Freelance Legislator

Law Professor, Shima Baradaran Baughman, joins us to discuss the current system of gathering key statistics on the performance of law enforcement. We discuss the limitations, errors, and incompleteness of the current data model, and discuss possible solutions. We focus on her article entitled HOW EFFECTIVE ARE POLICE? THE PROBLEM OF CLEARANCE RATES AND CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY. This is part 2 in our Use of Force Registry series, but this is where things take a change in a new direction, a new way of thinking on police reform.

There has been a growing discussion, and debate, on the issues of police brutality. The stories of George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor are some of the notable stories that have brought this issue to the forefront in recent years. However, other names and other stories have been fueling a fire for decades. But what is the real problem, and therefore what is the real answer?

Some have proposed that the development of a "Use of Force Registry" will help make the police accountable to the public, and where the public can take action in reducing such uses of force. The FBI gathers some data on uses of force, but how accessible and meaningful is this data? Are these incidents self-reported and if so using what criteria? As we will see, this issue is very complicated, and nuanced. What one person may call a use of force, is not considered by another to be the same. Even then, just because there is a use of force, does it mean that it was unjustified? We hope to develop and propose legislation for a use of force registry that we feel will help to address a complex but urgent issue, on this episode of Freelance Legislator.

Goal:

Generate ordinance language for a use of force registry that can be used by cities, or counties, or states, to increase transparency and accountability.

Steps:

* Identify Applicable Core Governance Principles

* Identify stake holders

* Gather input from stake holders and public

* Craft starting legislation language

* Harmonize input from public, stake holders with principled ordinance.

* Present ordinance for public consumption and use

The issue of force is one that comes up in conversations about government and government agents. Sometimes this use of force is considered justified, other times it is considered excessive force and is a felony. In the past couple of years we have seen an increase in the number of conversations and narratives surrounding police brutality, and the use of force by those whom we often refer to as “peace officers.” 

At the heart of this issue should be the governing principle that executive branch of the city, state, or other government, has the responsibility of law enforcement. These individuals are elected by the will and voice of the people and the police are public servants, or perhaps we should say public service providers (you know, to avoid any slavery connotations). While the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch is tasked with…well, executing or enforcing those laws. Mayors, Governors, Presidents, all are considered the executive in charge of enforcing the laws passed by the legislators. But, again, elected officials, and law enforcement, are there FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.

Let me give an example to help illustrate this: I don’t mean to sound dismissive or demeaning towards the law enforcement community, but they are sort of like the customer service agents of the legislators of government. They don’t necessarily make the policies, that is the job of the corporate executives; but they are the ones on the front lines and having to enforce the laws or policies.

While we may be upset at the customer service agents for a company’s return policy for example, yelling at the customer service person isn’t likely to change the policy. However, the way in which a customer service agent enacts or functions within that policy is up to each agent. You can be a kind and understanding customer service agent, or you can be mean, cold, dismissive,

Can I make laws without being an elected official?

Scott Lindsley

Are there examples of everyday people taking part in the political process? Well…yes. This episode's guest is proof that anyone can be involved in powerful and positive ways. This is the last in our "getting started" series of podcasts. This episode will help give you a better idea of what it will look and feel like to be a Freelance Legislator.

Scott Lindsley, well, Scott is a pretty normal guy. I don’t mean that in a boring way, but I wanted to have him on Freelance Legislator because he is a regular guy with a regular job, but has chosen to be an active participant in the political process. He has been apart of efforts that have successfully (and not successfully) passed legislation--and he has never been an elected official. His story is an example of what I hope to see more of as we listen and grow together with Freelance Legislation. His story can help us to see our own potential to help be an informed but active participant in legislation designed to help preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On this episode we reference something referred to as the Parable of Chesterton's Fence, or the Fallacy of Chesterton's gate. I first read this in an article by Cassandra Hedelius in Meridian Magazine back in 2015:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

I may refer to this parable (or story) from time to time throughout the shows. I feel that this helps us to take a more reasoned and balanced approach, perhaps a less contentious one as well.

