“A good leader inspires people to have confidence in the leader; a great leader inspires people to have confidence in themselves.”
As the mayoral race in Provo is now coming to an end, voters need to ask themselves whether the candidates can be considered a leader for Provo. Leadership has many definitions, but the quote I found stated at the beginning of this post sums up leadership quite well. You can have a good leader, but you can also have a great leader. The people of Provo need to have the innate ability to trust the Mayor, as the responsibilities of this office are far reaching throughout all sectors and facets of our community.
John Curtis has been campaigning now for nearly one year, going door-to-door, becoming a household name. People know him, have seen his signs, and he has attended multiple community and civic events in Provo. What Mr. Curtis has been doing is trying to show the people that they can have confidence in him to lead their city; that he is trustworthy and responsible to hold a calling of such high importance. Mr. Curtis is not afraid to brag about the large number of high-profile supporters that have, over the past year, attached their names to his campaign. These people obviously trust Mr. Curtis to be a good leader and have a degree of confidence in him.
Yet what is to be said of Mr. Curtis being a great leader for Provo? Has Mr. Curtis inspired the people of Provo to not only believe in his ability to lead, but to encourage people to have confidence in themselves, their neighborhoods, and in their City? Mr. Curtis is quoted as saying that the people of Provo “can’t assume that Provo is the safe place that we would like it to be and that we think it is.” He is essentially saying that the people of Provo, despite their best efforts, cannot believe that they are living in a safe community. They cannot have confidence in their abilities to solve issues within their neighborhoods and schools. However, they can have confidence in Mr. Curtis’ ability to reduce a supposed gang epidemic in our community through his three-point plan. Yet, recent reports from Mayor Billings’ address to the City have stated that gang related crimes and graffiti as a whole are both down in dramatic numbers. The mixture of well-trained police officers and strong neighborhoods has brought these numbers down, not the singular acts of a politician.
Mr. Curtis has talked vehemently about his desire for a 20-year vision for our City. He states that the General Plan has “failed us.” Without ever pointing to the people of Provo which sections of this Plan have failed us, Mr. Curtis is asking for the authority to dictate to an entire city what vision should be held for the future of our neighborhoods. Even Mr. Curtis admitted during the Edgemont Neighborhood meeting that as he has gone door-to-door asking people where they would like to see the City in 20-years and, as a result, he received a different answer with every person. Mr. Curtis is not asking the people of Provo for their input in this matter, he is asking for authority to make a decision for you. He does not want your input, just your vote to give him the right to tell you where your City is going to be headed for the next two decades. Wouldn’t a great leader seek from his people their strengths in forming a plan that will directly affect their futures and wellbeing, or would he sit in a room of people who believe as he does in order to form a personal vision for over 100,000 people?
In matters of governance, Mr. Curtis has stated that the form of government established within our City (also known as a Strong Mayor/Council Form of Government) is meant to have tension between both the Mayor and Council. Strangely enough, a statement such as this shows he has neither confidence in himself or in the Council members that he may be working with to lead and guide the City. Tension in any organization, especially political, never yields positive consequences. For those of you who disagree please show me the merit in the current debacle on Capitol Hill where tension dominates reason. Tension between the two separate, yet equal, branches of government in Provo City (Administrative and Legislative) is like a check engine light on your vehicle. It is a sign that something is amiss. If Mr. Curtis truly believes that tension must be present in order for the two most important organizations in our community to function, then he has neither confidence in the individuals he will work with or that they can have confidence in him.
In my opinion, I do believe there are many, many people who have confidence in Mr. Curtis to lead and guide this City for the next four years. However, does Mr. Curtis have confidence in those people to also lead and guide their City for the next four years, or does he simply believe that this ability will come from his office alone?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Stresses of Provo
This evening, the Edgemont neighborhood held a debate at the Timpanogos Elementary School where Steve Clark, John Curtis, and a few individuals seeking Council seats came to answer questions. I was disappointed that the candidates were only able to answer a few questions each and most of the issues were those that have been asked at nearly every public venue since the primaries (i.e. Economic Development, constructing a recreation center, etc.). There was, however, a point of interest during the introductions of the evening. Mr. Curtis made a point of telling the audience that the process candidates going through while seeking public office in this City is grueling and stressful, but he has learned a great deal from his time on the streets talking with people. He stated that the stress is a great weight loss tool (having almost lost seven pounds) and it is causing many a sleepless night. He also stated that he will be relieved when November 3rd is gone and can finally get some sleep.
No one doubts that the process of running for elected office is stressful; Provo is not alone in the refiner’s fire of purging candidates about their past and current associations, plans, visions, and goals. This is the public testing the waters to see if they can trust an elected official with their neighborhoods and tax dollars. Criticism has fallen hard on Curtis, some may say because he has a flip-flopping past between political parties or refuses to provide concrete plans. Others might say that he is the victim of any individual who seeks to implement change in a society that holds engrained ideologies. Regardless of your perception of why criticism is directed towards Mr. Curtis, we can all agree that it is beginning to show on his demeanor.
What I believe Mr. Curtis fails to realize is that the hardest part of his journey is not the path leading to November 3rd, as he is looking to this day as a release from a majority of his current stresses and sorrows. November 4th is when the true stresses will begin for either John Curtis or Steve Clark, because right now both candidates are only concerned with garnering enough votes to obtain office. After being elected, they will need to worry about appeasing the entirety of Provo City, not just their constituents. Life right now is only a small hill to climb, but the Mayor’s direct responsibilities will be like scaling Mount Everest. If the trials and stresses of the campaign are causing you to lose weight and not sleep, Mr. Curtis, then if you are elected you will have four years of little-to-no sleep and may have to buy a new wardrobe to fit your new physique.
These new-found stresses to Mr. Curtis’ campaign might also be linked to a report released today by Mayor Lewis Billings about the state of our City. Mayor Billings announced that we are the safest City in Utah, with the lowest rate of property crimes and second-lowest (Orem had the lowest rate) in violent crimes. What came as a stunning blow to Curtis’ campaign is that Mayor Billings announced that instances of graffiti are down 36 percent compared to the same period of time in 2008. Gang activity, which has been fanned into the fire of a supposed epidemic by Mr. Curtis, was reported to be “down 49 percent from the same period last year.” [1] Billings also stated that “people should not assume that all graffiti is gang-related,” placing massive holes in Curtis’ belief that graffiti is linking a notorious street gang to our community. All of these data-based facts are a direct contradiction to Mr. Curtis’ assumption that he made at the Chamber of Commerce debate when he said “we can’t assume that Provo is the safe place that we would like it to be and that we think it is.” Mr. Curtis, Provo is a safe community, and your “facts” about gang activity and lack of safety in our community is showing its true colors: sensationalism meant to instill fear in the hearts of people, which is nothing but an elaborate charade of lies and deceit. You should be stressed, Mr. Curtis, because people are finally seeing who you really are.
[1] http://heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/article_acdab9fc-ebca-5fa0-b7e7-bcf7029ef00d.html
No one doubts that the process of running for elected office is stressful; Provo is not alone in the refiner’s fire of purging candidates about their past and current associations, plans, visions, and goals. This is the public testing the waters to see if they can trust an elected official with their neighborhoods and tax dollars. Criticism has fallen hard on Curtis, some may say because he has a flip-flopping past between political parties or refuses to provide concrete plans. Others might say that he is the victim of any individual who seeks to implement change in a society that holds engrained ideologies. Regardless of your perception of why criticism is directed towards Mr. Curtis, we can all agree that it is beginning to show on his demeanor.
