Grand and San Juan Concerns

04/19/2023

The Utah State Legislative Audit that was ordered six months ago developed a focus on any Open and Public Meetings Act violations. This detailed article conveys the outcome. Here are a few points of interest:

Among the findings are that the commissioners accepted thousands of dollars in pro bono legal services. In addition, they found that the private counsel sought payments from local special interest groups for legal services given to commissioners.The audit could not prove that payments were actually made. The parties involved have denied that payments were made.

In addition, the San Juan County Commission letter (in response to the audit findings) suggests that the former county commissioners, “on at the least four occasions” were not unconventional as described in the report but rather “routine and deliberate and a clear violation of OPMA”…The letter recommends that the actions be further investigated and if there is evidence found, file charges and enforce OPMA violations.

Related to the finding of use of pro bono private counsel, the San Juan County Commission letter recommended an investigation of the “attorney’s actions for violations of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The letter from the current Commission concluded by recommending the legislature strengthen Utah Code for OPMA, adding “The audit appears to suggest that because of the actions of [Commissioner Maryboy] and [Commissioner Grayeyes] violating State Code and County Policies, without recourse, allows future Commissioners to act in these same manners without any threat of penalty.

“This only continues to hurt and compounds the amount of distrust that our citizens have in our elected leaders here in San Juan County and Utah as a whole.

While the original performance audit also named Grand County, Martinson reports that the documentation, compared to San Juan County, is quite a bit less.

“The risk of an issue was whether or not either of these counties violated OPMA,” said Martinson. “As far as we could determine with Grand County, we were unable to detect there was any risk of that.”

Thanks to the San Juan Record for this full, detailed report here:
https://www.sjrnews.com/san-juan-county/performance-audit-san-juan-county-commission-published-identifies-several-

02/28/2023

HB416 passed this afternoon in an overwhelmingly favorable vote of 5-0 (with 3 absent or not voting). Video should be uploaded for future watching on the State website here https://le.utah.gov/

02/23/2023

IN FULL DISCLOSURE, this page supported Grand County’s ability to spend TRT funds on economic diversification in the passing of HB247 two years ago. The new HB416 introduced into the legislation this year would revoke that ability, a desire that gained incredible bipartisan support when it passed nearly unanimously through the House last Friday. Shockingly, strong support for the bill was shown by House Democrats. Even with a paid lobbyist, Grand was only able to secure 3 out of 14 House Democrats' votes in opposition. This shocking across-the-aisle rebuke of Grand County spurred an investigation that now gives no pleasure to report.

“Catastrophic” was the word used when Grand’s Strategic Director first told the County Commission (and the press) how this bill would impact essential services prior to it being drafted, followed by inflammatory statements stating it would force a property tax increase. The motivation behind the bill was explained to be political pettiness. Citizens were understandably upset, frustrated and confused. Reassurances from the bill’s sponsor confirmed it would not threaten essential services in any way, and that it would not remove any funding but only remove the ability to spend the funding on economic diversity, there would be no justification for a property tax increase. Some felt this assurance to be untrue and continued to worry about survivability, while others felt that political fear tactics were being employed by those they had come to trust.

Those speaking in favor of the bill in the sometimes dramatic legislative hearing focused on the manner Grand County used the funds in a particular $1 million grant program. Grand County and others opposing the new bill (HB416) argued that concerns over the grant program stemmed from state-imposed time pressure. They stated a “use it or lose it” time pressure forced a quick spending of the funds, and pleaded for more time to “tweak the program”.

However, when speaking at the hearing, Grand County’s Strategic Director, who presented himself as Grand’s Chief Financial Officer, detailed a compromise he had struck during his lobbying efforts to pass the original HB247 two years ago. This compromise limited the County’s ability to “hold” TRT funds in reserve, ensuring that most of the money would have to be spent on economic diversification activities as TRT funds came in. The time pressure was self-induced, coming from the County’s failure to spend the funds as they came in. Furthermore, in a 2020 local news article, the Strategic Director/CFO (who was then the County Administrator) spoke of the “decades” long effort to gain this ability to use TRT funds for economic diversification.

After spending the time and money to successfully lobby the state in 2021, and the subsequent two years since, the Strategic Director’s only plan for how to use this funding was to quickly dispense of it out of a self-imposed time pressure to meet a deadline put in place two years prior with his direct involvement. These facts defeat the concept of an unexpected, urgent pressure from the State and beg questions regarding the County’s lack of strategic planning and responsible fiscal management.

