Talk:Gary Herbert/Archive 1

Herbert and Electronic Voting

On March 24, 2006, Emery County election officials, including Bruce Funk, the County Clerk, wrote Mr. Herbert notifying him of several security problems with the electronic voting machines being used at that county. A report by Harri Hursti outlining the flaws has been made public in redacted form. According to Mr. Funk, Diebold, angry that Funk had allowed outside specialists access to their machines, had requested that Mr. Herbert fire Mr. Funk as a precondition to actions to address the security concerns. Consequently, on April 1 Mr. Funk resigned his office - a resignation that was readily accepted by the Commissioners of Emery County.

wrong, bitch

"As homeland security head for Utah," has nothing to do with the voting machines. How about something like "As elections head for Utah,"

Good Grief!

Anyone understanding the situation in Utah relative to Bruce Funk, a former Emery County Clerk who RESIGNED (which is documented by the Emery County Commission and their tape-recording of the event), knows full-well that Bruce Funk resigned in disgrace after violating a public contract. The Emery County Commission accepted Bruce Funk's resignation and the Election of 2006 went smoothly in Utah, despite Mr. Funk's nonsensical postings on internet websites.

To say that "Bruce Funk was locked out of his office" is absurd and has no bearing of truth. He quit his job and the commissioners accepted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.210.49 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Also...

Bruce Funk's friends, who have decided to challenge this wikipedia-post, lack even the beginning of the understanding of Utah law. The claim is that "Herbert Fired Funk," which they constantly portray in website blogs, is totally incorrect. The Lt. Governor of Utah cannot fire a county clerk - that has to be done by the voters of that particular county. Mr. Funk resigned his office (at his own discretion) and his resignation was accepted, unanimously, by the Emery County Commission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.210.49 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Poor writing

What the heck does this mean?

Gary R. Herbert, upon his election to the office of Utah Lieutenant Governor in 2004, immediately ceased the efforts of his predecessor and his current staff - instead proposing that his own staff of professionals could finish the "HAVA" contract with authority

I'd like to clean it up, but it is so poorly written, with virtually no context, that I don't know what to do with it. I think I'll delete it if there is no explanation.

And in general, this article is poorly written, like it was the product of some 11-year old girl with a crush on the Lt.Gov. Needs lots of work. Unschool (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Gov. Herbert also a Secretary of State?

I moved this from the talk page of anon User 98.202.92.50. I had started it with what I thought would be a quick question, but it has become a matter clearly dealing with a difference of opinion on the writing of the article. I have made some changes in the formatting to aid in the continuity of the discussion, but it is still difficult since the anon does not leave time stamps. Unschool (talk)

I think I may have an idea why you insist upon referring to Mr. Herbert as Utah's Secretary of State; but, rather than guess, I decided to ask you. Why, despite the fact that his own website lists him only as the Lieutenant Governor, do you style him the Secretary of State? Respectfully yours, Unschool (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do recognize that Utah's history—insofar as the evolution of the office of Lieutenant Gov is concerned——is rather unique. But I still do not come to the same conclusion as you do. Please help me to understand your thinking. Unschool (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do not engage me in a discussion on this matter, I will feel free to revert Gary Herbert's article to what I believe to be factually correct. If this is as important to you as it appears, please discuss the issue. Unschool (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer to LG Herbert as Utah's Secretary of State because in the Utah Code, it says very clearly that all references to the Lieutenant Governor or Secretary of State are in fact, the same person. As the Chief Elections Officer, as well as the overseer of all notaries public and municipal certifications for incorporation, the LG of Utah acts as the SOS. In addition, Gov. Huntsman has asked LG Herbert to oversee the Utah Department of Commerce, which brings the entire level of service to Utahns in line with every Secretary of State in the country.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you for your response. I suspected this was your reasoning. However, my understanding is different. Does not this section in the code date from the establishment of the office of Lt. Gov.? My understanding is that the intent was simply to make sure that all previous statuatory and constitutional references to the office of Secretary of State be now recognized as covered by the new office of Lt. Governor. In other words, whatever functions were previously served by the SOS are now served by the Lt. Governor. But this does not imply that this person now has two titles. Your thoughts? Unschool (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it does not entitle a person to dual "titles" - yet the duties that encumber one are those of BOTH the SOS and that of the LG of Utah. LG Herbert is a current member of NASS and NLGA. As it sits, many Secretaries of State in the US lack the election oversight, the municipal codification, the notary public oversight and the "2nd in command" responsibilities, all combined. Do some more research.