What I believe Mr. Curtis fails to realize is that the hardest part of his journey is not the path leading to November 3rd, as he is looking to this day as a release from a majority of his current stresses and sorrows. November 4th is when the true stresses will begin for either John Curtis or Steve Clark, because right now both candidates are only concerned with garnering enough votes to obtain office. After being elected, they will need to worry about appeasing the entirety of Provo City, not just their constituents. Life right now is only a small hill to climb, but the Mayor’s direct responsibilities will be like scaling Mount Everest. If the trials and stresses of the campaign are causing you to lose weight and not sleep, Mr. Curtis, then if you are elected you will have four years of little-to-no sleep and may have to buy a new wardrobe to fit your new physique.
These new-found stresses to Mr. Curtis’ campaign might also be linked to a report released today by Mayor Lewis Billings about the state of our City. Mayor Billings announced that we are the safest City in Utah, with the lowest rate of property crimes and second-lowest (Orem had the lowest rate) in violent crimes. What came as a stunning blow to Curtis’ campaign is that Mayor Billings announced that instances of graffiti are down 36 percent compared to the same period of time in 2008. Gang activity, which has been fanned into the fire of a supposed epidemic by Mr. Curtis, was reported to be “down 49 percent from the same period last year.” [1] Billings also stated that “people should not assume that all graffiti is gang-related,” placing massive holes in Curtis’ belief that graffiti is linking a notorious street gang to our community. All of these data-based facts are a direct contradiction to Mr. Curtis’ assumption that he made at the Chamber of Commerce debate when he said “we can’t assume that Provo is the safe place that we would like it to be and that we think it is.” Mr. Curtis, Provo is a safe community, and your “facts” about gang activity and lack of safety in our community is showing its true colors: sensationalism meant to instill fear in the hearts of people, which is nothing but an elaborate charade of lies and deceit. You should be stressed, Mr. Curtis, because people are finally seeing who you really are.
[1] http://heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/article_acdab9fc-ebca-5fa0-b7e7-bcf7029ef00d.html
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Which Story is True?
John Curtis, on his campaign website, has placed a new article in his rumors section about the recent mailer sent out by the Steve Clark for Mayor Campaign. This mailer showed that John Curtis had run as a Democrat for a State Senate seat and also Chaired and Vice-Chaired the Utah County Democrats. Mr. Curtis is claiming that this is a drastic attempt to stain his reputation and name by blankly labeling him as a Democrat, and that information like this has no place in a non-partisan race. He also claims that the Clark Campaign is delving into half-truths in regards to his political past, because, in his opinion, Mr. Curtis has always been and always will be a man of Republican values and beliefs.
My readers will know that, previous to this mailer, I have written two articles about this very issue, that of partisan politics in a non-partisan race. Does it have a place in this current mayoral race? To summarize my other two posts in three-words: absolutely, positively, and yes. This mailer isn’t about a smear campaign to discredit Curtis as an individual because he happened to run as a Democrat, then a Republican, and is now trying his luck at a non-partisan race; this is about a track record of honesty and sustaining core values. To flip-flop between the Democratic and Republican parties in the State of Utah is more than enough to raise a few eyebrows, but what Steve Clark is asking the people of Provo is simple: “What does John Curtis stand for?”
I invite you to read or re-read my two posts A Tale of Two Curtises and Dramatic Shift to the Right or Left for more detailed information about this issue. I also invite you to read Mr. Curtis’ explanation about why he feels this is not an issue on his website under the ‘Rumors’ section. Yet he still, in my mind, has not explained sufficiently why he made such drastic moves, as failing to gain public office in two different parties and trying your luck at a non-partisan race is more than curious. In summary, this curiosity comes from Mr. Curtis openly contradicting himself about his political background, as is shown below:
“I am running as a Utah County Democrat because the changes to the 2000 platform have brought it into close harmony with my core values.” [1]
"I've been a Republican my whole life...I joined a dramatic attempt to align the Utah County Democratic Party with Utah County values...My values have never changed. My beliefs have never changed." [2]
Two different stories, two very different backgrounds. There is no smear campaigning going on because Steve Clark is concerned about a candidate who is trying to jade his political background by openly deceiving the public about his positions, beliefs, and values. Let us remember that it wasn't Steve Clark who brought the issues of party politics into the fray, it was John Curtis trying to 'clear the air' about his political background. Just like in the court, Mr. Curtis, if you bring in evidence in an attempt to bolster your case, then you give your opposition the right to use it, also. People of Provo, which story are you going to believe, or are you going to allow Mr. Curtis to tell multiple stories about his political background and values? The choice is yours.
[1] http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/CandidateDetail.html?&CandidateID=13693
[2] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650219973/2-vie-for-Provo-House-seat.html
My readers will know that, previous to this mailer, I have written two articles about this very issue, that of partisan politics in a non-partisan race. Does it have a place in this current mayoral race? To summarize my other two posts in three-words: absolutely, positively, and yes. This mailer isn’t about a smear campaign to discredit Curtis as an individual because he happened to run as a Democrat, then a Republican, and is now trying his luck at a non-partisan race; this is about a track record of honesty and sustaining core values. To flip-flop between the Democratic and Republican parties in the State of Utah is more than enough to raise a few eyebrows, but what Steve Clark is asking the people of Provo is simple: “What does John Curtis stand for?”
I invite you to read or re-read my two posts A Tale of Two Curtises and Dramatic Shift to the Right or Left for more detailed information about this issue. I also invite you to read Mr. Curtis’ explanation about why he feels this is not an issue on his website under the ‘Rumors’ section. Yet he still, in my mind, has not explained sufficiently why he made such drastic moves, as failing to gain public office in two different parties and trying your luck at a non-partisan race is more than curious. In summary, this curiosity comes from Mr. Curtis openly contradicting himself about his political background, as is shown below:
“I am running as a Utah County Democrat because the changes to the 2000 platform have brought it into close harmony with my core values.” [1]
"I've been a Republican my whole life...I joined a dramatic attempt to align the Utah County Democratic Party with Utah County values...My values have never changed. My beliefs have never changed." [2]
Two different stories, two very different backgrounds. There is no smear campaigning going on because Steve Clark is concerned about a candidate who is trying to jade his political background by openly deceiving the public about his positions, beliefs, and values. Let us remember that it wasn't Steve Clark who brought the issues of party politics into the fray, it was John Curtis trying to 'clear the air' about his political background. Just like in the court, Mr. Curtis, if you bring in evidence in an attempt to bolster your case, then you give your opposition the right to use it, also. People of Provo, which story are you going to believe, or are you going to allow Mr. Curtis to tell multiple stories about his political background and values? The choice is yours.
[1] http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/CandidateDetail.html?&CandidateID=13693
[2] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650219973/2-vie-for-Provo-House-seat.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Words of (un)Wisdom
Since the mayoral elections are coming up very soon, I decided to re-watch the mayoral debate from the Chamber of Commerce. Have you ever read a book, picked it up at a later date and then read something completely different that you didn’t read before? I had the same experience while watching this debate again, and I honestly cannot believe that I missed such a grand statement from Mr. John Curtis.