Writing a bill, or writing proposed legislation can seem like an intimidating task. But is it? With this foundational episode of Freelance Legislator we hope to arm you with the tools, to light the path forward for you, to take an educated and active part of the legislative process. You might be surprised at how little you need to know in order to get started with this process.

This episode is part two in our foundational episodes. If you haven’t listened to our previous episode on How to read a (bill) law, please take a moment to go listen to that first. This episode features former legislator and lawyer, Ken Ivory. We address some of the mechanics of how a bill is composed and by whom (big secret, you don’t have to be a lawyer or be good at writing to be an effective leader with legislation). We also address questions we should ask when considering proposed legislation that will help us to write more effective legislation.

What level of government should this law be written for? (city, county or parish, state, or federal)

What is the section of code that this would impact?

Is there another law in somewhere else in the country that we can use as a template?

...And many more questions that are all worth asking when trying to write proposed legislation.

Sit back, take some notes, and enjoy this episode of Freelance Legislator. 

How to read a law. This is one of our foundational episodes that will feature information for our discussions moving forward. Learning how to read proposed legislation can be a little messy. We often think that we have to be lawyers to understand what is going on. We hope to change that. This episode will help walk you through the various elements of what you see in a typical bill or proposed law.

While we will use a bill from the Utah Legislature, we hope that the principles discussed will apply in some ways to the cities, counties, and states where you live. Links we mention in this episode:Utah State Legislature site: https://le.utah.govSample bill: H.B. 416 Penalties for Misconduct with Students

Ken Ivory on the floor of the Utah State House of Representatives

Our guest on this episode is Ken Ivory who is lawyer for over 20 years, and served as a Utah State Representative From 2011-2019. In 2019 Ken taught American Federalism at Utah Valley University. He currently serves as President of the American Lands Council. His unique experience as a lawyer, a professor, and as a former state representative makes his especially qualified to come on this episode on How to Read a Law, and our next and companion episode, How to Write a Law. Ken Ivory joins us via (socially distanced) video chat. So we invite you to sit back, take some notes, and be inspired to find ways to be a more educated and empowered citizen in our political and legislative process.

What would happen if you removed politics from legislation? 

What if policy could be discussed without mention of party?

What would our cities, states, and country look like if we worked together on creating laws instead of using laws and public policy as verbal ammunition in a war to win our votes?

This is Freelance Legislator, and I’m your host, Nick Galieti.

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

How do these words resonate with the current state of our country or the actions of our various levels of government? Do you feel that the government’s power comes from a consent of the governed? Or do you feel that the government, more often than not, acts upon its citizens, and treats your freedom as some to control rather than protect?

America was first established by the people, for the people, and of the people. As was stated by Ezra Taft Benson who was secretary of agriculture under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.”

In a day where government is seen as a transactional service provider for everything from Food, to funding subsidies for billion dollar industries, would it seem that crazy to assert that American Citizens have an unhealthy relationship with their government? Could it be that as citizens, we have become addicted to government?

An old fable reads:

The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe. For the axe was clever and convinced the trees that because his handle was wood he was one of them.

The 2020 Presidential Election was scary, exciting, and contentious. But it also provided a microscope by which we are able to expose the many different infections in our collective thinking--infections that are slowly killing the ideals upon which this great country was founded. I, like many of you, have wondered what a private citizen can to do reduce if not eliminate the bickering, the blame game, the sheer volume of political punditry that pollutes our media and therefore the minds of so many into voting for this “axe” or that “axe.” I want to be involved beyond commenting on social media or yelling at the news about how dumb “the other” party’s politicians are.

“Why don’t you run for office?” Some may say. I have thought about it, and was even ready to hit “send” on my official paperwork to declare candidacy. But, in some ways, running for office is playing the political game. You have to play the game even if you want to change the game. It’s hard to run for office and not get the mud of the system all ov...