What to expect: Disagreement

I've been asked, "What can voters expect if you are elected?" I think it is safe to say that you can expect me to make some decisions with which you disagree.

I've posted three more letters of support from active members of the Provo community for whom I have great respect: Sherrie Hall Everett, Aaron Skabelund, and Christian Faulconer. In his letter, Christian points out that we don't agree on every issue, yet I have his full support.

Many of you know that earlier this year I unsuccessfully applied for the vacancy that opened on the Council when our beloved Councilman, Stephen Hales, tragically passed away. Several residents of Provo wrote to the City Council in support of my application. Council members noticed that many of the authors went out of their way to mention that they don't always agree with me. One writer went so far as to call me one of his "most ardent opponents" when he was running for office. So why would they support someone with whom they disagree?

If I'm elected to the Council, and if you follow the issues that come before the Council closely enough, I can almost guarantee that eventually you will disagree with one of my votes. But with that admission, I also promise that I will strive to engage with you and understand your position when we have differing opinions. I welcome and encourage healthy debate on controversial issues. Sherrie said that she appreciates my "respectful demeanor" and "statesmanlike manner" when the city committee that we serve on together holds "differing opinions." The result, she concludes, is that "We are able to thoughtfully and thoroughly discuss issues and better recommendations have been the result." I believe this is why I have the support of people even after our disagreements.

I have butted heads with many of the people who support my candidacy. At the end of our discussions, they may feel that I'm mistaken, but they know that I hold my opinion out of a sincere belief that it is in the best interest of the community, and that I have tried looking at the issue from their point-of-view.

And this feeling is usually mutual. One of the most rewarding parts of being involved in the community comes from leaving a debate, not with agreement, but with greater understanding and respect for those on the other side of the issue. There are so many people in the community that I hold in high regard, yet there are none that I can think of with whom I always agree.

Vote For Dave - Official Campaign Jingle

Do we have any historians out there? When was the last time a candidate for Provo City Council had a campaign jingle?

You Don't Want My Support

One person figured that I would only accept a $50 donation from them so that I wouldn't need to include their name on the financial disclosure. Another person agreed to write a statement of support, but wondered aloud if it was in my best interest, considering the unpopular stance they took on a recent local issue. Another was surprised that I would even ask if they would support me publicly.

Perhaps the saddest and most surprising sentiment I've come across while campaigning has been from people who feel like outcasts because of their involvement in the community. This sentiment came from a few individuals across the PPS (Provo political spectrum - which is a truly peculiar spectrum). These are good people. They are involved because they genuinely care about Provo. They have worked hard for the betterment of our community. But they feel like they have alienated other involved citizens because they saw an issue differently. They felt that their motivations were questioned when they advocated for an unpopular cause.

Perhaps we, engaged citizens of Provo, need to do a better job of not allowing differences of opinion to drive wedges in relationships. We need to resist the urge to question to the motivations, the understanding, or the intelligence of people who are fighting on the other side of issues. The best policies and decisions come from robust debate and discussion. It hurts our community if people fear to raise their voice of dissent. It erodes our humanity when we harbor animosity towards those with whom we disagree. We should be kind and supportive of the people who care enough to engage in our community, even, and perhaps especially, when we find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue.

Radio Silence

It's been a quiet month on the blog since the primaries. Today I rolled out a revamp of the site that I have been working on for a while. This includes a short bio, a lengthy disposition on important issues that our City and our District are facing, as well as new page about how you can get involved.

With all that important mumbo-jumbo out of the way, I look forward to getting back to my blogging my random musings.

Congratulations and Thank You

Congratulations to George Stewart and Carina Wytiaz on their primary victories in the City-Wide race, and to Dave Knecht and Brian Smith for making it through to the general election in November in the District 3 race.

Hats off to Roger Brown, Jason Christensen, Stevan Davis, and Jeremy Friedbaum, for their love and concern for our community, and willingness to run for the Council. I hope they will continue to work for the future of Provo in whatever roles they find themselves.