When the issue of Downtown Development was being discussed, Mr. Curtis was talking about his disdain for studies. He talked about how we have performed studies and done nothing as a result of them; even what he considers “simple changes” the City is not even touching (i.e. new signage, more advertising, etc.). But the biggest statement of all came when he stated, very clearly, the following:
“What we need to do to Downtown is to do is something. I don’t even care if it is wrong. In my business, we make mistakes all the time. We need to be prepared to make some mistakes Downtown and just do something.”
Honestly, the only word that is coming to mind is “wow.” After I heard this, I had to rewind, listen, and rewind again. I could not believe what I just heard. Some might say “we do need to start doing something and stop talking about it!” I agree that if we continue on our current route that nothing will happen, but reread what Mr. Curtis has stated. He plainly stated that he wants to do something, and he doesn’t even care if that “something” is completely wrong for Downtown! But be not afraid, little citizens of Provo, because Mr. Curtis is a businessman and in that world “[they] make mistakes all the time.”
You have heard me say it before, and I am going to say it again: this statement shows, unabashedly, that Mr. Curtis has absolutely NO understanding of municipal financing. Allow me to explain for those of you who are not catching my drift. If Mr. Curtis wanted to make a personal business move or investment with Action Target, he would weigh the cost versus benefits of any decision he would potentially make. He might invest hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions into a cause if he felt that it would yield a desirable return (he would ‘study’ the issues). However, if the investment did not yield the desired financial outcomes and he lost hundreds, thousands, or millions, only he would be out that much capital for his personal gain.
Now, let us compare this to a municipal organization. The City of Provo is funded by the tax-payer dollars of the citizenry, and these funds are continually watched to ensure they are safeguarded against fraud and waste. Now let’s say Mr. Curtis is elected as Mayor of Provo and he decides to implement his personal belief that we just need to do “something” in Downtown Provo, because he’s a businessman and knows that mistakes are made. Let’s say that he invests hundreds-of-thousands of dollars into infrastructure, signage, or some other item that isn’t needed and it yields nothing to benefit Downtown. The consequence of such a decision is that a large portion of tax-payer funds is now gone, but to John Curtis, that is simply the price of business.
This is why, ladies and gentlemen, you can’t run government like a business. When tax-payer dollars are financing operations, you need to be accountable to the people who are writing your checks. Mr. Curtis has yet to separate himself from the business persona; he is diluted into thinking that he can jump into the Mayor’s Office and frivolously spend tax-payer dollars for campaign goals and ambitions, regardless of the consequences. Why? Because he doesn’t care if the City does something wrong and wastes money in the process, because that is the reality of business. I’m going to be the pinch in your sugarplum world, Mr. Curtis. You are not running for a business, you are running for a political office. If you are elected and believe you can simply implement anything, whether it is wrong or not, in Downtown, then you will make the iProvo fiasco look like a walk in the park.
This is why I have been telling my readers, nearly since day one, to ask Mr. Curtis how he plans to pay for his plans and operations. If you cannot see that Mr. Curtis is fiscally irresponsible in terms of municipal financing, then I do not know what else will open your eyes. The City of Provo literally cannot afford a Mayor who believes that tax-payer money is a revenue source for risky investments that fit a personal agenda. Mr. Curtis states he doesn’t like studies, task forces, or ideas that come from group sessions. He wants to blaze his own trail here in Provo, regardless of the consequences, and you’re along for the ride whether you like it or not. Mr. Curtis, PROVO IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL BUSINESS!
When the issue of Downtown Development was being discussed, Mr. Curtis was talking about his disdain for studies. He talked about how we have performed studies and done nothing as a result of them; even what he considers “simple changes” the City is not even touching (i.e. new signage, more advertising, etc.). But the biggest statement of all came when he stated, very clearly, the following:
“What we need to do to Downtown is to do is something. I don’t even care if it is wrong. In my business, we make mistakes all the time. We need to be prepared to make some mistakes Downtown and just do something.”
Honestly, the only word that is coming to mind is “wow.” After I heard this, I had to rewind, listen, and rewind again. I could not believe what I just heard. Some might say “we do need to start doing something and stop talking about it!” I agree that if we continue on our current route that nothing will happen, but reread what Mr. Curtis has stated. He plainly stated that he wants to do something, and he doesn’t even care if that “something” is completely wrong for Downtown! But be not afraid, little citizens of Provo, because Mr. Curtis is a businessman and in that world “[they] make mistakes all the time.”
You have heard me say it before, and I am going to say it again: this statement shows, unabashedly, that Mr. Curtis has absolutely NO understanding of municipal financing. Allow me to explain for those of you who are not catching my drift. If Mr. Curtis wanted to make a personal business move or investment with Action Target, he would weigh the cost versus benefits of any decision he would potentially make. He might invest hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions into a cause if he felt that it would yield a desirable return (he would ‘study’ the issues). However, if the investment did not yield the desired financial outcomes and he lost hundreds, thousands, or millions, only he would be out that much capital for his personal gain.
Now, let us compare this to a municipal organization. The City of Provo is funded by the tax-payer dollars of the citizenry, and these funds are continually watched to ensure they are safeguarded against fraud and waste. Now let’s say Mr. Curtis is elected as Mayor of Provo and he decides to implement his personal belief that we just need to do “something” in Downtown Provo, because he’s a businessman and knows that mistakes are made. Let’s say that he invests hundreds-of-thousands of dollars into infrastructure, signage, or some other item that isn’t needed and it yields nothing to benefit Downtown. The consequence of such a decision is that a large portion of tax-payer funds is now gone, but to John Curtis, that is simply the price of business.
This is why, ladies and gentlemen, you can’t run government like a business. When tax-payer dollars are financing operations, you need to be accountable to the people who are writing your checks. Mr. Curtis has yet to separate himself from the business persona; he is diluted into thinking that he can jump into the Mayor’s Office and frivolously spend tax-payer dollars for campaign goals and ambitions, regardless of the consequences. Why? Because he doesn’t care if the City does something wrong and wastes money in the process, because that is the reality of business. I’m going to be the pinch in your sugarplum world, Mr. Curtis. You are not running for a business, you are running for a political office. If you are elected and believe you can simply implement anything, whether it is wrong or not, in Downtown, then you will make the iProvo fiasco look like a walk in the park.
This is why I have been telling my readers, nearly since day one, to ask Mr. Curtis how he plans to pay for his plans and operations. If you cannot see that Mr. Curtis is fiscally irresponsible in terms of municipal financing, then I do not know what else will open your eyes. The City of Provo literally cannot afford a Mayor who believes that tax-payer money is a revenue source for risky investments that fit a personal agenda. Mr. Curtis states he doesn’t like studies, task forces, or ideas that come from group sessions. He wants to blaze his own trail here in Provo, regardless of the consequences, and you’re along for the ride whether you like it or not. Mr. Curtis, PROVO IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL BUSINESS!