The Strategic Director also stated that the “use it or lose it” provisions made them focus on creating the grant program to keep the funds in the community, thinking it a good idea at the time but now saying “it seemed to be a miscalculation”. A little research into the grant program indicates the miscalculation appears not to have been the creation of the grant program, but the lack of adherence to its own policies and procedures.

Newly uploaded documents on the County website reveal that a four-point scoring system was created to ensure fairness in the grant approval process. However, the ranking system does not appear to have been utilized in the selection of who was awarded funds. Two applicants who scored the same resulted in one receiving funds while the other did not, and a very highly-scored applicant was denied funding while one of the worst-scoring applicants was approved. Requirements seemed to change per applicant as some grants were approved for funds to be spent on employee wages while others were denied grants because the funds would be spent on wages.

All of this points to either the ranking system being extremely deficient or an utter failure of oversight in ensuring adherence. The latter appears more likely when reading grant approval comments like this, “The committee felt that, though this project does not represent the economic diversification as outlined in Grand County guiding documents and policies, it does represent a commitment to our region”.

Oversight responsibilities are difficult to ascertain as in the past few years numerous, seemingly duplicate boards and councils have been created, folded and recreated. They include the:

Economic Development Department (EDD)
Community and Economic Development Department
Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB)
Economic Diversification Advisory Council (EDAC)
Grand County Economic Diversification Council (GDEDC)

Oddly, there are no public meeting minutes available on the County’s website for any of these various economic boards and committees, nor are there meeting records from the Economic Department itself. This makes it difficult to determine if proper conflict of interest recusals were exercised, such as when a County Commissioner received grant funding himself.

In effort to review the County budget raised additional fiscal management concerns as there appear to be irregularities that do not adhere to industry standard accounting practices. An internal audit performed back in 2021 raised serious concerns about the fiscal management of Grand County’s $70 million budget. As part of this audit, the County scored zero out of a possible 50 points due to a lack of proper qualifications and training, noting specifically that no one on the managing staff retained an accounting degree. Grand County shared their solution a few months ago by announcing they had retained an employee who is currently going to school in hopes of obtaining a basic accounting degree. Again, this is a $70 million budget.

Interestingly, budget responsibilities have followed a particular employee, Chris Baird, as they moved from the elected office of the County Clerk into the role of County Administrator. Budget responsibilities then moved again as he left the County Administrator position for the newly-created position as Grand County’s Strategic Director. There are no public records to be found for why this second-highest-paid position in the County was needed. It appears that Human Resources did not publicly advertise this position, and the County Commission has offered no record of discussion to justify this role. There is no record of the Commission appointing him Grand’s Chief Financial Officer, which appears to have been done after the internal audit showing massive fiscal failures.

Lack of funding has always contributed to Grand’s inability to dedicate true political focus toward diversifying its economy. After working for decades to obtain an enviable $1 million budget, the resounding message from the state is that Grand County has failed miserably. Grand’s inability to secure the support of even House Democrats who overwhelmingly voted for HB416 sends a strong message.

Sadly, this golden opportunity has been squandered away due to the appalling lack of strategic planning and fiscal irresponsibility.

02/22/2023

This is a disturbing development. The individual has been named on social media as the same person who has written several letters and made comments that left some concerned about his potential actions. Reading and seeing these images lend credibility to those fears. Glad the police department up there took this seriously.

02/17/2023

HOUSE BILL 416 PASSES, revoking Grand County’s economic development caveat in TRT spending. In a shocking vote of 64 to 3 (8 absent or not voting), it appears a majority of Democrats voted in support of the bill. A full vote count is in the comments. More on this developing story coming soon.

11/24/2022

FYI The Utah State Legislature has moved the Grand and San Juan County Government Compliance Audit forward into the Survey stage.

11/24/2022

Today, gratitude goes to those who courageously step into public office, to those brave enough to raise question them, and to those wise enough to allow for dissenting voices. This is the only way to ensure political checks and balances are in place. It is not a matter of the political leanings of an official or which organization they work working with, but a matters of right and wrong, legal and illegal. May we all keep a strong heart to solider onward and an open mind for being wrong to correct our missteps. God be with you, may your family be strong and your belly full today. Happy Thanksgiving.

11/14/2022

The responsibility of the press is to present the facts. When public concerns are not addressed by the press, suspicions are allowed to run wild. This is what is being experienced in Grand and San Juan Counties.

