State Legislative Process Episode 5

>>Welcome to State Legislative Process. I am Rick Griffin, and today’s episode is representation.
>>[graphic]
>>Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” With his usual wit and a touch of brilliance, Churchill makes the point that democracy, or the rule of the people, may be the best form of government, but it certainly comes with some challenges. 
>>[graphic]
>>Over the centuries, two common forms of democracy have developed. 
>>{graphic]
>>Direct democracy, sometimes called pure democracy, is a form of government where the sovereignty resides with the people, or at least a group of citizens, the will of the people being typically manifested in the majority vote of those assembled. In a democracy, citizens directly participate in the making of laws and other governmental affairs. Direct democracy was practiced in the city states of ancient Greece and in town hall communities in the United States. Overall, democracies have had a mixed history. Although they recognize the sovereignty of the people, they often excluded and mistreated portions of the society as the common good gave way to majority passion and self-interest. Speaking of why people have rejected direct democracy for a representative version of democracy, political scientist Malcolm Jewell and Samuel Patterson state:
>>[graphic]
>>Preparing for the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, James Madison studied every book on government that he could get his hands on, and was quite familiar with both the strengths and weaknesses of both direct and representative democracy. During the Philadelphia Convention, Madison and the other framers rejected direct democracy as an unstable and impractical form of government. Instead they relied on representative democracy, and proposed a republic. A republic is a democratic form of government where sovereignty resides with the people, who elect representatives to govern in their behalf. To the framers, a republic was more stable, virtuous, refined, and a less volatile form of government than a democracy. Yet in proposing a large republic, the framers had a major obstacle to overcome. Contemporary political theory held that republics had to be small and close to the people to avoid corruption and tyranny. Many Americans believed that just as the republics of Rome and Great Britain had fallen, in their eyes, into tyranny and corruption, so would a large American national republic. At Philadelphia and later, during the State Ratifying Constitutional Conventions, Madison successfully argues for a large republic.
>>[graphics]
>>Madison’s arguments for a large and national republic, limited direct citizen representation, heavily populated districts,  and the election of representatives to “refine and enlarge the public views” eventually won out over the anti-federalist’s more direct, majoritarian view of American government. Today, Mr. Madison’s ideas on representation are well-established at the national, state, and local levels of your nation. However, Alan Rosenthal reminds us that:
>>[graphic]
>>Therefore, the question of representation in the American system of government continues to be a matter of study and debate. Some of the same important questions that Mr. Madison and the other framers wrestles with in 1787, we wrestle with today. Such questions as: Who do legislators truly represent? If legislators disagree with their constituents on a given issue, is it appropriate for them to vote contrary to the wishes of their constituents? Are legislators free to pursue their own views on public policy, or are they merely agents of their constituents? As political scientists have tried to answer these questions and others about representation, three distinct views on the role of representatives have emerged. The first is the trustee view. This view of the role of representatives states that legislators should faithfully serve and be in contact with their constituents. Under this view, legislators are statesmen who are duty bound to do what is best for those they represent. Legislators not only have the right, but the duty, to make informed, wise, reasonable, and virtuous decisions for those in their charge. The trustee view even allows a legislator the freedom to vote against the wishes of his or her constituents if, in their opinion, the best interest of the district require it. This view was perhaps best articulated by Edmund Burke in his famous 1774 speech on the role of a Representative.
>>[graphic]
>>To some modern legislators, Edmund Burke’s words still make a lot of sense. Recently Scott Hammond, Assistant Vice-President of Academics at Utah Valley State, had a chance to speak about the benefits of representative democracy and the trustee view of representation with Representative Stephen Clark.
>>So we are here at the Utah State Capitol talking with Representative Stephen Clark. We are going to talk a little bit about direct democracy versus representative democracy. Which do you think works better? The Greeks did direct democracy, and almost pulled people off the street to represent them in the Senate. You are a Representative in a representative system. Which works better?
>>Well, obviously the direct democracy is probably the best way, the way to really know what the people want. But it is not functional. So you can’t do it, because people have to live their lives and do their things, and they just don’t have the time to come up on the Hill and vote, or however system that we have set up. So they elect a Representative that comes up here and represents their views, and votes according to what they want. It works most of the time, but there are some conflicts some of the time. 
>>What are some of those conflicts?