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Bureaucratic Debacle
Recently Mr. Curtis has begun to openly attack Steve Clark’s tentative plan to implement a mentor in the process of starting and running a business in Provo. Mr. Curtis has stated that Mr. Clark’s plan will simply add more bureaucracy to a system already rife with unnecessary rules and regulations. It seems that both candidates believe that there needs to be some type of change with this system in order to make doing business in Provo easier, thereby attracting more businesses (and jobs) to our community. However, the manner in which the candidates seek to implement change is drastically different.
Mr. Curtis has made it abundantly clear that he hates bureaucracy. On his campaign website, Curtis states that he will “[reduce] the costs of doing business in Provo through streamlining and reducing bureaucracy…Government does best when it helps the entrepreneur and stays out of their way.” [1] When it comes to business development, Curtis wants government to be a silent observer and to interfere as little as possible. Curtis wants “less government intrusion and more economic development and growth,” but can he really have his cake and eat it, too? [1] The main problem with Curtis’ plan is that he will be, if elected Mayor, the head of Administrative services for the City of Provo, meaning he needs to ensure the system is providing services in an efficient and equitable manner. However, Curtis has already stated that he wants to reduce the bureaucracy of Provo and streamline business development, without giving a solid plan of how he is going to do this. The words “reducing bureaucracy” and “less government” usually equates to eliminating positions at City Hall. Yet eliminating positions does not reduce bureaucracy, and the number of employees is not directly correlated to the extent of bureaucracy within a municipality.
This is where Mr. Curtis is confused about what municipal government and bureaucracy actually is. Bureaucracy is simply an established order of hierarchies, rules, and regulations in order to delegate responsibilities and duties. If Mr. Curtis wants to reduce bureaucracy in Provo, then he will need to eliminate rules that are currently in place for potential business owners to open shop in Provo. In other words, Curtis’ plan is a clarion call for a complete overhaul of how business is done in Provo. This means authority outside of the office of Mayor; an effort that will need to full cooperation of the City Council in order to change, add, or eliminate current rules and regulations that are set in order to regulate business activity. As a result of changing the basic rules of starting and running a business in Provo, this would devolve down to restructuring individual City department rules, organization, and regulation in order to inform City employees of the complete overhaul of the system. Do you understand what all of these changes will mean to individual citizens and prospective business owners alike? More tax-payer funds spent; more time and resources utilized at the City level to train and reorganize entire teams and departments, including the potential loss of jobs in the process; and time losing potential business clients while we seek to reform a system which is not broken.
Steve Clark’s plan for improving the way businesses open shop in Provo is drastically different from Mr. Curtis’ plan. Where Mr. Curtis wants to tear down the current system and build it anew, Mr. Clark is advocating a map through the current process. Mr. Clark is seeking a mentor with whom potential business owners can communicate with in order to expedite business creation in Provo. This mentor would do the legwork in City Hall for the prospective owners, and inform them of forms, information, and fees they would need in order to complete the process. Potential business owners would no longer need to walk from department-to-department seeking assistance in creating a business because the mentor would literally walk them through the process. Mr. Clark linked this plan to the same tasks a personal banker engages in every day. When first entering a bank, a customer might know about basic services offered by the bank, but they do not know where to begin, what specific forms to fill out, or how much money they will need for services offered by the bank. This is where the banker plays a key role, because the banker understands the banking system better than the common person and can help an individual navigate through options and help him/her understand services offered. In essence, Mr. Clark’s plan for improving the business process at City Hall is to add customer service representatives who understand the process and rules set forth by the City and help potential business owners navigate through the requirements.
Looking back at the differences between these two plans, we can plainly see a vast difference in opinions between these two candidates. Mr. Curtis seems to believe that adding a customer service representative to the process will somehow add another level of bureaucracy to development here in Provo. When in reality, Steve Clark’s plan doesn’t rely on more government; his plan actually lowers it and makes government more accessible. Rather than a potential business owner talking to and filling out paperwork with multiple individuals from multiple departments, these individuals will have the option of talking with just one person in order to navigate, from start to finish, the process of starting a business.
The candidates have two very different plans which boil down the following:
John Curtis: Wants to completely reorganize the bureaucracy of doing business in Provo to make the process “easier” with “less intrusion.” He will do this by “streamlining and reducing bureaucracy,” which will require complete restructuring of department organization, operating procedures, and rules. This plan would need a majority vote of the City Council in order to come to fruition and may take years to implement successfully.
Steve Clark: Wants to add a customer service position (i.e. business mentor) that will assist potential business owners through the current system. This will require potential business owners to have a single contact at the City, thereby making the process both easier and less intrusive to the individual. Since there is no restructuring of government rules or organization, the City Council would not need to vote on approval of the system. The change could be implemented immediately since the representative would be navigating the current system.
Now, which plans sounds like additional bureaucracy to you? Guess which plan will end up costing you more in the end? In Curtis’ efforts to eliminate bureaucracy, he is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill by completely changing processes he feels are frustrating and cumbersome. Perhaps he could enlighten the people of Provo why he feels the current system is in need of a complete overhaul, and what a new system would represent in order to balance the needs of a business and protection to neighborhoods? Mr. Curtis has stated that Mr. Clark’s plan is similar to what Ronald Reagan once said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Yet there is another quote that comes to mind from Ronald Reagan to explain Curtis’ plan: “Facts are stubborn things.” The FACT of the matter is, Mr. Curtis, that Steve Clark’s plan doesn’t add another level to bureaucracy, since this would simply be a customer service position that would be opt-in or opt-out for potential business owners. If someone felt they could navigate the system alone, they would not be forced to work through a representative; if they got lost through the process, the business mentor would be present to assist them to get back on track. It is your plan, Mr. Curtis, which fits the nine most terrifying words in the English language, because if you are Mayor of Provo and seek to change the system, you are literally telling potential business owners that you’re there to help (and you will be the HEAD of government). Ironic, isn’t it? Steve Clark’s plan is the easiest to implement, while your plan, Mr. Curtis, would call for a complete change of the current system to something you deem better. In fact, I have found a quote which sums up your plan perfectly, Mr. Curtis:
“The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” –Alan Bloom
[1] http://www.johncurtis.org/prosperity.html
Mr. Curtis has made it abundantly clear that he hates bureaucracy. On his campaign website, Curtis states that he will “[reduce] the costs of doing business in Provo through streamlining and reducing bureaucracy…Government does best when it helps the entrepreneur and stays out of their way.” [1] When it comes to business development, Curtis wants government to be a silent observer and to interfere as little as possible. Curtis wants “less government intrusion and more economic development and growth,” but can he really have his cake and eat it, too? [1] The main problem with Curtis’ plan is that he will be, if elected Mayor, the head of Administrative services for the City of Provo, meaning he needs to ensure the system is providing services in an efficient and equitable manner. However, Curtis has already stated that he wants to reduce the bureaucracy of Provo and streamline business development, without giving a solid plan of how he is going to do this. The words “reducing bureaucracy” and “less government” usually equates to eliminating positions at City Hall. Yet eliminating positions does not reduce bureaucracy, and the number of employees is not directly correlated to the extent of bureaucracy within a municipality.
