SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE GREG CURTIS
BEFORE THE UTAH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2006 GENERAL SESSSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2006
Fellow citizens, members of the media and my distinguished colleagues of the Utah House of Representatives, welcome to the 2006 General Session of the Utah State Legislature.
It is an honor to stand here today to convene this 2006 General Session of the Utah House of Representatives.
This year we begin our work in the same temporary chamber we found ourselves last year. Only this time, we have more familiarity with our surroundings and more experience with our duties.
None of us can say we have not done this job before.
So with this experience --- comes wisdom.
And with wisdom --- a greater expectation of performance.
As we begin today, we have a fresh opportunity to press forward toward the highest standards of democratic representation.
Our individual, personal adherence to the values of hard work, honesty and humility will be central to our ability to collectively earn and keep the trust and confidence of those whom we serve.
While on the one hand, we may all agree on the need to maintain the highest standards of democratic representation, on the other hand we should still expect conflict and disagreement.
In fact, we should not expect it, we should demand it.
I think the public demands that within the four walls of this chamber and the committee rooms in which we meet, ideas will collide.
Arguments will be born.
But that reason will prevail.
Just as the best swords are forged from the hottest fires, the best public policies are often born when divergent views collide, propelled by the strongest, deepest passion.
However, none of this conflict and disagreement should be personal in nature. All of our questions, comments and concerns … should be fair, open and productive.
There is nothing more damaging to the legislative process than when we lose our cool, question motives, malign character or spread half-truths.
Just because someone disagrees with your idea does not mean they do not like you – it means they do not like your idea. Just because someone argues against your bill, does not mean you should argue against theirs. And just because someone votes against your motion, does not mean you should vote against theirs.
Let the ideas collide, not the personalities.
This is important because none of us has all the right answers. None of us has all the best ideas. And no party’s political philosophy is always best.
---------------------------------------------------
I remember when I started law school at the U. I was young, nervous --- and about 40 pounds thinner. One of my first sections was a large contracts class where the professor stood before us and threw out tough questions from a thick case book.
Someone in the first row would raise his hand and provide a brilliant bit of analysis. Then someone would raise her hand and greatly expand on that. And again, from the side of the classroom, an older student would offer his insights, again raising points I thought were better than anything I could muster.
Initially, the cumulative effect of all this analysis and wisdom was intimidating. It appeared as though everyone, individually, knew more than me. So instead of thinking about Hadley v. Baxendale, I began worrying about Curtis v. Graduation.
But then it occurred to me.
While the entire case was in fact accurately dissected and analyzed, no one person in that classroom had all the right answers. One answer might have come from a retired teacher. Another from the kid who was home schooled. And then another from the Hispanic kid from Los Angeles.
Together this classroom created a picture. But rather than just a single frame or two that each student held in his pocket, we put these frames together and made a movie.
Working together in this House of Representatives, we, too, can make a movie.
The only question is whether we are going to make something like Citizen Kane, or a bad movie, which I’ll leave to your liking.
---------------------------------------------------
This year we have as many demands as ever before: education, transportation, human services -- just to name a few. There are many proposals for new ways to spend more.
We need to be sure that we come up with old ways to spend less. And one of the best old ways to spend less … is to take less.
In fact, the best way to give something is to not take it in the first place.
I was recently told the story of a college class here in Utah where a philosophy professor asked his students to go to the chalk board to draw a symbol of our government. Among all the amusing images you could imagine, at least one student drew something that did in fact bear some resemblance to one of our great American symbols: the Bald Eagle.
Good idea, you might think.
The only problem, however, was that instead of a strong, smart bird with powerful balanced wings, this bird wasn’t smart and his wings were damaged and getting worse.
This bird didn’t know where he had been. He didn’t know where he was going. And his entire journey was apparently paid for with someone else’s money.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, this particular Bald Eagle flew in circles over a raging fire that it persistently tried to smother by dumping payloads of cash from each of its claws, leading, of course, only to hotter, higher flames.
You might even say that this bird was falling into a burning ring of fire, and try as he may, he was going down, down, down.
For this body to be responsible stewards of the public’s wealth, we need to be careful not to become this symbol. If we are going to spend, let’s know where we are going and why. If we are going to solve a problem, let’s agree that more spending is never all of the answer, and in many cases, it could make matters worse.
There are plenty of great ideas we simply cannot afford. There are wonderful proposals that just have to wait. We cannot simultaneously promise to fund every new initiative, add to every existing program and build every new barn, bridge and building for every Tom, Dick and Harry.
This is not easy. But public service is about making tough choices among competing priorities. Former U.S. Senator Phil Gramn used to talk about which programs he decided to fund and which he decided to cut.
He looked at every program in the federal government and then thought of someone in his home state. He thought of a guy named Dicky Flatt who ran a small print shop in the small town of Mexia, Texas.
He ran his business from early in the morning until 8 o’clock at night, six days a week and every holiday. And whether you saw him at church or with the Boy Scouts he could never quite get the blue ink out of the creases in his fingers.
So the Senator would look at each program and ask himself a simple question: “will the benefits to be derived by spending money on this program be worth taking money away from Dicky Flatt?”
There were not a lot of programs that stood up to that test.
---------------------------------------------------
As we begin this legislative session, let us not forget that while we cannot improve upon the system of government that we have inherited, we can improve the outcome that the cynical might expect.
Let there be no illusion about the difficulty of our task. It is not easy. But I have no doubt but that we will all do our very best to serve.
In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation for all of you.
I also want to express my love and appreciation for my wife Teresa, who is not here today.
Public service places a large burden upon those who love us most. So it is appropriate that we demonstrate our thanks by serving in a way that makes them proud, and that makes us deserving of the warmth and serenity that they provide when we return home.
May God bless us that we exercise wisdom in our work, and that it will be tempered by humility and justice.
And may God bless the Great State of Utah.