>>Well, I think basically because the Representative is up here and is in the mix of everything that is going on, he understands the complex problems and issues better than his constituents.  And so his constituents may want this, but not really understand what the impact of that decision would be. And so in those cases, you have to kind of decide, “I understand what they are, and how they feel about the issue, but if we do it this way, it is just not going to work, or it will be more harmful to them in the long run.” And so you sometimes have to vote against what your constituents think is right. It doesn’t happen a lot, but it does happen sometimes.
>>The complexity of legislation is a factor there, isn’t it?
>>Absolutely. And anyone who has spent any time up here understands that it is hard to look at things as black and white. There are so many roots that grow in through the legislation that you have got to look at, and it takes a lot of time. And sometimes those roots can make a good piece of legislation not so good.
>>So in the end, who do you represent? You are always asking that question, aren’t you? The state, it could be the district, it could be a special interest, it could be yourself in some of the things that you feel strongly, morally strongly, about, it could be the party—how do you balance all of those?
 >>I think that you have to represent the people that put you there. They put you there to perform a duty for them. But you have to look at all the issues, you have to look at the complexity of the issue, and then you have to decide what is best for them. And sometimes they don’t understand that until after the legislation passes, or if it fails, and they look at what the impact would be. You sincerely try to represent their interests and protect them from a legislation that would cause them harm, or create problems for that district. You represent that district first. Then you represent the state second. And then it just broadens out. I think the special interest is probably last.
>>I told you about my history a little bit of hanging around up here, but you often hear that the Legislature is out of touch. There is so much going on up here. Who is more out of touch, the public or the Legislature?
>>Well, we have a strong mandate to take what is going on back to our constituents. It is our responsibility to make sure they understand what is going on. That is why they put us here. And so if they are not really understanding what is going on, then maybe we are not doing the job that we should be. But it is so complex, and there are so many issues, that if you had a fireside meeting every week, you probably couldn’t keep up with all the issues, because we can’t even do it while we are here full-time. But the big issues, those that really have impact, the appropriation issues, those should be communicated with our constituents.
>>They should at least understand what you are spending the money on.
>>Absolutely. And every member of this state should get involved, and understand the process, how it works, understand what the appropriation process is, know how money is given, how money is used, because it is their money. And maybe it ought to be sent back to them. You know, we need to hear these things.
>>Thank you, Representative Clark. Another prominent view on the role of the representative is the delegate view. Under this view, the legislator is a mere agent of his or her constituents, and must vote and act as instructed by the folks back in the district. These legislators do not feel free to act contrary to local instructions, even when it conflicts with their personal views. Recently we talked with Representative Brad King, who sees himself as a delegate to his constituents.
>>Political scientists have identified different types of legislators, and one of the classics, going back to the 1960s, is that some legislators were defined as politicos, meaning they were just kind of interested in the politics, and maneuvering themselves politically. Delegates saw themselves as representing the public, and just kind of being an elected delegate from their area. And the third one is trustee, where they represent the entire state. Would you agree with that breakdown from the legislators you have dealt with in Utah?
>>I think those are pretty general categories. I think there are probably a few others that I might throw in there.
>>What ones would you add to that list?
>>Well, there really are some who just enjoy the process. It can be entertaining, it can be very enjoyable. It doesn’t have to be if you are in the minority. I don’t know. I don’t know that I have a party every day. But it is enjoyable. But there are some who, again, say, “You know, I was elected. They trusted me to do what ever I feel is proper.” And then there are others who say, “Well, I will really represent what the people say.” But I don’t know anybody who does a poll on every vote that they take. There are certainly those with those general attitudes.
>>What would you say was the predominant characteristic of Utah legislators in those kinds of classifications?
>>I think most of them feel like they are trustees. They have been elected by the people, and have been given that trust to vote their own consciences. Sometimes I wish they were more representative, but some of the causes that I feel strongly about I think are very well-supported by the public, and not necessarily well-supported by the Legislature. So occasionally I wish they would do a little more poll-watching.
>>In looking at your resume, I was struck by the fact that you are an Honorary Colonel in the Utah Highway Patrol. And I haven’t met many Honorary Colonels in the Highway Patrol. What does that all mean?
>>Well, if you are ticketed for speeding in each of the counties in Utah, you can join that group.