This is where Mr. Curtis is confused about what municipal government and bureaucracy actually is. Bureaucracy is simply an established order of hierarchies, rules, and regulations in order to delegate responsibilities and duties. If Mr. Curtis wants to reduce bureaucracy in Provo, then he will need to eliminate rules that are currently in place for potential business owners to open shop in Provo. In other words, Curtis’ plan is a clarion call for a complete overhaul of how business is done in Provo. This means authority outside of the office of Mayor; an effort that will need to full cooperation of the City Council in order to change, add, or eliminate current rules and regulations that are set in order to regulate business activity. As a result of changing the basic rules of starting and running a business in Provo, this would devolve down to restructuring individual City department rules, organization, and regulation in order to inform City employees of the complete overhaul of the system. Do you understand what all of these changes will mean to individual citizens and prospective business owners alike? More tax-payer funds spent; more time and resources utilized at the City level to train and reorganize entire teams and departments, including the potential loss of jobs in the process; and time losing potential business clients while we seek to reform a system which is not broken.
Steve Clark’s plan for improving the way businesses open shop in Provo is drastically different from Mr. Curtis’ plan. Where Mr. Curtis wants to tear down the current system and build it anew, Mr. Clark is advocating a map through the current process. Mr. Clark is seeking a mentor with whom potential business owners can communicate with in order to expedite business creation in Provo. This mentor would do the legwork in City Hall for the prospective owners, and inform them of forms, information, and fees they would need in order to complete the process. Potential business owners would no longer need to walk from department-to-department seeking assistance in creating a business because the mentor would literally walk them through the process. Mr. Clark linked this plan to the same tasks a personal banker engages in every day. When first entering a bank, a customer might know about basic services offered by the bank, but they do not know where to begin, what specific forms to fill out, or how much money they will need for services offered by the bank. This is where the banker plays a key role, because the banker understands the banking system better than the common person and can help an individual navigate through options and help him/her understand services offered. In essence, Mr. Clark’s plan for improving the business process at City Hall is to add customer service representatives who understand the process and rules set forth by the City and help potential business owners navigate through the requirements.
Looking back at the differences between these two plans, we can plainly see a vast difference in opinions between these two candidates. Mr. Curtis seems to believe that adding a customer service representative to the process will somehow add another level of bureaucracy to development here in Provo. When in reality, Steve Clark’s plan doesn’t rely on more government; his plan actually lowers it and makes government more accessible. Rather than a potential business owner talking to and filling out paperwork with multiple individuals from multiple departments, these individuals will have the option of talking with just one person in order to navigate, from start to finish, the process of starting a business.
The candidates have two very different plans which boil down the following:
John Curtis: Wants to completely reorganize the bureaucracy of doing business in Provo to make the process “easier” with “less intrusion.” He will do this by “streamlining and reducing bureaucracy,” which will require complete restructuring of department organization, operating procedures, and rules. This plan would need a majority vote of the City Council in order to come to fruition and may take years to implement successfully.
Steve Clark: Wants to add a customer service position (i.e. business mentor) that will assist potential business owners through the current system. This will require potential business owners to have a single contact at the City, thereby making the process both easier and less intrusive to the individual. Since there is no restructuring of government rules or organization, the City Council would not need to vote on approval of the system. The change could be implemented immediately since the representative would be navigating the current system.
Now, which plans sounds like additional bureaucracy to you? Guess which plan will end up costing you more in the end? In Curtis’ efforts to eliminate bureaucracy, he is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill by completely changing processes he feels are frustrating and cumbersome. Perhaps he could enlighten the people of Provo why he feels the current system is in need of a complete overhaul, and what a new system would represent in order to balance the needs of a business and protection to neighborhoods? Mr. Curtis has stated that Mr. Clark’s plan is similar to what Ronald Reagan once said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Yet there is another quote that comes to mind from Ronald Reagan to explain Curtis’ plan: “Facts are stubborn things.” The FACT of the matter is, Mr. Curtis, that Steve Clark’s plan doesn’t add another level to bureaucracy, since this would simply be a customer service position that would be opt-in or opt-out for potential business owners. If someone felt they could navigate the system alone, they would not be forced to work through a representative; if they got lost through the process, the business mentor would be present to assist them to get back on track. It is your plan, Mr. Curtis, which fits the nine most terrifying words in the English language, because if you are Mayor of Provo and seek to change the system, you are literally telling potential business owners that you’re there to help (and you will be the HEAD of government). Ironic, isn’t it? Steve Clark’s plan is the easiest to implement, while your plan, Mr. Curtis, would call for a complete change of the current system to something you deem better. In fact, I have found a quote which sums up your plan perfectly, Mr. Curtis:
“The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” –Alan Bloom
[1] http://www.johncurtis.org/prosperity.html
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sensationalism at its worst: MS-13 in Provo?
For those of you who attended the Daily Herald mayoral debate earlier this week, I’m sure you had as good of a time as I did. Both of the candidates, in my opinion, did exceptionally well. Both had their hits and misses, but there is one aspect in Curtis’ material that I disagree with emphatically. The debate quickly touched upon the issue of gangs in our City, and Mr. Curtis was quick to start listing gangs who are currently present and active in our community. One of the gangs he rambled off with such ease was MS-13, a talking point which shows two facts about Mr. Curtis: he has his ‘facts’ mixed up about gang issues in Provo and he is trying to utilize fear in order to garner support for his campaign.
For those of you who heard Mr. Curtis talking about MS-13, you may find his information strangely familiar to a KSL news article written nearly two years ago. [1] But first, you may be wondering ‘what in the world is MS-13?’ Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, found its origins in southern California after refugees from a civil war in El Salvador ran to the United States for safety. Many of these young refugees quickly banded together in order to fight back attacks from other street gangs in the area, combining under the banner MS-13 which derives the name from La Mara (a notorious Salvadorian gang), Salvatruchas (peasant members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front), and the ‘13’ was added to honor the symbol of the Mexican Mafia. [2] This gang is notorious for funding operations through killing-for-hire and heavy drug trafficking. The methods used to contain this notorious gang in El Salvador are so encompassing that they have a special prison to house only members of this gang. If you want to know more about this gang and the specific details of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind their operations, I suggest you following the [2] link and read the article. In general, the website www.knowgangs.com is a wonderful resource to anyone wanting to know more about specific gangs.
Now back to the subject at hand. Mr. Curtis seems to believe that Provo is now home to members of this notorious El Salvador-based gang. My question for Mr. Curtis is what evidence does he have that the police do not have? The same article Mr. Curtis plagiarized most of his ‘facts’ from stated that “the MS-13 gang hasn’t flexed its muscles much here [Utah] yet, but it may be recruiting members as young as 8 years old” (emphasis added). [1] What Mr. Curtis doesn’t seem to realize is when MS-13 is present in a community, you will know it. MS-13 is not engaged in petty theft, but their entire organization is focused around “very violent, high-profile criminal activity.” [1] Why high-profile criminal activity, like murder-for-hire or killing witnesses to crimes? Because, like most gangs, they realize that the media will, like a moth to the flame, come with their cameras and newspapers to do the publicity for them. Yet the only problem here is that Mr. Curtis is acting like the media, trying to give credibility to a notorious street gang that has none of the common signs of activity in our community.