If you can show me that another Lt. Gov or Sec. of State encompasses all of these duties (HI, AK's LG's don't administer what UT's does.....) I will submit to you.

Because you cannot, I will not. The LG of Utah (by the way, the Lt. Governor of EVERY state is often referred to as "governor" - check your protocol) stands ALONE in terms of his duties and responsibilities.

Why is this seemingly so foreign to someone who seems to know so much about Utah's Code?

The chief error that I perceive in your logic is that you appear to believe that there is a standard definition of the duties of either a Lt. Governor or a Secretary of State, and that, since Utah's LG has duties from both, he is both. But in fact, there is no standard definied list of duties, for either office. Each state is entitled to provide whatever duties to the respective office as they see fit (or not have said offices, for that matter). In some states, the LG is the official presiding officer of the Senate, in others, not. In many states the SOS is the chief elections officer, in others, the SOS has nothing whatsoever to do with the elections process. In some states without an LG the SOS is next in line to the governorship, in others, not. In some states the LG sits as an ex officio member of the cabinet, in others not. If your argument is that Governor Herbert (yes, of course, your protocol sensors were better attuned than mine; my compliments) possesses more comprehensive duties than any other Lt. Governor in the United States, then you've got a great case to make. But that's entirely irrelevant as to what his title is. He is not the Secretary of State, he is the Lieutenant Governor. The only "dual titling" that I know of—and this may not exist any longer—was that in some states, primarily Southern, if I recall, the LG would also have the title "President of the Senate", much as the Vice President of the United States is styled "Mr. President" when serving in his capacity as presiding officer of the US Senate. But this is a constitutionally prescribe pair of titles.

It would be interesting to see an article on the relative powers of the various LGs of the US, with a table showing at the top the vast duties of Utah's LG all the way down to the complete impotence of Illinois' LG. Of course, explanitory paragraphs would show that, just as in states lacking an LG, the SOS is often imbued with more power, so too are LGs potentially more impowered in the absence of other constituional officers, such as an SOS (though this pattern is clearly not perfect). Unschool (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You argue:

"If your argument is that Governor Herbert (yes, of course, your protocol sensors were better attuned than mine; my compliments) possesses more comprehensive duties than any other Lt. Governor in the United States, then you've got a great case to make. But that's entirely irrelevant as to what his title is. He is not the Secretary of State, he is the Lieutenant Governor."

Fine - LG Herbert is NOT a "Secretary of State," as you define the position. Please explain, then, why LG Herbert presented his "Leave Your Print" campaign, as a NASS member, to an audience of "secretaries of state" in 2007 and received a standing-ovation? Is the LG of Utah a Schmuck? Does he have some "street-cred" with other SoS's? Or is he, in YOUR opinion, a total waste?

It's not about how I define the position. As I said above, each state can define the position however they like, provide whatever duties they like. The Utah Lt. Governor's position does very clearly possess many, many duties that would normally be in the hands of the Secretary of State. That's natural, since, like Alaska, the position of Secretary of State was abolished and replaced with a position called Lieutenant Governor. For all intents and purposes, both states simply renamed the position. But they did rename it, and he's no longer the Secretary of State.

You question about why the LG belongs to NASS, and why he addresses NASS, is a very good question, but it also has a very clear answer. First of all, every government has a right to handle protocol issues in whatever way they wish. If there was to be a worldwide meeting of all of the countries of the world, inviting their Ministers for Commerce, would a country be unable to attend if their particular system did not possess a Minister for Commerce or a Secretary of Commerce? No, what would happen is that the chief executive would probably designate someone who would be appropriate for the task. Not having a person with the title "Secretary of State" does not mean that a state cannot attend NASS meetings, and I assume that both Alaska and Hawaii send someone to NASS as well. Secondly, even if the above was not true, the answer also lies in the Utah Code. Section 67-1a-6 states: (1) When required by local, state, federal, or international law, the lieutenant governor is hereby designated the secretary of state of Utah and shall perform the duties and functions required. This was a commonsense addition to the code made when the SOS was abolished and replaced with the LG. They knew that there would be time that it would be awkward to be a state where there was no one with the title "Secretary of State", so they made sure that they would continue to be represented. It's just that simple. Unschool (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given your comments - I'm honored that LG Herbert is an LG and not an SOS.