>>Oh, is that right? That would have been surprising. 
>>It is actually a group that is involved with issues of the Patrol. We do a lot of advocacy work, we will go on ride-alongs, and we try to work on the image.
>>Are you less likely to get a speeding ticket?
>>No. I fact, I got a speeding ticket after I worked one whole session to get an extra trooper on Highway 6. That July 2, I believe I was the first one that was ticketed by the young man.
>>And what did you say to him?
>>I said, “You are a real professional, and a credit to your department.” And I paid my ticket, and vowed to drive more slowly on Highway 6.
>>That is a good public servant.
>>What do you want your legacy to be as you leave the Legislature at some point, maybe twenty years from now, thirty years from now?
>>Well, I hope that the people in the area say that there was somebody that really represented their interests, and not necessarily his own.
>>Does that make you a delegate?
>>Yes, that is the way I view myself, certainly. The other thing is that consequently the ability that I have had to raise the issue on Highway 6, and that is real personal thing for me.
>>Is that one of the most dangerous highways in America?
>>It was in the top five at one time, and we are kind of eating away at that a bit at a time. But that has always been a priority with me, to work on the safety of Highway 6. And that is a real important thing in my area of the state, because everyone has to use that if they are going to come up to the Wasatch Front for whatever. So that would be another area. I would like to retire saying, “It is done, and I helped.”  
>>And you saved thousands of lives by your activity with that.
>>That’s right.
>>And an extra trooper there to give people tickets as they go along.
>>That’s right.
>>Thank you, State Representative Brad King. We appreciate you spending some time with us.
>>The third view of the role of a Representative is the politico view. The politico view allows legislators to alternate back and forth between the trustee and delegate views, and to really maneuver in the political system. On issues that are important to constituents, these legislators will act like delegates. And on issues that are less-important or less-defined in the district, the legislator will act as a trustee. Earlier I had a chance to talk to Representative Craig Frank about the political view of representation.
>>Political scientists basically group views on representation into groups. The trustee view, where, although you listen very closely to your constituents, you are a free agent. You are able to make decisions that are the best decisions for the public good, even if it goes contrary to what your constituents would like. The delegate view, where you are an agent of your constituents, and only an agent of your constituents. Your job, your duty, is to express their points of view. And then we have the politico, which is kind of a combination of both. On more important issues to the constituents, you are a delegate, on issues that there is a little more flexibility, that it is not quite so defined, you feel freer to be a trustee, and kind of move through the political system. Of those three, which one would you be, and why?
>>Well, that is a loaded question. As you know, you are a little bit of everything. If the hybrid is the politico, then I am probably more of the politico, because a lot of the times when the people I represent maybe are passionate about an issue, they will bring that forward, and they will have a very strong voice about what they want me to represent. However, I may be in possession of some information that they may not have. And that happens frequently. When we sit up here in the Capitol, we will get a lot of input from a lot of different places, from constituents, from special interest groups, from leadership, the Governor’s office, and we will meld that information together to come up with a decent, or what we consider an equitable, vote. And I would suggest that because of the nature of the politico, that sometimes you vote against what your constituency thinks is pertinent. However, at other times, for example, I just ran a little bill through the Transportation Committee the other day that was defeated. It was the driving by minors amendment. It addressed the sixteen years to sixteen years six months driving restrictions, as well as a sixteen years to seventeen years driving restrictions. And that was brought to me by some constituents. They wanted me to look into that specifically for them. I thought it was a good idea. So I went full force with this to represent this. And unfortunately, by the time it ended up coming out of committee, there was no support from members of that committee. It went down in flames, so to speak, seven to two on the vote. So in that case, I was a pure delegate. But in other cases, when I am in possession of more information, then that shifts me more into the politico arena, I think.
>>I see. A lot of your colleagues up here have given more of a delegate answer when it comes to that. And so do you see a lot of delegates around the State Legislature? Or are you being a little more candid with us?
>>I would believe that they represent their constituency how they feel they need to represent them. I am a pragmatist. I think that I am sent here on a very general level to represent the people who elected me to office, yet at the same time they have sent me here to exercise my right to think and to understand, to assimilate information, to make choices, differently, possibly, than they have sent me here to make. And I guess if they don’t like that; there is the ballot box in a couple of years, right?