For years, San Juan County has been embattled with strife. Two newly elected candidates relied on outside counsel for their day-to-day decision as County Commissioners. The council was provided by a spin-off of a $25 million organization that had endorsed their campaigns. This gave unusual support in a region with a poverty rate 63% higher than the national average, a 29% higher disability rate, 60% without basic health insurance, and a whopping 40% without basic running water.

However, healthcare and water access were not the focus of influence from this outside council, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), and their Rural Utah Project (RUP). Instead, land use issues were at the forefront. Neither of the two attorneys providing counsel lived in San Juan County. Tensions rose as citizens felt agendas and resolutions were being pushed through for the benefit of outside counsel rather than for the local constituents. The public felt they were not being served by their new Commissioners, but that the new Commissioners were serving SUWA/RUP.

With no press coverage, political contentions spilled into the public. Near the end of September, emails claimed to be obtained through a public records Government Access and Management Act (GRAMA) request were posted on social media. One of them revealed discussions to hide a roughly $250,000 payment for influencing the County Commissioners. Others appeared to offer complete written agendas for the Commissioners to use during County meetings. Many emails showed apparent and repeated violations of the Open and Public Meetings Acts, which included political leaders from Grand County. Clear instructions were also given to block the emails from being released in the public records GRAMA request..

Despite this apparent trail of unethical and illegal conduct, local media agencies remained silent. Without an active press, the public is left without the assurances of transparency that control corruption concerns, allowing its tentacles to grow in the shadows of disbelief. Left unchecked, these can reach difficult-to-believe conspiracy levels.

𝗧𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆

This outside counsel in San Juan County also happens to be the political consultant to the Grand County Democratic Party. This concerned some members whose frustrations spilled into the public sphere after being unable to gain answers. A picture was cast of the Party leadership being an exclusive and elite fiefdom comprised solely of SUWA representatives. Party leadership refrained from providing proper notification for the Democratic caucus and expressed surprise by what they considered to be a large number in attendance.

There were 11 members who participated.

Troubling documentation seemed to show the special-interest group supported by Democratic Party had now toppled it, leaving the Democratic Party in the subservient supporting role instead. This created a disturbing view that the focus of San Juan County's corruption fears was also in control of a major political party in Grand County.

As the controversy grew over months, the deafening silence from the press allowed public concerns to turn into public outrage. Frustrated pleas to gain the attention of the state began in September. Candidates running for office experienced mounting pressure to distance themselves from SUWA and RUP. Doing so did little to appease the cemented frustrations of the public.

In response, an editor of a local newspaper offered this opinion piece:

"𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑜𝑎𝑏, 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑈𝑡𝑎ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑙𝑦 “𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠” 𝑜𝑟 “𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠”…𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎 — 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 — ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒’𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓-𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘."

It was unclear who wanted the press to remain silent. Nor was it clear what was being referenced as untrue, a critical and curious omission.

Near the end of October, the Utah State Legislature moved to put a Grand and San Juan County Government Compliance Review on the docket. Media outlets from Salt Lake City provided coverage of the history of the controversy, showing screenshots of the emails in question. Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson explained the reason for the audit; “…𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎."

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸

In sweeping unison, the citizens voted out or blocked almost every candidate in Grand and San Juan County with ties to SUWA and RUP. The newspaper published an article on the audit with the subtitle, “Commission suggests political motivations”. It was not mentioned that two of the Commissioners are tied to the controversy. In the same paper was the editor's column where opinion was offered:

"…𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠, 𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑, 𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒.."

An editor’s opinion that is in contrast with the majority of the voters does little to quell public concerns. Proclaiming falsehoods without providing facts is akin to making allegations without proof. Providing countering proof to the emails that instigated a state audit is what is needed.

𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

The press plays a tremendous role in either strengthening our public unity or deepening our political divide. Limited press coverage combined with strong editorial opinions only serves to deepen community divides. Those who feel the controversy was a political stunt feel condoned by the silence of the press. Others view the silence as proof factual concerns are being repeatedly ignored.

Whether by ignorance or choice, a press that remains silent provides cover to those in power who are being questioned. This risks being viewed as either complacent or compliant.

While crafting the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitute, James Madison kept the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights by his side. Section 12 reads:

“𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒍𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒃𝒚 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒈𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔."

Perhaps it does not take a despotic government to interrupt our concepts of a free press, as it is more easily achieved through the non-actions of the press itself.

11/11/2022

Now THIS is investigative journalism. The author of this compelling article is Bob Keshlear, prior Director of Communication for the Utah Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee who also worked on the Heidi Reed campaign for Senate District #27.