What does that mean? Unschool (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Move of Discussion

By the way, I realize that my manners as a Wikipedian are proving horrendous. This is a discussion on the content of an article; it needs to be public. Would you prefer that this discussion take place at Lieutenant Governor of Utah or Gary R. Herbert? Unschool (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither, really - But I send my apologies if I offended you. It was not my intent - but constant badgering probably led to my animosity. Either way - all is good on my front.

I'm going to go ahead and move this discussion to Gary Herbert. Unschool (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Herbert is the Lieutenant Governor and serves as Utah's Secretary of State

Utah code:

67-1a-6. Designation as secretary of state -- Duties.

    (1) When required by local, state, federal, or international law, the lieutenant governor is hereby designated the secretary of state of Utah and shall perform the duties and functions required by such laws, including attesting or certifying documents, recording or filing laws, documents, and other papers; and receiving appointments for service of legal process as provided by law.
    (2) Any reference in the laws of the state to the office of the secretary of state is a reference to the office of lieutenant governor.

Response to above points by anon editor 204.113.19.9 / 98.202.95.123

Okay, I imagine that we all have some familiarity with the Utah Code, but some clarification is clearly needed. Okay, the current Utah Code discusses its officers in Title 67.[1]. I encourage anyone reading this and considering this to go this link. You will see that each state officer is listed with a "chapter". The Governor is Chapter 1, the Attorney General is Chapter 5, etc. Interestingly, as one looks at the list of chapters, there are two oddities that stand out. For one thing, there is no chapter 2. Hmmmm. Why is that? The answer is right above, where we see that there is a chapter between Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, but instead of being labeled "Chapter 2", it is labeled, "Chapter 1a".

What's going on here? Well, prior to a major revision of the Utah Constitution proposed in the 1970s, Utah did not have an office with the title "Lieutenant Governor". It did, however, have an office titled "Secretary of State". It was the Secretary of State who was the subject of the aforementioned Chapter 2. However, when the office of Secretary of State was abolished and replaced with the Lieutenant Governor (whose duties, it must be admitted, are very close to identical), changes in the Utah Code were required.

What were these changes?

1. Chapter 2 of Title 67 was deleted in its entirety, since there was no longer any one called "Secretary of State"
2. Chapter 1a (from which the above citations are taken) was added to Title 67 to clarify the role of the new office of Lieutenant Governor.
3. In recognition of the fact that almost all other states have a secretary of state, and that accordingly, there exist many references in federal laws to the "secretary of state" for the various states, the legislature added to Chapter 1a the following provision: 67-1a-6 (1): When required by local, state, federal, or international law, the lieutenant governor is hereby designated the secretary of state of Utah and shall perform the duties and functions required by such laws, including attesting or certifying documents, recording or filing laws, documents, and other papers; and receiving appointments for service of legal process as provided by law.[2]Without this provision, Utah would be left without representation whenever federal laws called for action by the state's Secretary of State. This is why, for example, the Lieutenant Governor of Utah represents Utah at NASS meetings.
4. The most important change, by far, to the Utah Code upon the abolition of the office of Secretary of State, is very similar in appearance to change #3 immediately above. The crafters of the Utah Code recognized that there were literally hundreds of references to the Utah Secretary of State in state laws and regulations. By abolishing the office of Secretary of State, if they took no further action, chaos could reign. Why? Because then who would be responsible for executing the responsibilities that were previously designated as belonging to the Secretary of State? Who would oversee administration of the UCC? Who would administer elections? Even worse, in theory individuals would be free to argue that they were no longer subject to obey those laws which referred to enforcement by the Secretary of State, since there would be no one with authority to enforce such laws. To make sure that Utah's government remained orderly, the following was added: 67-1a-6 (2): Any reference in the laws of the state to the office of the secretary of state is a reference to the office of lieutenant governor.[3]This says that, whenever you read in the Utah Code or any state statute or regulation a reference to the Secretary of State, that provision no longer refers to the Secretary of State, it refers to the Lieutenant Governor.

These last two points (#3 and #4) appear to have been honestly misunderstood by the anonymous editor who cites them above, but viewed within the context of the entire constitutional change, and viewing the entire Utah Code as it refers to these offices, it's quite clear that the Lieutenant Governor, while he does perform the duties that are typically done by a state Secretary of State, is not properly styled "Secretary of State". Indeed, the Lt. Governor's own website makes not one reference to his being the "Secretary of State", because, in fact, he is not.

