Center for Free Enterprise
In an age where every cell phone user is a potential videographer, police tactics have come under increased scrutiny from the public as headlines of law enforcement confrontations gone wrong are captured by citizen bystanders. These stories underscore the growing call for reforms in policing tactics and transparency through department-issued body-worn cameras for officers. Some want to see increased use of body cameras, including mandates for their use all police departments, in the hopes that such transparency will yield a reduction in incidents of force.
Studies in Rialto, California, and elsewhere have shown the benefits of body camera programs—including significant reductions in use of force incidents. For this reason, many police departments are adopting the use of this new technology. The cameras not only help bring transparency and accountability for police actions, but more often than not, they show the good work officers do and frequently exonerate officers against false complaints. Camera footage can also be used as evidence in criminal proceedings and is more reliable than any one officer’s or witness’ memory of events. However, cameras also pose a number of unique challenges. These challenges mean that policies governing the use of cameras need to be well thought out, well written, and enforceable to ensure that cameras are used effectively and in a manner that protect the rights of all involved.
Libertas Institute has put in hundreds of man hours behind the scenes in an ongoing effort to develop and implement such policies in Utah. While the potential benefits of cameras are clear, we do not favor an approach that mandates all departments use them; implementation is very costly. The public budgets that govern police expenditures should control the decision-making process for each department. However, the inevitability is that law enforcement agencies see the immense value of cameras and adopt their use in the absence of a mandate to do so. As this has happened in recent years, the policies that govern the use of body cameras vary from department to department. While this might be reasonable for policies governing other equipment like vehicles or handcuffs, when the privacy rights of all Utahns are at stake—and when officers are often, if not primarily, enforcing state laws—it becomes a state issue.
Recently we wrote about some of the problems with Medicaid expansion and reasons why the Governor and legislature should not proceed with the Healthy Utah proposal. Simply put, the discussion over Utah Medicaid expansion under “Obamacare” ignores the fundamental policy question about whether Utah should be providing taxpayer-funded health insurance or health care for able-bodied, childless, working-age adults at all.
Historically, the state has never done so, and policy makers have made little effort to do so until now. Many agree that such a program falls well outside the traditional limits of government policy. Nothing has changed about the fundamentals of this debate.
The incentives, however, have changed; under Obamacare, the federal government has promised to the states that it will pick up all or part of the fiscal tab for such a policy—at least for a period of time. We warn that this is a false and empty promise—one that is predicated on burdening future generations with debt by expanding unsustainable deficit spending. It is a promise that leaves our children and grandchildren exposed to serious future fiscal problems. It is a promise that leaves existing needy patients exposed to doctor shortages. For these reasons, we join with others to call on the legislature to protect Utahns from the problems associated with Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
Around the country, states have imposed licensure requirements on a large number of professions, effectively requiring workers to seek government permission—and pass through a number of bureaucratic hurdles—in order to practice their chosen profession. Whereas in the 1950s only one in 20 U.S. workers were required to obtain a license, that figure today stands at almost one in every three workers.
For each licensed profession, state legislatures usually authorize and empower a governing board, comprised in most cases of members of that same profession. For example, in Utah, the licensure of chiropractors is regulated by a board made up of four chiropractors and a token “public member” who is not a member of the industry. Nurses are regulated by a board comprised of nine fellow nurses and two public members. Direct-entry midwives are overseen by four licensed people from the profession and one “public member.” The trend holds constant for the other several dozen licensed professions in Utah.
That trend may soon change in light of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in February that may put these boards on the defense. The case at hand, North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, arose due to the dental board—comprised primarily of dentists—engaging in non-competitive behavior and being sued by the Federal Trade Commission. Specifically, the board attempted to prohibit non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services, presumably because this competition undermined their monopolistic hold on the market.
Governor Herbert declared November 29th as “Small Business Saturday.” This was a well needed reprieve from the anti-business Thursday just one week prior when the Utah Insurance Department attempted to shut down online HR startup Zenefits, or the previous anti-business Tuesday when the Salt Lake City Council decided to impose unnecessary regulations on ridesharing apps Uber and Lyft. When it comes to creating a business-friendly regulatory environment in Utah, government officials know how to talk, but do they know how to walk?