Mr. Curtis may try to focus on the ‘fact’ that there has been graffiti spotted that says MS-13. Yet, if you are trying to convince the people of Provo that an incidence of graffiti means a gang is present and active, you are literally standing on a house of cards. It is true that graffiti is one of the lowest forms of gang activity, but the only problem with graffiti is that it is difficult to verify whether the graffiti is truly from associated members of the gang, or whether copycats are to blame. The same article that Mr. Curtis used for his information about MS-13 stated that “one of the unknowns is whether local gangsters who claim membership in MS-13 are really connected to a national or international hierarchy.” [1] Police officers are commonly presented with the problem of dealing with “wannabe” gangsters who are actually not affiliated with gang operations, but just try to look the part because it is ‘cool’ or provides street credibility. Because of this, it is difficult for police officers to pin down gang membership numbers throughout the State of Utah. In other words, just because graffiti is present doesn’t mean that the gang is.
Mr. Curtis might try to say that MS-13 is present in other areas of Utah, so they are here, too. This argument also falls flat, because we cannot compare Provo with other cities. The KSL article states that police have tracked MS-13 members in Park City, West Valley, Tooele, and Salt Lake City, but they gave no reference to the Provo/Orem area. Also, this article also stated that “no major crimes have been attributed” to MS-13 in the entire state of Utah. [1] Also, the danger behind trying to link Provo with areas like West Valley City and Tooele is that every community is different and cannot be compared to each other when we are speaking about an issue like gangs. Since gangs are literally a social issue, we cannot compare our perception of gang activity to another city’s gang activity. The people who make up a community frame the problems and ideals of that community, so what might be considered a problem in Provo may be just a nuisance in West Valley City.
If you are truly concerned about gangs in our neighborhoods, then you really shouldn’t be looking to someone who is trying to gain political office for the ‘facts’ about gangs. Al Valdez, the leading researcher into gang activity in the United States, has talked about the danger of politicians grandstanding ‘gang problems’ to the public. The media is the medium for the public to gain information, and when a politician states that there is a widespread problem of gang activity, the media will either run the story without checking the sources or they will consult the police for further information. However, even if the media goes to the police for information, the stories they will run will never be 100% accurate because they never have all the information that police officials have access to. It is not the job of the media to make a story completely accurate; journalists just need the story to be good enough to sell papers and grab people’s attention. In either situation, the entire story is not presented because only the police can give an accurate representation of gang activity in a community because that is their job. Don’t look towards a politician, the media, or your grandma to get accurate information about gangs because only the police are prepared to address issues as complex as gang activity.
Mr. Curtis is trying to appear and act as the sole authority of gang issues in the City of Provo. By openly proclaiming ‘problems’ to which he has neither authority nor facts, he is causing irreversible damage to the psyche of the Provo citizen. Mr. Curtis claims that a hallmark of his campaign is the safety of our community by stating that “instead of pretending [gangs are not] out there we need to deal with gangs head on.” [3] Is your idea of tackling this issue “head on,” by sensationalizing the presence of MS-13, something that is not even an issue in our community? Are you so paranoid that you believe one of the most notorious and violent gangs in the United States has found a new home in Provo, Utah, because of an article written nearly two years ago? Is your mind so diluted that when a Provo citizen stated to you, in confidence, “if you take away my piece of mind, I have nothing,” that you then parade around telling us that the West Side of Provo is a breeding ground for gang activity and the South Towne Center is filled with gang members? [3] How are your grandstanding, sensationalist comments about gangs helping the people of Provo feel safe? Unsubstantiated ‘facts’ about gangs are just as dangerous as true gang activity, Mr. Curtis, and to paraphrase upon the movie Field of Dreams: if you continue to build a pretense of MS-13 in our community, they will come.
[1] http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2495499
[2] http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/profiles/ms13/
[3] http://www.heraldextra.com/app/elections09/candidates/provo/mayor/
For those of you who heard Mr. Curtis talking about MS-13, you may find his information strangely familiar to a KSL news article written nearly two years ago. [1] But first, you may be wondering ‘what in the world is MS-13?’ Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, found its origins in southern California after refugees from a civil war in El Salvador ran to the United States for safety. Many of these young refugees quickly banded together in order to fight back attacks from other street gangs in the area, combining under the banner MS-13 which derives the name from La Mara (a notorious Salvadorian gang), Salvatruchas (peasant members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front), and the ‘13’ was added to honor the symbol of the Mexican Mafia. [2] This gang is notorious for funding operations through killing-for-hire and heavy drug trafficking. The methods used to contain this notorious gang in El Salvador are so encompassing that they have a special prison to house only members of this gang. If you want to know more about this gang and the specific details of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind their operations, I suggest you following the [2] link and read the article. In general, the website www.knowgangs.com is a wonderful resource to anyone wanting to know more about specific gangs.
Now back to the subject at hand. Mr. Curtis seems to believe that Provo is now home to members of this notorious El Salvador-based gang. My question for Mr. Curtis is what evidence does he have that the police do not have? The same article Mr. Curtis plagiarized most of his ‘facts’ from stated that “the MS-13 gang hasn’t flexed its muscles much here [Utah] yet, but it may be recruiting members as young as 8 years old” (emphasis added). [1] What Mr. Curtis doesn’t seem to realize is when MS-13 is present in a community, you will know it. MS-13 is not engaged in petty theft, but their entire organization is focused around “very violent, high-profile criminal activity.” [1] Why high-profile criminal activity, like murder-for-hire or killing witnesses to crimes? Because, like most gangs, they realize that the media will, like a moth to the flame, come with their cameras and newspapers to do the publicity for them. Yet the only problem here is that Mr. Curtis is acting like the media, trying to give credibility to a notorious street gang that has none of the common signs of activity in our community.
Mr. Curtis may try to focus on the ‘fact’ that there has been graffiti spotted that says MS-13. Yet, if you are trying to convince the people of Provo that an incidence of graffiti means a gang is present and active, you are literally standing on a house of cards. It is true that graffiti is one of the lowest forms of gang activity, but the only problem with graffiti is that it is difficult to verify whether the graffiti is truly from associated members of the gang, or whether copycats are to blame. The same article that Mr. Curtis used for his information about MS-13 stated that “one of the unknowns is whether local gangsters who claim membership in MS-13 are really connected to a national or international hierarchy.” [1] Police officers are commonly presented with the problem of dealing with “wannabe” gangsters who are actually not affiliated with gang operations, but just try to look the part because it is ‘cool’ or provides street credibility. Because of this, it is difficult for police officers to pin down gang membership numbers throughout the State of Utah. In other words, just because graffiti is present doesn’t mean that the gang is.
Mr. Curtis might try to say that MS-13 is present in other areas of Utah, so they are here, too. This argument also falls flat, because we cannot compare Provo with other cities. The KSL article states that police have tracked MS-13 members in Park City, West Valley, Tooele, and Salt Lake City, but they gave no reference to the Provo/Orem area. Also, this article also stated that “no major crimes have been attributed” to MS-13 in the entire state of Utah. [1] Also, the danger behind trying to link Provo with areas like West Valley City and Tooele is that every community is different and cannot be compared to each other when we are speaking about an issue like gangs. Since gangs are literally a social issue, we cannot compare our perception of gang activity to another city’s gang activity. The people who make up a community frame the problems and ideals of that community, so what might be considered a problem in Provo may be just a nuisance in West Valley City.