I have very patiently, for several weeks now, attempted to have a civil discussion with the above anon editor(s). Despite the occasional unWikipedian comments that have come from the other side, I still choose to believe that this disagreement has been an honest one. But now the time has come to lay this aside. Unless there is an intelligently reasoned argument coming forth, I intend to revert this article to what I see as a clearly factual state, which it is not in now. I await comments, but will not wait forever.Unschool (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Federal" elections

Yes, yes, I know, technically speaking, in the United States, there are no such things as "federal elections", since elections for federal offices are actually state-run affairs. If this distinction is important to someone else, I have no objection to it being changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry I forgot to sign! Unschool (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I feel that the general tone of this article is now significantly improved from how it stood before I did this cleanup tonight. But I know that the article is not perfect. There are some statements that could benefit from a citation, but I just wanted to establish a more encyclopedic tone.Unschool (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

you are correct! this page is much more useful to people looking to find information about Herbert. Congrats and thanks!

Where do we place duties?

We need to be careful about how much detail we place in the articles on elected officials pertaining to their responsibilities. It would be silly, in the article George W. Bush, to include a statement that he "has responsibility for signing or vetoing legislation passed by Congress." Sure that's a true statement, but it belongs in the article on President of the United States, not the article on the president. If this is not clear, I can explain further, but I think that most people will understand this point. Unschool (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been mentioned that we should be mindful that while incorporating information, that responsibilities of elected officials are similar. Yet there is inherently contained with elected officials many different and respective responsibilities. In the case of Herbert, potential adherence along those lines would be inconsistent with reality. There is no 'Job' in american politics that renders itself 'UNIVERSAL.' Herbert, being one of may examples of this, has been chosen by his governor to do many things that other Lieutenant Governors have not. Accordingly, many Lt. Governors in the United States are given various roles within their particular administration that do not reflect those of Herbert's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.83.73 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very legitimate point. And duties assigned by the governor, that are based either in statute or tradition, do merit inclusion in Herbert's article. But such things as:

• the oversight of over 30,000 Notaries Public,
• the legal authentication of over 20,000 documents per year,
• the oversight and regulation of every registered lobbyist doing business in state government,
• [serving as] "keeper" of The Great Seal of the State of Utah, and
• authority over the certification of municipal annexations

are all statutorial, and really are unnecessary here. Yet I copied all these from the current or past versions of this article. I would suggest that duties that Herbert has been given specifically by the current governor should be documented. Unschool (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Duties such as "Elections" or "Notary" or "Municipal" should be included because Herbert's 'Secretary of State' duties are different from any other 'Lieutenant Governor' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.83.73 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Lt Gov's of Alaska and Hawaii are probably similarly charged, but that's not the point. The point is that these duties you mention belong to ALL of Utah's LGs, and as such, should be part of Lieutenant Governor of Utah, not this article on Herbert. Unschool (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lt Govs of Alaska and Hawaii are not directly in charge of matters like 'Elections.' - that responsibility is unique to a Utah Lt Gov. Also, not EVERY Utah Lt Gov has had the same statutory responsibilities. Each administration and legislature has given different statutory duties to the Lt Gov. To say that "all of Utah's LG's" have 'these duties' or have 'had these duties' is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.83.73 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - why would the statutes governing the LG be changed every term? If so that's a truly unusual office. But the basic duties should go on the article about the office. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you were to read the Utah Code every year, then you would have some idea. The fact that you don't know about the statutes that govern the Utah Lt. Gov is not surprising - most don't. That's mostly the point. The duties of Utah's Lt.Gov have changed and varied since the office was constructed in 1976. If things seem confusing, please visit each and every construct of Utah Code from 1976 until 2008.

If people are as confused as most, they can join the club - but our confusion and ignorance shouldn't reflect how we attribute the current Lt.Gov of Utah's responsibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.83.73 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if the duties of the office are changed every five minutes, the material belongs in the article about the office, not about the man. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Will is quite correct. If the change is made in statute, then it goes in the Lt. Gov article, not Herbert's. Frankly, I have to wonder if you might be confusing (I'm assuming a great deal of good faith here) statutorial changes versus the normal changes that each administration brings to the office with it. Anyway, if you truly wish to carry on this argument, I suggest that you first document these alleged changes in the statute. I'm sure that there have been some, but, as Will said, that would make it a most unusual office if its duties were changed annually, and I'm not prepared to accept you at your word. Nor am I required to read the entire Utah code for the past 30 years to try to disprove your rather improbable point. The burden of proof is on you. Unschool (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me all that much - It's just an interesting conversation. Do whatever you feel is best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.83.73 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)