>>That’s right. The old saying that there is always a term limit. It is called the ballot box.
>>It is called the ballot box. That’s right.
>>Very good. 
>>Always.
>>This now brings us to our question of the day. 
>>[graphic]
>>Although the trustee, delegate, and politico categories are to an extent helpful in classifying legislators, Dr. Pev Squire reminds us representation is still a very complex matter.
>>Are political scientists still attempting to develop different prototypes of legislators? I know Wahlki and company, back in the 60s, had the delegate, and the politico, and the trustee. And then there have been other variations on that theme. What is the current state in political science of kind of classifying legislators?
>>Well, we haven’t really done much with that in the last two or three decades. Ideas about how legislators function become a little bit more sophisticated, so these easy categories don’t work as well. But the idea of representation is a very hard one to fully understand. When you have a legislator who may represent thirty thousand people, or in the case of the California State Senator, almost 880 thousand people, the idea of whose interests get represented and how they get represented is really a complicated one to answer. And so if you try to understand the behavior of a legislator in office, it is a very complicated model that you have to try to develop between the individual and his or her personality, and the various groups and people in his or her constituency that need to be represented. 
>>But yet those classifications seemed helpful in a way. I know when I was in the Legislature, you would look at certain people who were just kind of politically motivated. They were trying to maneuver themselves through the political process, as opposed to the trustee that sort of took their role seriously of kind of being the senior, elder statesman of the region. Has political science kind of discarded that whole approach?
>>I don’t think we have discarded it, but what I think we have seen is that people have a wide range of motivations that cause them to behave in certain ways. And you look at state legislators. Some are intending to serve for maybe just a few terms and then go back home. Others may be calculating how they may be able to move from this position to some higher office. And all of these things influence their behavior. We also have, then, political parties which operate in different ways in the different states, and some parties have very strong caucuses which make decisions where they try to hold their members to follow the party lead. Other states have much looser party alignments. And then you have, of course, in the state levels now, term limits in fifteen states that can, where legislators have relatively short terms in office, change the way they behave. And all of this makes it complicated.
>>Thank you, Dr. Squire. In addition to their personal views and views of their constituents, legislators must weigh several other factors. Such as:
>>[graphics]
>>This now brings us to lesson point two, how representatives represent. According to Alan Rosenthal, there are several ways legislators demonstrate faithful representation. Today we address three of the most common ways: being one of them, providing services to them, and acquiring resources for them, also known as bringing home the bacon. Let’s begin with being one of them. Being one of them involves staying in contact with the constituents. It is important that the people feel like the representatives are one of them, and that they share their district’s interests and values. Speaking of the appeal of electing someone who is one of them, political scientist James McClellan states:
>>[graphic]
>>Recently, President Sederburg asked Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich about the common traits of Utah legislators, and how the Senator shows his constituents he is one of them.
>>As you look at legislators in Utah, what would be some of their common traits, characteristics where you would say, “Oh, you are a legislator”?
>>Well, you get the hardcore type that is very partisan. That is a trait of some people, very partisan. We don’t have that a lot, but occasionally it does. 
>>Reading in the press, is seems like there are a lot of these people.
>>Yes, there really is.
>>Is that a misnomer?
>>No, they are here. It didn’t used to be that way. It was very…we used to get behind the scenes and make a lot of decisions, bipartisan decisions, in the 80s, late 70s and 80s. Now it is more of closed-door type stuff, single caucus, which doesn’t consider any minority votes. And they make those decisions.
>>Thirty years ago it would have been Democrats and Republicans getting together in a small caucus and saying, “Let’s make this decision”?
>>Not necessarily a caucus, over a good dinner.
>>Over a good dinner?
>>Very bipartisan, very powerful legislators at that time, and I was fortunate to be able to join them because my predecessor, Elmer Bunnell,  was one of those, and he always took me along with him. Senator Hughes, for example, Senator Warren Pugh, very powerful republicans, with Senator Thorpe Waddingham, and they would sit down, and they would discuss the issues. And it is amazing how those decisions were made.
>>What percentage of the current Legislature would be that partisan, hardcore currently?
>>I would say in the current Legislature, less than twenty percent hardcore. 
>>But that is adequate to really shape the tone?