A blog about San Juan County (Utah), Bears Ears National Monument and related environmental politics

11/09/2022

ELECTION RESULTS: Initial results are in. SAN JUAN COUNTY:
https://electionresults.utah.gov/elections/county/sanjuan

11/09/2022

ELECTION RESULTS: Initial results are in. GRAND COUNTY:
https://electionresults.utah.gov/elections/county/grand

11/08/2022

Tuesday, November 8th is the last day to get your ballot in to have your vote counted.

11/08/2022

BREAKING NEWS: The Justice Department to Monitor Polls in 24 States and 64 jurisdictions. The only location in Utah to be included in this monitoring is San Juan County. Press release:

The Justice Department announced today its plans to monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws in 64 jurisdictions in 24 states for the Nov. 8, 2022 general election. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Division has regularly monitored elections in the field in jurisdictions around the country to protect the rights of voters. The Civil Rights Division will also take complaints from the public nationwide regarding possible violations of the federal voting rights laws through its call center. The Civil Rights Division enforces the federal voting rights laws that protect the rights of all citizens to access the ballot.

For the general election, the Civil Rights Division will monitor for compliance with the federal voting rights laws on Election Day and/or in early voting in 64 jurisdictions:

City of Bethel, Alaska;
Dillingham Census Area, Alaska;
Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska;
Sitka City-Borough, Alaska;
Maricopa County, Arizona;
Navajo County, Arizona;
Pima County, Arizona;
Pinal County, Arizona;
Yavapai County, Arizona;
Newton County, Arkansas;
Los Angeles County, California;
Sonoma County, California;
Broward County, Florida;
Miami-Dade County, Florida;
Palm Beach County, Florida;
Cobb County, Georgia;
Fulton County, Georgia;
Gwinnett County, Georgia;
Town of Clinton, Massachusetts;
City of Everett, Massachusetts;
City of Fitchburg, Massachusetts;
City of Leominster, Massachusetts;
City of Malden, Massachusetts;
City of Methuen, Massachusetts;
City of Randolph, Massachusetts;
City of Salem, Massachusetts;
Prince George’s County, Maryland;
City of Detroit, Michigan;
City of Flint, Michigan;
City of Grand Rapids, Michigan;
City of Pontiac, Michigan;
City of Southfield, Michigan;
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Hennepin County, Minnesota;
Ramsey County, Minnesota;
Cole County, Missouri;
Alamance County, North Carolina;
Columbus County, North Carolina;
Harnett County, North Carolina;
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;
Wayne County, North Carolina;
Middlesex County, New Jersey;
Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
San Juan County, New Mexico;
Clark County, Nevada;
Washoe County, Nevada;
Queens County, New York;
Cuyahoga County, Ohio;
Berks County, Pennsylvania;
Centre County, Pennsylvania;
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania;
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania;
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;
City of Pawtucket, Rhode Island;
Horry County, South Carolina;
Dallas County, Texas;
Harris County, Texas;
Waller County, Texas;
San Juan County, Utah;
City of Manassas, Virginia;
City of Manassas Park, Virginia;
Prince William County, Virginia;
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and,
City of Racine, Wisconsin.
Monitors will include personnel from the Civil Rights Division and from U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. In addition, the division also deploys monitors from the Office of Personnel Management, where authorized by federal court order. Division personnel will also maintain contact with state and local election officials.

The Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section enforces the civil provisions of federal statutes that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Acts. The division’s Disability Rights Section enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure that persons with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote. The division’s Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and voter suppression based on race, color, national origin or religion.

On Election Day, Civil Rights Division personnel will be available all day to receive complaints from the public related to possible violations of the federal voting rights laws by a complaint form on the department’s website https://civilrights.justice.gov/ or by telephone toll-free at 800-253-3931.

Individuals with questions or complaints related to the ADA may call the department’s toll-free ADA information line at 800-514-0301 or 833-610-1264 (TTY) or submit a complaint through a link on the department’s ADA website, at https://www.ada.gov/.

Complaints related to disruption at a polling place should always be reported immediately to local election officials (including officials in the polling place). Complaints related to violence, threats of violence or intimidation at a polling place should be reported immediately to local police authorities by calling 911. These complaints should also be reported to the department after local authorities have been contacted.

The Justice Department recently announced its overall plans for the general election to protect the right to vote and secure the integrity of the voting process through the work of the Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, National Security Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-monitor-polls-24-states-compliance-federal-voting-rights-laws

The Justice Department announced today its plans to monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws in 64 jurisdictions in 24 states for the Nov. 8, 2022 general election.