If you are truly concerned about gangs in our neighborhoods, then you really shouldn’t be looking to someone who is trying to gain political office for the ‘facts’ about gangs. Al Valdez, the leading researcher into gang activity in the United States, has talked about the danger of politicians grandstanding ‘gang problems’ to the public. The media is the medium for the public to gain information, and when a politician states that there is a widespread problem of gang activity, the media will either run the story without checking the sources or they will consult the police for further information. However, even if the media goes to the police for information, the stories they will run will never be 100% accurate because they never have all the information that police officials have access to. It is not the job of the media to make a story completely accurate; journalists just need the story to be good enough to sell papers and grab people’s attention. In either situation, the entire story is not presented because only the police can give an accurate representation of gang activity in a community because that is their job. Don’t look towards a politician, the media, or your grandma to get accurate information about gangs because only the police are prepared to address issues as complex as gang activity.
Mr. Curtis is trying to appear and act as the sole authority of gang issues in the City of Provo. By openly proclaiming ‘problems’ to which he has neither authority nor facts, he is causing irreversible damage to the psyche of the Provo citizen. Mr. Curtis claims that a hallmark of his campaign is the safety of our community by stating that “instead of pretending [gangs are not] out there we need to deal with gangs head on.” [3] Is your idea of tackling this issue “head on,” by sensationalizing the presence of MS-13, something that is not even an issue in our community? Are you so paranoid that you believe one of the most notorious and violent gangs in the United States has found a new home in Provo, Utah, because of an article written nearly two years ago? Is your mind so diluted that when a Provo citizen stated to you, in confidence, “if you take away my piece of mind, I have nothing,” that you then parade around telling us that the West Side of Provo is a breeding ground for gang activity and the South Towne Center is filled with gang members? [3] How are your grandstanding, sensationalist comments about gangs helping the people of Provo feel safe? Unsubstantiated ‘facts’ about gangs are just as dangerous as true gang activity, Mr. Curtis, and to paraphrase upon the movie Field of Dreams: if you continue to build a pretense of MS-13 in our community, they will come.
[1] http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2495499
[2] http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/profiles/ms13/
[3] http://www.heraldextra.com/app/elections09/candidates/provo/mayor/
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dramatic Shift to the Right or Left?
I have come across more pieces of useful information (or negative smearing, depending upon your interpretation of pesky facts) that I would like to share with the people of Provo. As I've stated previously, Mr. Curtis wants the fact that he was a Democrat to go away; too many questions are being asked about the 'why' behind his decision to do so, and since there isn't an easy answer people are starting to question the man's integrity.
Since Provo is the Seat of Utah County, and has been informally dubbed the bastion of conservatism, to be called a Democrat might be likened to a naughty four-letter word. Some might say "who cares about party affiliation," and, to a point, I agree completely. Really, if you're going to be a Republican, stand up for what you believe in. If you are going to be a Democrat you should “stand up and fight…be a Democrat and fight for what you think is right in Utah County.” [1] This previous quote was given by Nancy Jane Woodside, previous Chairwoman of the Utah County Democratic Party. Also interesting about this individual is that Mr. John Curtis served as her Vice Chairman, and at the same speech where she proclaimed this rally call to Democratic values, she also uttered these words:
“You don’t give anything up to those crazies in the Republican party,” she said to applause. “You can stand up to them. We will stand up to them together.” (emphasis added) [1]
“Those crazies in the Republican party.” If this isn’t the pinnacle of negative campaigning, then someone please awaken me from this nightmare. Not only was Mr. Curtis present when these words were uttered, but he served as the Vice Chairman of the leadership committee to stand up to “crazies in the Republican party.” I would like for Mr. Curtis to explain the circumstances behind this situation for himself, in his words, why he aligned himself with a party who thought that the dominant party was rife with “crazies.” Maybe Mr. Curtis will try to tell you that changes to the 2000 Utah County Democratic platform were in “close harmony” with his “core values.” [2] Or maybe he will try to tell you that he was actually a victim of circumstances, that he was actually in “a dramatic attempt to align the Utah County Democratic Party with Utah County values.” [3] Or maybe he will try to tell you that he was simply trying “to give Utah County voters more choices at the ballot box” by putting a (D) instead of a (R) at the end of his name. [3] Whatever his excuse may be, it becomes painfully evident that Mr. Curtis has orchestrated an intricate web of lies and half-truths to deceive the people of Provo about his political background.
By why give such an elaborate story to explain something that should be straightforward and simple to understand? Why not simply state “I ran as a Democrat, I believed in the values, so get off my back”? That because Mr. Curtis, more than anyone else in this race, understands the consequences of running as a Democrat in Utah County. In his own words, Mr. Curtis stated that he lost a political race while running as a Democrat because “there is clearly a confidence level in voting for Republicans…the ‘D’ and the ‘R’ sets up stereotypes in a lot of people’s minds, stereotypes that don’t reflect who I am.” [4]
In response to this, I have two very simple questions, Mr. Curtis: What are these stereotypes you are speaking of, and who are you? Firstly, you speak of stereotypes, and I’m guessing that you are referring to the stereotype that people in Utah view Democrats as the fulcrum of all that is evil in society. Well, the interesting aspect surrounding stereotypes is that they are a two-way street, just like when you stated the following:
“A vote for George W. Bush was a vote against me,” said Curtis. “It’s disheartening to go through what we went through for the campaign and know that we were dead before we even started.” [4]
So, as you bemoaned that ‘stereotypes’ lost you the election (it could never be something as simple as issues or stance, right?), you also delve into the stereotype that any individual who voted for President Bush did not vote for you. If you do not win the mayoral race, are you going to blame “smear campaigning” or “negativity” surrounding your campaign, or will you realize that the issues simply are not stacking up in your favor?
You see, Mr. Curtis, I am not the only person who is questioning your intentions. There are plenty of people out there who are asking ‘who is John Curtis…really?’ When you find yourself surrounded by a mostly conservative audience or being questioned by a conservative newspaper, you gladly state that your “values have never changed” and that you have “been a Republican [your] whole life.” [3] However, if you are in the presence of a more liberal-leaning crowd, you are not afraid to say that you “believe one-party dominance” is “at the heart of the problem” here in Utah; that you are “not afraid to stray form [sic] the stereotypes of the past.” [5] The dualities within your nature are like a tailspin, Mr. Curtis. You bemoan that stereotypes ruined your chances at political office as a Democrat, yet you stated that you ran as a Democrat because you were not afraid to stray from those stereotypes that supposedly doomed you. In fact, after taking Nancy Jane Woodside’s position as Chairman of the Utah County Democrats when she decided to run for public office against a Republican, you said Republicans didn’t “need any more advantage than they already have” when addressing Woodside’s concern that Republicans were always listed first on the ballot. [6]
I believe Mr. Curtis is trying to cross the finish line with a very intricate lie that he has been carrying throughout the entire campaign. Up until recently, Mr. Curtis issued a challenge on his website that he would personally go “toe-to-toe” with any individual who wanted to question his conservative stances; that is until this challenge was taken away. Why erase this off your website, Mr. Curtis? Are the demons of your political past coming to fruition? Are people starting to question your reasoning behind switching parties? Are your past comments betraying your current positions? There really isn’t an easy answer, because Mr. Curtis has spun himself into a web of lies and half-truths that only he can understand which makes matters difficult for the people of Provo. When we want to know what Mr. Curtis truly believes, we can never know because his values are always changing. Even if he stands by his ‘values,’ how are we not to know that this isn’t an artificial attempt to appear conservative so he does not lose another race due to ‘stereotypes’?