>>Well, they certainly try to shape it. Fortunately we have more moderate legislators. Especially our leadership, in my opinion very moderate, who is here to do State’s business without any partisan maneuvers. 
>>So to push you a little bit more, how would you describe a legislative personality here in Utah? Conservative?
>>More conservative. 
>>Than…
>>Than liberal. We have both sides, though. I think both parties have more moderate people that we have had the last four or five years. 
>>That is interesting. You see that trend continuing?
>>I would hope so. 
>>And are they more intelligent than the average Joe Blow, or do they generally represent the public in intelligence level and in dedication level?
>>I don’t really know how you would describe intelligence when it comes to legislating.
>>I don’t either, but I thought it was a good question.
>>It is a good question. I am sure there are some very bright minds down there. And I am not so sure that there is anyone slacking in knowledge, even though sometimes the press makes out to believe that we are not very smart. 
>>Flip it around a little bit. Have you ever worked with people who just didn’t get it?
>>Yes.
>>And are they successful legislators?
>>No. There were times when I was in the House, we had a couple of members, we could get their vote, and yet I would always time it to go over and have them change their vote in electronic voting. You would always time it so you were the last one there.
>>They would have to keep track of how they were actually going to stay with their commitment.
>>And that will happen. And it is really not that they are stupid. They are probably too shy to express their views, and so they are easily maneuvered.
>>Our author says one of the characteristics of representation is to be one of the public and to hold the characteristics. For example, I am guessing that the majority of African Americans in the U.S. Congress probably come from African American districts, or a large percentage of African Americans in there. In Utah County it would probably be fairly unusual for a non-L.D.S. person to be elected. How do you respond to becoming one of the group when you are a Democrat, I think you are non-L.D.S., you are more conservative on some issues but more liberal on other issues. How do you reflect on Dr. Rosenthal’s comment that you need to be “one of us” to really represent the public?
>>It is a very interesting question. When I was first elected Minority Leader in the House, I had one of the members come up to me and say, “You are a true minority Minority Leader.” I am not L.D.S., I have a Serb name, and I am a Democrat in a very Republican state. One of the rules I always had is I never try to offend any religion, or any moral issue when it comes to offending people, and I just think it is wise not to be offensive to any personality or whatever it may be, whether the Gay Movement, or Worker’s Rights, or anything like that.
>>A matter of civility and respect. 
>>Just try to get the respect of them, yes. I am very conservative on fiscal matters, not very liberal, but on social issues I am quite liberal.
>>Thank you, Senator. The next common way legislators demonstrate their representation is through providing their constituents with services, or in other words, by case work. Alan Rosenthal states:
>>[graphic]
>>Legislators help their constituents obtain business licenses or unemployment benefits, heath issues, or help them with traffic or tax problems, to just name a few of the ways legislators serve the constituents’ needs. Scott Hammond, once again, talks with Representative Stephen Clark to find out how he serves his constituents. 
>>So what are some of the things that you do specifically for your constituents to keep that bond, that link, there?
>>Well, we try and send out surveys right at the beginning to find out where people are, what they want to do. Unfortunately, I don’t get a lot of those surveys back. I try to travel my districts and hold meetings and visit with the people. I also send out a newsletter probably three times during the session, I and publish my e-mail address, my phone number, and I ask my constituents to call me or e-mail me. And I respond to every one of them.
>>Every one of them?
>>Every one that will call or e-mail me. 
>>That is impressive.
>>Well, unfortunately, I don’t get a lot of response. That is one of the problems we have up here, is that people send you up here and say, “We know you. We have seen your voting record and know your history, and we know your background. Just go out and do it for us. Take care of us.” And that is fine, and we are willing to do that, but it is nice to have a friend once in a while that will call you, or say you are doing a good job, or you need to change this, or you need to change that. It is a great process. I invite my constituents to come up and visit me. I love to take them on the floor, I love to introduce them, I love to give them the opportunity to see it functioning up here, because unless you have been up here, you have no idea how it works and how interesting it is.
>>What kind of services do you provide, then, for your constituents, directly? Any of that?
>>Well you know, we represent to government our constituents, and I have a lot of constituents call and say, “I can’t get a hold of this or that, or this department, or that department, So they use me as a conduit to get to state government services, and we get those problems resolved.
>>So you help them get access to resources that the State already has provided.