11/06/2022

A few items of note that have surfaced recently are as follows:
𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲, not showing much more than what would be expected. One item that caught attention, however, was a payment from Christina Sloan, the County Attorney incumbent running for reelection, made to Drew Cooper who is the Programs Manager of SUWA/RUP for ‘yard signs’. This odd expenditure adds to concerns that Sloan’s long endorsement from SUWA/RUP is known and condoned, adding to the shadows cast over her ability to remain impartial, fair and balanced as the County Attorney’s Office, the highest position of ethical and moral guidance within that community. San Juan County candidate financial disclosures have not yet been posted..

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐀 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 that continue to show troubling legal concerns regarding what Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson has called “undue influence” over local governments. The validity of these emails has not been denied or challenged, leading to an assumption of authenticity. New information continues to build the impression that SUWA/RUP representatives engaged in, and encourage County Commissioners to act on, a range of activities from seemingly unethical to illegal. These include apparent and repeated 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬, 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐀 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐔𝐖𝐀/𝐑𝐔𝐏 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬. An eye-opening note on how 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Another batch shows what appears to be 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 leading the Seventh District Judge Don Torgerson to state that ”the county commission here stuck its nose into the county attorney appointment process in a way that it should not have done,” and an effort to "circumvent the legal process that is established by statute”, and finally that the two Commissioners that Liz Thomas of SUWA/RUP directed to engage in these questionable practices had “…acted not in the best interest of San Juan County, but they acted clearly in their personal interest for both partisan and personal gain”.
https://kutv.com/news/politics/san-juan-county-utah-commissioners-willie-grayeyes-kenneth-maryboy-attorney-interim-kendall-laws

These emails were in addition to previous emails circulating in the public sphere showing an 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐋𝐢𝐳 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐔𝐖𝐀 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐔𝐏 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲-𝐭𝐨-𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐉𝐮𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬. Those defending SUWA/RUP’s actions draw attention to the fact that no record of payment has been found and that Boos has opted to provide these services free of charge. Also worth noting is that Liz Thomas is referred to as Boos’s unpaid paralegal.

All indications show a 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲. This is in spite of a strong increase of unusual activities to secure ballots without proper identifications. Unconfirmed reports of a single individual, Sam Van Wetter of SUWA/RUP, attempting to register and obtain ballots for hundreds of people without providing accompanying qualifying identifications have raised concerns. Van Wetter is also the current candidate running against the experienced incumbent for the role of Fire Commissioner which instigated the initial public concerns regarding SUWA/RUP on social media. Raising eyebrows further is the surprising action by SUWA/RUP to “reendorse” the incumbent and unopposed candidate for Grand County Clerk, Gabriel Woytek. Woytek is currently overseeing elections in Grand County.

Due to the nature of these controversies, your understanding of opting to turn off comments is appreciated. Your messages are welcomed, especially those with differing impressions of these facts. Should anyone wish to provide an official response from SUWA/RUP to the alleged offenses, they may do so by sending a message to this page and it will be posted, unedited with commentary turned off.

11/03/2022

Did you know you could track your ballot to ensure it is being counted? This shows when it was mailed to you, when it was received after you mail or crop your ballot off, and when it was accepted and your vote was counted.

IT IS EASY TO TRACK! https://ballottrax.utah.gov/voter/

11/03/2022

The Times Independent in Grand County has offered this today:

Just days before the Nov. 8 election, Speaker Brad Wilson confirmed that the Utah Legislature is requesting an audit of government activity in Grand and San Juan counties due to concerns over special interests and the conduct of elected officials.
“It’s been brought to our attention that some concerning activities have been taking place in San Juan and Grand counties,” Wilson wrote in an email. “We’ve seen the emails, read the articles, heard the claims and the best thing we can do that’s within our legislative purview is to request a legislative audit.”

The audit “is not about any elected official in particular,” wrote Alexa Musselman, spokesperson for the Legislature.

Wilson did not mention any names, stating that “taxpayers deserve to know if their elected officials are working for taxpayers or for special interests. They also deserve to know if elected officials are using taxpayer money wisely.”

Conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General, the audit is expected to last about six to eight months, Musselman said.

11/03/2022

Like and follow to be notified when new information becomes available.

11/03/2022

House Speaker Brad Wilson said he is concerned about undue influence on the County Commission. “There was enough here that we thought we’d better move on it quickly,” Wilson said. “In my opinion, you don’t elect leaders to then be told what to do by outside interest groups day in and day out and have them drive the agenda.”