People of Provo, you should never vote based on political affiliation alone. You should always look towards the candidate’s issues and platform, and then make a calculated decision on what you believe is best for the City as a whole. Yet when you look towards Mr. Curtis and want a straightforward answer, you really can’t get the answer you’re looking for. The outright lies that have come from his own mouth about his political background is enough to nullify any integrity left within his campaign, all while he accuses his opponents of operating a “whisper campaign” which is spreading “shallow accusations…half truths and rumors.” [7] I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Curtis, but the only person spreading half truths about your background is staring right back at you in the mirror.
[1] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/843209/
[2] http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/CandidateDetail.html?&CandidateID=13693
[3] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650219973/2-vie-for-Provo-House-seat.html
[4] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/850009/?pg=1
[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20010803024809/www.johncurtis.org/q&a.shtml
[6] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/908464/
[7] http://www.johncurtis.org/rumors.html
Since Provo is the Seat of Utah County, and has been informally dubbed the bastion of conservatism, to be called a Democrat might be likened to a naughty four-letter word. Some might say "who cares about party affiliation," and, to a point, I agree completely. Really, if you're going to be a Republican, stand up for what you believe in. If you are going to be a Democrat you should “stand up and fight…be a Democrat and fight for what you think is right in Utah County.” [1] This previous quote was given by Nancy Jane Woodside, previous Chairwoman of the Utah County Democratic Party. Also interesting about this individual is that Mr. John Curtis served as her Vice Chairman, and at the same speech where she proclaimed this rally call to Democratic values, she also uttered these words:
“You don’t give anything up to those crazies in the Republican party,” she said to applause. “You can stand up to them. We will stand up to them together.” (emphasis added) [1]
“Those crazies in the Republican party.” If this isn’t the pinnacle of negative campaigning, then someone please awaken me from this nightmare. Not only was Mr. Curtis present when these words were uttered, but he served as the Vice Chairman of the leadership committee to stand up to “crazies in the Republican party.” I would like for Mr. Curtis to explain the circumstances behind this situation for himself, in his words, why he aligned himself with a party who thought that the dominant party was rife with “crazies.” Maybe Mr. Curtis will try to tell you that changes to the 2000 Utah County Democratic platform were in “close harmony” with his “core values.” [2] Or maybe he will try to tell you that he was actually a victim of circumstances, that he was actually in “a dramatic attempt to align the Utah County Democratic Party with Utah County values.” [3] Or maybe he will try to tell you that he was simply trying “to give Utah County voters more choices at the ballot box” by putting a (D) instead of a (R) at the end of his name. [3] Whatever his excuse may be, it becomes painfully evident that Mr. Curtis has orchestrated an intricate web of lies and half-truths to deceive the people of Provo about his political background.
By why give such an elaborate story to explain something that should be straightforward and simple to understand? Why not simply state “I ran as a Democrat, I believed in the values, so get off my back”? That because Mr. Curtis, more than anyone else in this race, understands the consequences of running as a Democrat in Utah County. In his own words, Mr. Curtis stated that he lost a political race while running as a Democrat because “there is clearly a confidence level in voting for Republicans…the ‘D’ and the ‘R’ sets up stereotypes in a lot of people’s minds, stereotypes that don’t reflect who I am.” [4]
In response to this, I have two very simple questions, Mr. Curtis: What are these stereotypes you are speaking of, and who are you? Firstly, you speak of stereotypes, and I’m guessing that you are referring to the stereotype that people in Utah view Democrats as the fulcrum of all that is evil in society. Well, the interesting aspect surrounding stereotypes is that they are a two-way street, just like when you stated the following:
“A vote for George W. Bush was a vote against me,” said Curtis. “It’s disheartening to go through what we went through for the campaign and know that we were dead before we even started.” [4]
So, as you bemoaned that ‘stereotypes’ lost you the election (it could never be something as simple as issues or stance, right?), you also delve into the stereotype that any individual who voted for President Bush did not vote for you. If you do not win the mayoral race, are you going to blame “smear campaigning” or “negativity” surrounding your campaign, or will you realize that the issues simply are not stacking up in your favor?
You see, Mr. Curtis, I am not the only person who is questioning your intentions. There are plenty of people out there who are asking ‘who is John Curtis…really?’ When you find yourself surrounded by a mostly conservative audience or being questioned by a conservative newspaper, you gladly state that your “values have never changed” and that you have “been a Republican [your] whole life.” [3] However, if you are in the presence of a more liberal-leaning crowd, you are not afraid to say that you “believe one-party dominance” is “at the heart of the problem” here in Utah; that you are “not afraid to stray form [sic] the stereotypes of the past.” [5] The dualities within your nature are like a tailspin, Mr. Curtis. You bemoan that stereotypes ruined your chances at political office as a Democrat, yet you stated that you ran as a Democrat because you were not afraid to stray from those stereotypes that supposedly doomed you. In fact, after taking Nancy Jane Woodside’s position as Chairman of the Utah County Democrats when she decided to run for public office against a Republican, you said Republicans didn’t “need any more advantage than they already have” when addressing Woodside’s concern that Republicans were always listed first on the ballot. [6]
I believe Mr. Curtis is trying to cross the finish line with a very intricate lie that he has been carrying throughout the entire campaign. Up until recently, Mr. Curtis issued a challenge on his website that he would personally go “toe-to-toe” with any individual who wanted to question his conservative stances; that is until this challenge was taken away. Why erase this off your website, Mr. Curtis? Are the demons of your political past coming to fruition? Are people starting to question your reasoning behind switching parties? Are your past comments betraying your current positions? There really isn’t an easy answer, because Mr. Curtis has spun himself into a web of lies and half-truths that only he can understand which makes matters difficult for the people of Provo. When we want to know what Mr. Curtis truly believes, we can never know because his values are always changing. Even if he stands by his ‘values,’ how are we not to know that this isn’t an artificial attempt to appear conservative so he does not lose another race due to ‘stereotypes’?
People of Provo, you should never vote based on political affiliation alone. You should always look towards the candidate’s issues and platform, and then make a calculated decision on what you believe is best for the City as a whole. Yet when you look towards Mr. Curtis and want a straightforward answer, you really can’t get the answer you’re looking for. The outright lies that have come from his own mouth about his political background is enough to nullify any integrity left within his campaign, all while he accuses his opponents of operating a “whisper campaign” which is spreading “shallow accusations…half truths and rumors.” [7] I hate to break the news to you, Mr. Curtis, but the only person spreading half truths about your background is staring right back at you in the mirror.
[1] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/843209/
[2] http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/CandidateDetail.html?&CandidateID=13693
[3] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650219973/2-vie-for-Provo-House-seat.html
[4] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/850009/?pg=1
[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20010803024809/www.johncurtis.org/q&a.shtml
[6] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/908464/
[7] http://www.johncurtis.org/rumors.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)