Editor;
The election is over, but our disappointment in the actions of the Davis County Republican Party remain. The leadership of the Republican Party inappropriately interjected itself into nonpartisan races, the three races for the Davis District Board of Education.
The Utah Constitution clearly states in Article X, Section 8, “No religious or partisan test or qualification shall be required as a condition of employment, admission, or attendance in the state’s education systems.” Board of education members become employees of the school district. Yet in spite of this clear direction in the Utah Constitution, Republican officers sent a survey to board of education candidates which included questions to ascertain their support or rejection of specific sections of the Davis County Republican platform. The survey was a partisan test. Responses were posted online.
Candidates who could see through this unconstitutional ruse and did not answer the questions should be commended. We hope future Republican officers will not only have more respect for the Utah Constitution, but similar respect for the thousands of Davis County Republicans, who expect the party leadership to put aside their personal agendas and follow the law!
Sheryl Allen
John Allen
JoAnn Hanson
Rick Hanson
Beth Beck
Kim Burningham
David Irvine
Article X Section 8 of the Utah Constitution applies to candidates running for office. In the same way that the Teacher's Union sent out a survey to school board candidates with questions based on the interest of the Union; the DCRP or any organization can also send out surveys to candidates. This education process is even more important in these obscure non-partisan races where there is no candidate vetting through the caucus and convention cycle. The reference of a political agenda is unfounded, unlike the Teacher's Union, there were no endorsements or "recommendations" of any candidates by the Davis County Republican Party.
What should really cause disappointment is the illegal campaign tactics of the 3 candidates that are commended in the letter. All 3 had their campaign signs stored for a 2 week period in the Adelaide Elementary School faculty room. It is very illegal and very unethical to store and distribute campaign signs in tax payer funded buildings. So the real concern should not be the legal right of an organization to educate their voters, but the lack of concern with 3 candidates who broke the law.
Voters are entitled to discover the values, beliefs and principles of candidates, relative to their own. To deny such is to deny an informed electorate.
Hiding their values, beliefs and principles has a history among the signatories.
Whenever light is introduced, a dark space comes alive with movement, as disturbed creatures seek new cover.
Drew Chamberlain 801-913-4611
There was no "shall be required" in getting candidates in a campaign to get elected to tell us what they stand for when they represent us. If what the school board candidates can't be questioned on their stand on various issues what would you suggest be the questions that they should be asked? Maybe they should be elected only on "How good their campaign signs look in the teachers break room?" Or maybe "Who has the most support from the teachers union"? Or "How high can you tax the citizens of Davis County before you can't get elected"? Or the best one "What personal student information can the School board sell to the Federal Government without parental approval or notice in order to get more grant money"?
We need to know where they stand on ISSUES so that if one of them doesn't represent me or MY VALUES then I want to be able to vote for the one that most closely reflects them.