We applaud the Governor for his recent work to reduce administrative regulations on business but are left to wonder, in light of recent events, if the momentum is beginning to sputter.
In 2013, a San Francisco startup, Thumbtack, surveyed 12,000 small business owners around the country to find out which states provided the best environment for business. They found that Utah was the most business friendly state in the nation and subsequently decided to locate their customer support operation here where they are now growing rapidly. Utah received an A in the regulatory category in the 2013 survey and improved to an A+ in 2014, indicating low regulatory burdens on small business in Utah. Utah has also ranked as the number one state for business for three years in a row by Pollina Corporate Real Estate and tops the list in a number of other rankings.
Next Tuesday, the Salt Lake City Council will be voting on a proposed change to its ordinances regarding ground transportation services.
After Libertas Institute broke the news of $6,500 citations being given out to Lyft and Uber drivers operating outside the parameters of existing ordinances, which neither contemplate nor address ride-sharing services, heightened public attention brought significant opposition to the city’s treatment of this innovative new service.
Both of these companies have now publicly opposed the proposal, arguing that it imposes unnecessary and onerous burdens.
Earlier this week, a new audit of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) was announced and discussed, in which the government agency was accused of manipulating data, misleading the public, and giving special treatment to certain businesses over others.
GOED’s own press releases support the latter allegation.
On August 14, GOED published a press release in which they announced a new tax credit incentive awarded to Overstock, a popular online retailer headquartered in Salt Lake County. Upon committing to creating 333 new jobs over the next 10 years, with wages and benefits at 200 percent over the county average wage, Overstock was awarded a 20% tax credit by GOED over 10 years.
Standing alone, this is likely a welcome incentive for Overstock and a reduction of their tax burden which will facilitate job creation and business growth. Stacked against another incentive, however, it becomes clear that Overstock (and many other companies competing for employees) has been placed at a financial disadvantage.
A newly released audit of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development—an institution of which we have often been critical—claims that their primary tactic to lure business into the state entails “questionable incentive awards.”
The audit also alleges corruption within the office in the form of manipulation of data. “GOED regularly reports inaccurately” on certain items, and “provided special treatment for some companies by altering post-performance assessments for companies that failed to meet GOED’s contractual threshold.” Further, the audit alleges that GOED has:
- used existing company employees to inflate wages of new employees in order to gain corporate incentive awards;
- used incorrect benchmarks to improperly issue an economic development tax increment financing award;
- removed low-paying jobs from averages; and
- handed out incentives to companies that failed to meet the wage criteria under their contracts with the state.
House Bill 105 from this previous legislative session had two important but distinct parts. The widely popularized portion related to legalizing cannabis extract for medicinal use, and earlier this year the Department of Health created administrative rules to implement this program.
The second portion of the bill, which few realize was included, authorized the Department of Agriculture, or any qualifying higher education institution, to “grow or cultivate industrial hemp for the purpose of agricultural or academic research.” Last week, the department issued its proposed rules to administer this program.
Upon review of the proposed rule, Libertas Institute has identified four problematic portions that deal with the department exceeding the authority they were granted under passage of H.B. 105. We have issued a letter, embedded below, to the Department of Agriculture seeking amendments to the proposal prior to its final enactment.
Salt Lake City, enforcing its arcane, anti-free-market transportation laws, has been imposing $6,500 fines on Lyft and Uber drivers. City officials argue that its laws are necessary for public safety, which is false.
To help ferret out drivers operating in violation of these laws, Salt Lake City employs secret shoppers to hire drivers and then report them to city officials. Correspondence obtained by Libertas Institute through an open records request includes numerous emails from these secret shoppers.
One such shopper, whose name was redacted, reported the following after her first experience using Lyft in April:
In an exclusive interview published last month, we broke the story regarding Salt Lake City’s heavy-handed fines being imposed on Lyft and Uber drivers operating without the city’s blessing. Citations amounting to $6,500 and more have been issued to drivers for daring to drive consenting passengers without the drivers having jumped through the city’s regulatory hoops.
Records obtained by Libertas Institute this week suggest more reasons why the city may be resistant to the innovative disruption that these ride-share companies bring. In the last fiscal year, Salt Lake City received $362,361.65 in fees from the three authorized taxi companies for the ~200 authorized vehicles operating throughout the city. This is in addition to license fees paid by the three companies to the city.