Details of the election results (including our dismal voter turnout) can be found here: http://electionmap.provo.org/

Tour of the District

My daughters and I went for a bike ride this evening and I was a bit overwhelmed at what we experienced. Tomorrow evening Dixon neighbors are going on a field trip for our Neighborhood Meeting. We are going to tour the other Pioneer Neighborhoods to see what we can learn and find aspects that we want to emulate. My daughters and I went out this evening to plan our route. We biked through Timpanogos Neighborhood, and into Joaquin Neighborhood. We dropped down to Maeser Neighborhood and back through Franklin Neighborhood. We were looking for both the good and the bad, but came away with a greater appreciation for the special community that we live in. We were awed by the historic, stately homes, but admired the beautifully maintained yards of smaller, cute homes just as much. We were focused on our task to prepare for the neighborhood meeting, but at one point I commented to my oldest that everything we had seen this evening is the area that I hope to represent on the Council. "Whoa," she said, "I love our district." I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'll try to remember my camera tomorrow night.

Civics 101

So I'm brushing up on my civics. Here are some excerpts from documents that I've been considering. I'd love to get a conversation going, either in the comment section below or over at my Campaign Page on Facebook, where conversations seem to flow more freely. Particularly if you live in Provo, and particularly if you live in District 5, I'd like to know your thoughts on this subject, but I'll welcome thoughtful comments from anyone.

Let's start at the top with the federal government:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."--Declaration of Independence

It strikes me that "Happiness" is mentioned twice; we have an unalienable right to pursue Happiness, and the People have the right organize the Government as we see best to effect our Safety and Happiness. Government is instituted to secure our God-given, unalienable Rights. Governments derive legitimate authority from the consent of the People. What constitutes consent? Is it only active consent or does passive consent count? If a single individual doesn't consent, does that mean the government doesn't have authority over that individual? On the flip side, does majority consent bind all individuals?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.--The Constitution of the United States

For what purpose was the Constitution established? And more broadly, what is the purpose of government at every level in the United States? I think the Preamble sets out a pretty good list.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. --Gettysburg Address

Liberty and equality.

It is pretty clear to me that our government exists to serve the people, and not the other way around. The government is the orderly process by which we govern ourselves. We are the people, and we are the government. While President Lincoln was speaking of our federal government, I feel this is most true at the local level.

Speaking of the local level, that just happens to be where I'm running. But before turning to the foundational principles in our city code, let's look at the state level. The local government also derives its legitimacy from the people, but it is authorized through the State government. So what does the State Constitution say?

Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION. --Preamble

The purpose statement is shorter and a bit more general in our state constitution. What exactly constitutes "free government"? Perhaps some of the following excerpts shed some light on this question.

All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right. --Article I, Section 1

What does it mean to be responsible for the abuse of this right? At times our conversations about government focus solely on our rights and neglect to consider our responsibilities. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should do it, or that it is laudable to do it. Sometimes it seems that our popular culture misses this point. We have the right to free speech, even if it is offensive, but that doesn't mean we should encourage people to be offensive or praise them when they are offensive.
Is this saying that we must be held responsible for our individual misuse of this right, or that we must be responsible (i.e. on guard) to ensure that this right isn't abused (i.e. denied)? Who decides what constitutes an abuse of free speech?

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require. --Article I, Section 2

I love the reaffirmation that the power resides with the people. This is being addressed at the State level, but is clearly being directed at all levels. Alterations and reform is our right and public welfare is the stated aim.

Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. --Article I, Section 22

I've heard some people argue that the money collected in taxes is private property. How does this view fit in with Section 22? Taxes are collected for public use. Do the services provided by the government constitute "compensation"? How can we ensure that this compensation is just?

Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government. --Article I, Section 27

Any thoughts on the meaning of recurrence?

I am not aware of a City document comparable to our state or federal constitutions. The General Plan and Vision 2030 documents lay out a vision for our community, but don't necessarily lay out foundational principles of government. I figure these documents deserve a blog post of their own. From the City Code I did find this gem regarding the structure of the City government and the relationship of the two branches.

The municipal government of Provo City is vested in two (2) separate, independent and equal branches of municipal government; the executive branch consisting of a mayor, a chief administrative officer, and the administrative departments and officers; and the legislative branch consisting of a Municipal Council having seven (7) members. --2.01.010. Municipal Government.

So what are your thoughts?