>>Absolutely.
>>And what are the typical kind of problems you might deal with?
>>Well…
>>Can you fix my taxes, for example?
>>Maybe we could if we had enough votes. Certainly we could do that.
>>So maybe we could get the tax cuts.
>>There you go. 
>>That will help.
>>Individuals situations, I had a constituent that lost his license. Actually, it was stolen. He had no identity, and he wanted to know, “How can I get the license back, and they give me a duplicate? And what can I do?” So I made a few calls, and found out exactly what we could do, and they took care of it, and he is back in business. You know, they are just small things, but if you get into the government bureaucracy, sometimes it is very frustrating. And we have an ability to kind of shortcut those kinds of problems.
>>The third common way legislators demonstrate their representation is through acquiring resources, or in other words, bringing home the bacon. Legislators strive to bring resources to their districts which will meet the economic, transportation, education, or other needs of their district. The legislator is often under pressure to keep up with the neighboring district and to make sure that his or her district gets their fair share of the pie. Speaking of the need to bring home the bacon, Alan Rosenthal states:
>>[graphic]
>>To learn more about what it takes to acquire resources for one’s district, let’s once again return to President Sederburg and Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich.
>>Here we are, chatting with Senator Mike Dmitrich, who is a Utah State Senator representing the Carbon County and surrounding areas. And we are going to hear a little bit more information about your district in a second. Senator Dmitrich has served in the Utah Senate and the House of Representatives for thirty-nine years. He is the longest serving member of either chamber, currently, and as Mike was just telling me, the second longest serving legislator ever in the history of the State of Utah. It will be kind of interesting to hear about who wins the title as far longevity is concerned. He is known throughout the Legislature as a successful, inside politician, always able to get things for his district, as well as advance the common good. But I have to start out with a very tough question, Senator. You are known as the Silver Fox. And you don’t look like the silver comes from hair, so where did the title Silver Fox come from?
>>It used to come from hair.
>>It did.
>>But the fox are normally known as sly, quick-moving, getting things done, so I hope that is where I got it. I hope it wasn’t negative.
>>Well, you are known as always getting one, or two, or three million dollars out of the Legislature for your district, good years, bad years, you are always being known for being successful in bringing home the bacon. Is that where the Fox comes from?
>>Yes, that is probably where it came from, and I have been lucky and fortunate to be able to do that for my district. Because normally we in rural Utah are kind of left out. Time after time you hear legislators get on and say, “Well, how come you are ignoring…Salt Lake ends at the Utah County line, or the point of the mountain,” which you have heard, and so it is really good to have our district represented up there.
>>Now, is it your goal every legislative session to bring something back for the people of your district? 
>>I usually try to have one project. Last year it was the Training Center at the College of Eastern Utah. This year we have to get our dorms paid of so that we can function in the black instead of in the red. So that is my goal this session. 
>>And how much is that going to cost?
>>It is just a little over a million dollars. And that is small when we are talking about a ten billion dollar budget, but it is hard to take a million out of this Legislature. 
>>And share with us a little bit about your strategy in doing that. You are a Democrat, you are in the minority, but highly respected. So what is your strategy as you try and deal with this problem?
>>Well, maybe we shouldn’t say this on air, but I use the same strategy politically as I used to use when I used to hang out in bars. I found the biggest, toughest guy to make friends with in case I got in trouble. Well, I plan the same strategy here. You get the biggest, toughest person, and that is the majority party. And so I try to work within the system. They know when I oppose the system, and I don’t do anything for press reasons. I try to just keep it low key, to the point, and get things done.
>>A long time ago, when I was in the Legislature, a legislator told me that the more effective legislators are very seldom in the news day in and day out. They are accomplishing things behind the scenes. What has been your experience on that?
>>Well, I very seldom have press releases. I really don’t believe in them, because normally you don’t get the coverage on them. If you don’t pick the right news day, you don’t get any coverage. I would rather just do it within the body of this Legislature.
>>Legislators are sometimes accused of bringing home the pork, or getting special things for their district. We started our conversation with that. I want to get back to that just a little bit. What is your take as to how legislators decide…well, I know there is a U.S. Senator who got a bridge built to nowhere, and you hear about these things once in a while. What is your thinking process as to what you are going to go after for your district? How do you determine that, and how significant is it to you? 