Top state leaders have launched an audit into whether local officials in two southeastern Utah counties have acted improperly.

The audit, which will look at Grand and San Juan counties, is expected to last several months, House Speaker Brad Wilson (R-Kaysville) said Wednesday.

In San Juan County specifically, KUTV 2News obtained hundreds of emails revealing activities by two county commissioners that Wilson calls “concerning,” and which could play a big role in the audit.

Those emails show potential violations of Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act by San Juan County commissioners and a big influence by outside individuals in how the commission is run.

‘On the same page’
In March 2019, a few months after Willie Grayeyes and Kenneth Maryboy won a Democratic majority on the San Juan County Commission, Colorado-based attorney Steven Boos sent them both an email proposing “a weekly conference call to discuss strategy and issues that will come up” during commission meetings.

“I sent out a calendar invitation for these conference calls,” Boos wrote. “Please ‘accept’ the invitation.”

The following year, in December 2021, the county was in the middle of redrawing political boundaries – a process known as redistricting.

A paralegal for Boos, Liz Thomas, wrote an email December 10 to both Maryboy and Grayeyes as well as Boos.

“As we’ve discussed, we need to have a full group meeting to discuss the SJCO Redistricting plans to make sure we’re ALL on the same page,” Thomas wrote.

Emails show they met December 13. Two days later, Thomas sent the two commissioners essentially a script for the formal, public meeting. In that email, Thomas told the commissioners what motions to make, and how to respond if residents have any comments.

These examples are violations of Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, said First Amendment attorney David Reymann. That's because there are three members of the San Juan County Commission. Two of them meeting constitutes a quorum.

“It doesn’t matter whether they are communicating by email, whether they’re doing it in person,” said Reymann, who works at Salt Lake City-based firm Parr Brown Gee & Loveless. “The Act ensures that those type of discussions need to take place in the public view.”
But hundreds of emails reviewed by KUTV 2News show multiple examples of Boos and Thomas strategizing with the two commissioners and, in several cases, telling them exactly what to say and do – or not do – at public meetings.

After KUTV 2News described the contents of the emails to Reymann, he called it “among the most egregious” examples he’s seen of flouting the Open and Public Meetings Act.

Concerns lead to audit
Thomas is on the board of the environmental advocacy group Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). An affiliated organization, the Rural Utah Project (RUP), has also paid Thomas for some of the work she's done for Boos, according to a September 2021 email from Boos to the commissioners.

All this has led Utah’s House speaker and other legislative leaders to order an audit to dig deeper. Wilson said he’s concerned about undue influence on the county commission, and he said the state has the authority to look into this since counties are "a political subdivision of the state."

“There was enough here that we thought we’d better move on it quickly,” Wilson said. “In my opinion, you don’t elect leaders to then be told what to do by outside interest groups day in and day out and have them drive the agenda.”

KUTV 2News reached out to Commissioners Grayeyes and Maryboy along with Boos and Thomas. Only Boos responded, saying the emails we obtained are attorney-client privileged and were improperly released by San Juan County.

Boos did not comment on the audit or the concerns raised from the emails.

Both Grayeyes and Maryboy are up for re-election right now. KUTV 2News reached out to both their opponents for comment on this story.

“I am aware of the emails that have been circulating on the internet. My decision to run was to give the people of San County a different choice — a choice to bring unity, respect, new opportunities and trust to our county,” said Silvia Stubbs, who’s running against Grayeyes. “Our citizens deserve to be represented by someone who will listen to their concerns and not the agenda of outside interests.”

Jamie Harvey, who’s running against Maryboy, added, "Important decisions are made in official meetings, not in private e-mails. As a Dine' candidate for County Commissioner, transparency and accurate information for all San Juan residents are part of my platform."

Grand County
This audit also covers Grand County, Wilson said, noting there are similar concerns about outside influences on that county commission as well.

Wilson also pointed to a real estate deal, first reported by KUTV 2News, that Grand County Attorney Christina Sloan made with someone her office was prosecuting at the time.

Asked for comment on the audit, Sloan said in an email, “This is a waste of state resources; I also welcome any investigation.”

https://kutv.com/news/2news-investigates/san-juan-county-utah-emails-willie-grayeyes-kenneth-maryboy-steven-boos-liz-thomas-suwa-rup-grand-county-audit-house-speaker-brad-wilson #

Top state leaders have launched an audit into whether local officials in two southeastern Utah counties have acted improperly.The audit, which will look at Gran