “it was a reaction to very surprising news.” In her own words she said:

At that time, his statement was so out of context for what we were expecting to hear . . . My personal reaction at that initial moment of hearing the 2 minute statement was thinking that while his political career was most likely over, 1) that the forthright nature of the confession was admirable and courageous, 2) the work he had done as a legislator was effective . . . and 3) he had been a real support to me on several tough issues this session. Those 3 thoughts, combined with the fact that in the House we have a propensity to stand and clap for everything, led to that reaction from all of us. Also, when Speaker Clark finished his statement it was an invitation to stand and support our colleague. There was no condoning or justification or excusing the behavior included in the statement, however.

Now, understand, the standing/clapping is a very different issue than condoning the initial behavior . . .

However, I can see how inappropriate the clapping was and the message that it sends to the public. It is confusing and misleading at best and ultimately was the wrong reaction to a wrong venue for a significant statement such as this. (From private email correspondence—used with permission.)

I consider that to be a reasonable explanation especially in light of a statement she made later that as more information has become available she is very disturbed by the behavior.

I think it is as important for the public to be conscious of how much more we know now than was public when his statement was read as it is for public officials (now and in the future) to recognize that a very measured public response is always in order (whether in drafting laws or in supporting a colleague) because the public will still see their initial response after more information is available.

While candidate Mike Lee acted like a senator on the issue of confirming Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Bob Bennett acted like a marionette under the control of the mystical wizard of Washington D.C. With a short press release and a predictable vote, our “Senator” Bob Bennett plainly demonstrated the cancerous logic that is rampant among Washington insiders. Here is how he justified his vote to confirm Ben Bernanke:

I reluctantly cast a vote in favor of Ben Bernanke because I do not want to give President Obama the opportunity to put someone who shares his leftist views in charge of the Federal Reserve. I am aware of the mistakes that have been made at the Fed while Chairman Bernanke has been there, but I fear an alternative would be worse for the country’s economic future.

So our elected Marionette is simply trying to save us from having the president nominate someone else. Cute. Perhaps he should have engaged his brain and realized two simple facts – first, if Bernanke was not confirmed by the senate there is little chance that President Obama would have name a more extreme nominee (the natural reaction would be to nominate a safer pick); second, considering the makeup of the Senate (not to mention the final vote tally) opposing Bernanke would have been unlikely to prevent his confirmation but at least it would not have demonstrated approval for his performance (a vote to confirm sends that message more strongly than any press release about your supposed reluctance to cast the vote).

In contrast, Mike Lee (who ought to be replacing Bennett within a year) demonstrated what senatorial advice and consent should look like. Mike issued a statement opposing confirmation for Bernanke and giving solid reasons for that opposition:

“It is clear that during Chairman Bernanke’s term, the Federal Reserve has played a significant role in creating and perpetuating policies and strategies that have contributed significantly to the most difficult economic environment our country has faced in a generation.” Mike Lee continued, “To confirm the Chairman to a second term would be both a tacit approval of his actions during these past few years, and an endorsement that ‘business as usual’ is acceptable. That is something I am simply not willing to do.”

. . .

“Simply replacing Bernanke may not be sufficient, but Chairman Bernanke must be held accountable for the Fed’s actions. It is time to send a clear message that ‘business as usual’ is not acceptable, that transparency is mandatory and that everyone is accountable, now and in the future. This is the first in a series of important steps which must be taken to ensure the integrity and reliability of our monetary system.” (emphasis added)

Bennett failed to demonstrate any responsibility for the senatorial task of advice and consent. Instead he chose to throw up his hands and issue a statement about how sorry he was to vote against the wishes of his constituents and even his own better judgment. Worse yet, he did so on a vote where voting his conscience would not have made a material difference except to be honest about his position.