>>Well, I would like to really—I think you have to get stuff for your district. And it is not a pork project in rural Utah. Anything you can do to improve that image down there is good. Saturday we had the groundbreaking for a natural resource building. It took a little legislative work, local government work, and I am kind of proud of doing stuff like that. I also have a building named after me at the College of Eastern Utah.
>>I remember that. An athletic facility. 
>>The Bunnell Dmitrich Athletic Center. I am awfully proud of that. There are two things I am proud of. The building being named after me, and me being elected to the Utah Sports Hall of Fame as a referee.
>>Is that right? I had better be careful, or you will blow the whistle on us here. But I have got to ask this. It is probably impolite. Did you feel that the college was kind of schmoozing up to you by naming the building after you? Or did you feel it was a merited sort of recognition?
>>It was not solicited. I was quite surprised when it happened. I did not ask it. I did not even think about it.
>>So it was a nice way for the college to honor what you had done.
>>The Board of Trustees called and said, “We are going to name it after you.” Well, the particular incident was, the athletic center, for at least eight years up here we were trying to get that thing funded. I had the opportunity when former Governor Bangerter was Speaker of the House, we had just seventeen Democrats. He had a bonding bill that he wanted to pass. And he needed all seventeen of us. So I had that college project down there, and I said, “Let’s include that in the bond.” And we were talking, back then, $1.3 million to $1.4 million. So it wasn’t a large sum of money, but it was large at that time.
>>It made a difference.
>>And so the vote turned out, we needed to actually have thirty-eight votes, and it hit right on the button. All seventeen…
>>Is that right?
>>I told the Democrats, “The only thing I want out of the Democrats, the only thing I want to ask for is vote for this bonding bill.”
>>There is a great political science concept that the power of a legislator increases as the vote gets closer to fifty-fifty. That if you are the first vote on an issue, it is meaningless, but if you are the critical vote to kind of tip it over to fifty-one percent, you can drive a lot of stuff. In your mind, do you kind of position yourself a little bit, or try to be in a position where you might be the critical vote on an issue?
>>Well in the Senate, we have a roll call vote. You can do that. You can pass and vote later. I very seldom pass. I figure, just let it fly the way it can. In the Senate it is kind of interesting, because usually, there for a while, out of all of out Democrats, they were between A and J, and K, and L, so it looked like it was a party vote if they followed the lead of the leader. It looked like it was a partisan vote, and it really wasn’t.
>>That is interesting. Do you enjoy being on the Legislature? What do you find is the biggest positive thing?
>>The most positive thing about being on the Legislature is first of all, it was not monetary. I came up here to serve two to three terms. But it turns out eleven times I ran for the House, I was only opposed twice, so it was kind of easy to be a legislator. The thing I enjoy about the Legislature is the people you meet that I would probably have never met I my life, and the friendships that you have created through the legislative process. On the other hand, to be totally honest, it really helped with my employment in the mining business.
>>Is that right? Because you became an expert, then, and everybody said, “We have to deal with Senator Dmitrich.”
>>And I was close to the scene, and it opened a lot of doors in other states.
>>Who was the legislator who served the longest in the Legislature?
>>Former Senator Haven Barlow from Davis County served forty-two years. I see him occasionally. He is always wanting me to beat his record.
>>Is that right? He wants you to beat his record?
>>He wants me to beat his record.
>>I would think maybe he would be proud of that and didn’t want you to.
>>Oh no, he said, “I want to have you to beat my record.” But it would be kind of neat for me personally. It would be the only record a Democrat would have in Utah.
>>I am sure there are other records. We just don’t know about them. Is it your goal to beat him?
>>Oh, it is always my intention, but you never know. You know, I just turned seventy, so I have served most of my life, more than half my life in the Legislature. I have had a very willing family that has allowed me to do this, or I wouldn’t have stayed. It is also not bad to do it in the winter when you are an avid golfer.
>>That’s right. And get away a little bit. Just one last question. I was at a reception the other night. We started talking about the growth of the arts community. And apparently Helper, which is in your Senate district, has become a little enclave of artists and art shops, in Helper. Does an introduction of a different community change the nature in your concern over issues? Would you suddenly be more interested now in arts that you were a year or two years ago?
>>It is very interesting. It is really neat that you asked that. We have a lot of well-known artist that live right in Helper, reside there.
>>It that right?
>>And Helper went from a place with a lot of bars and things there. For the first time in history in Helper, there is not a bar in Helper. It is very art-oriented; it is very tourist-oriented. It is very neat what they are doing down there, and they are just touching the brink of it. I think it is going to be real interesting art community.
>>Is there anybody in your communities that you represent that would know your counties better than you know them?
>>I wouldn’t think so. Particularly Carbon and Emery. I probably, I just grew up in it. I’ve lived most my life there. I moved down there when I was in the first grade.
>>Well, thank you, Senator. 
>>It is always a pleasure talking to you, President. And you have a fine college.
>>Well, thank you. We think so. But you do a great job. I know we have had you down to speak to our political science classes and you always enthrall the classes. 
>>That was an enjoyable evening. That was fun.
>>So thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
>>I appreciate it.
>>Thank you President and Senator. Bringing home the bacon to your district is a crucial part of a legislator’s job. However, when legislators create projects that are lies or fiscally irresponsible, I know of at least one conservative legislator who says, “Count them out.” He doesn’t want it. To learn more, let’s once again return to my conversation with Representative Craig Frank.
>>There is a phrase, bringing home the bacon, or the pork. When I said that phrase, what comes to mind?
>>Well it obviously has to do with the money, and how much of the budget, and how much of that is going to affect my constituency as a Representative. You know, I take a different tact on that, I think. It is important to make sure our constituency is covered with all the budgetary needs that are required for a district. Now, what is required? I think that generally speaking, a lot of money that we bring home, is it something that we can do without? That is the first question. Is the money that we are bringing home something that we can do without? Are we growing government too fast? Or are the things that are really needed coming home to us? Well, certainly there are budgetary issues. I try not to focus on those so much. I think that as we bring home the bacon, or bring home these excessive dollars sometimes, the bacon money, the pork money; it disadvantages others in the state that might be able to use that more effectively. My district is very unique, in that we don’t have a lot of people crying for a lot of extra dollars, whereas in other counties, that might be a completely different thing.
>>So as far as resources go, one of the first questions you ask yourself is, “Are we talking about a need here for the folks here in the district, or are we talking about perhaps a want, which may not be warranted?”
>>That would be a good summary of that.
>>Thank you, Representative Frank. We have spoken a great deal today about representative democracy and its superiority to direct democracy. However, believe it or not, direct democracy has recently been making a bit of a comeback. We asked our author, Alan Rosenthal, to discuss some reasons why direct, popular democracy was once again on the rise.
>>Well, one reason, of course, is that the challenge to representative democracy is always there. The second reason is the explosion in communications. The people can be reached, not only by newspapers, but by television, by cable, by blogs. And everyone is much more connected, or much more accessible. You have many more interest groups, political interest groups, economic interest groups, competing. And you also have, in half our states, the provision for an initiative. That is to say, people, by gathering enough signatures, can put an issue on the ballot that does not have to go through the Legislature, and it can be voted on by the electorate of the State. And so the people can decide directly without having Representatives deciding for them. Well, an argument that is made is, then why not let the people decide issues directly? Furthermore, Legislatures and legislators have been under heavy fire, I think, for years from the media, from various groups. The implication, I think, today is that legislators are tools of special interest groups. They are bought by campaign contributions, and the Legislatures are not trustworthy to do the people’s business. Now I do not agree with those charges, but I think those charges, and particularly coming thorough the media, have really undermined representative democracy. And then you always have legislators who get into trouble, legislators who are corrupt, legislators who are arrogant, legislators who are stupid. And these are the legislators who are reported about. I mean, the good legislators get very little ink. The bad legislators get a lot of ink. And people tend to generalize from the bad to all. So I think Legislatures and legislators are in the dog house. Probably have always been in the dog house, but I think the door of the dog house is now shut, and nails now may be being hammered in. So I think for those reasons, an alternative that seems appealing, such as direct democracy, is out there, and maybe kind of flourishing.
>>It is now time for our term of the day.
>>[graphics]
>>We hope you enjoyed our show today on representation. On behalf of Bill Sederburg, I am Rick Griffin, as we will see you next time on State Legislative Process.


Closed Captioning provided by Distance Education Accessibility Services