May 27, 2010

"It could be in state tuition, driving privilege cards, all things regarding immigration are going to be, I think, on the table to discuss, and hopefully we'll come up with something." -Governor Herbert

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: Governor, thanks for joining us. First question, on the top of many people's agenda, should Utah follow the lead set by the state of Arizona in enacting tougher state enforcement on the subject of illegal immigration?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think it's going to be kind of mandatory for us to do something. The issue has become such a hot topic, I think with the emergence of Arizona, the frustration that Americans throughout the country feel because of a lack of response by the federal government, is now kind of indicating that states are taking the matter into their own hands and forcing laws that the federal government won't. Clearly there's energy out there about immigration reform. We have legislators that are already talking about introducing legislation. I expect that we will have a Utah immigration bill introduced and passed in the 2000 legislative session.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: What would you do, Governor, with a bill, if it does parallel the Arizona law requiring people to produce papers if there's any question about their legality? Is that something you could support, or is that something you would have to consider vetoing?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think there's a lot of aspects to immigration reform, and I expect that our law in Utah will be not necessarily the same as what's done in Arizona. They have their own unique circumstances there, they're a border state, they have a lot of frustration because of illegal drug traffic and human trafficking that's taking place there. I expect we'll learn from their experience. We have time in fact, to observe what's going to happen with their law, some of the potential Constitutional conflicts that may be inherent. I think we can learn from that.

I think that it's time for us to, in Utah, to kind of gather all the stake holders together and discuss this in a very methodical and calm way, and see what it is that we need to do in Utah, what is the outcome we're trying to accomplish in Utah. And I think we'll come up with a law that, in fact, passes Constitutional muster, is one that most people in Utah can feel good about. So I expect that the end result's going to be something that I will sign.

JEFF ROBINSON, KCPW: What do you think about Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank going to Washington, D.C., kind of representing Utah on a national scale, and saying that we do not like this law, and we don't care for it at all?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think he speaks for himself, and probably for others in law enforcement. I think there's some concerns about what this does to the law enforcement community, and I think their voice needs to be heard. We need to understand, is there some kind of unintended consequence that comes with a law of this nature that maybe we, on second thought, don't particularly want to embrace. I'm not saying that what he's saying is absolutely accurate, but it certainly ought to be part of the discussion. Clearly, if we put a law in place that has additional responsibilities given to law enforcement, we ought to hear what the reaction is to that, and understand what they think that's going to do to their responsibility to enforce law. So I'm interested in his comments, and others in law enforcement. They certainly ought to be around the table as we discuss immigration reform.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: Governor, you talk about people sitting around this table, the most rapidly expanding demographic in the state of Utah is its Latino population. Those people have expressed the gravest concerns about the Arizona law. Do they have a place at this table, and what is the relationship you envision of the state to this unique demographic group?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, absolutely they should have a chair at the table. And there's been discussions already going on in anticipation of this, even before the Arizona law. I've had opportunities to interface with our Latino community, and many have expressed a need for immigration reform in their own mind. And they're not all opposed to immigration reform. I think there's a generalization out there, some like it, some don't like it. Some are saying well, depends on what it is.

I think all of us as Americans understand and appreciate the rule of law, and we need to make sure that whatever our immigration reform is understands the rule of law, and we cannot just turn a blind eye to those who break the law. There's a right way and a wrong way to come into our country, and we need to emphasize the right way. And certainly the Latino community understands that and should be at the table as we have this discussion.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Should there be a path to citizenship for those here illegally, or should they be required to return to their home country?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I don't think anybody's really supportive of what we call amnesty, but then the definition of amnesty, sometimes gets caught up in the emotion of the moment. I think, in all of this discussion, we need to understand the humanity that's out there. These are people, and you know, most of them are good people just trying to find a better way of life and look at opportunity here in America, where they can come here, even though they do what we would consider menial tasks, they get paid, you know, ten times more than what they were getting in their own country. So we can understand and appreciate that. But still, we need to work together on a solution. Because the aggravation, the frustration is growing. And it does not appear, at least has not in the past, that Washington, D.C. is going to take on this responsibility and do what they need to do.

Under the Constitution they do have to secure the borders. That's their responsibility. Under the Constitution they do determine who is able to come into the country, under what circumstances, and what citizenship responsibilities, or parameters there are to become a citizen. And so that needs to be addressed at the federal level. I think we see some movement, now, with President Obama now sending 1,200 troops to the border. That seems to be an indication, at least somebody's attention's been, you know, gotten. And we hope that that's going to be an indication that the federal government will step up and fulfill their responsibilities. That being the case, states are certainly moving, now, towards doing what they feel like they need to do to protect their own demographics.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: But those who are here illegally now, should they be sent back to their home countries?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well I think we'll have that part of that discussion and see what should happen. I think there should be, in fact, we ought not to reward people for bad behavior. We ought to reward people for good behavior. I think there is a system in a free market system, where, as we have employers that have to take on the responsibility of making sure they are not hiring people who are illegal, who are undocumented, and if a person can't find a job, if that's the carrot that's bringing them here, they will soon find, over a period of time, if I want to come to America and be successful, have a job, and enjoy those benefits, I've got to come in the correct and legal way, I can't hop the fence or overstay my visa. I hope people appreciate, this is not just people hopping the border. Sixty percent of our illegal undocumented aliens are people who have come in legally but then have overstayed their visas and won't go home.

RICHARD PIATT, KSL-TV: Since the federal government's purview is this immigration issue, is the value of the states doing something really to actually do something about the immigration problem, or to put pressure on the federal government to do something about it?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think it ends up being both. You know, I think that what is happening is if you're not going to do it, federal government, we, the states, are. Again, Arizona probably feels a lot more frustration than most as a border state, with the illegal activities taking place there, you know, 550,000 illegals in Arizona, is causing them grave concern. And clearly, in spite of the kind of what's perceived to me maybe some borderline Constitutional issues, the public of Arizona overwhelmingly are supporting what they're doing.

And so again, it's just a, I think, born out of frustration of why is not somebody, the federal government, doing something? If you're not, we are going to as a state. That's what's happening in Arizona. I think Utah's prepared to take action, I think other states are looking at it also to take action. And hopefully that will drive the federal government to uphold their responsibility and to take action.

BROCK VERGAKIS, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Do you believe that providing in state tuition to illegal immigrants rewards bad behavior, and should that be ended?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I think that's going to be part of the discussion. I think right now, in light of the current circumstances, that all things surrounding immigration and having undocumented illegal aliens in our community, is going to be revisited. And I think that discussion is healthy. We need to understand, you know, what the good and the bad and the indifferent is going to be around all of these issues. It could be in state tuition, driving privilege cards, all things regarding immigration are going to be, I think, on the table to discuss, and hopefully we'll come up with something, it'll be some compromise or some consensus building and we'll come up with something that the stake holders, as consensus will say this is the right Utah immigration bill.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: So are you then announcing that you're creating a task force on this?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I'm not now saying anything. I'm saying that we are going to react, we see different pockets already coalescing. We see legislators out there moving towards having discussion. We see the attorney general's office out there moving towards having discussion. We see the Latino community, which is actually going to be working with me and is going to give me some suggestions and recommendations on what should be an appropriate Utah immigration bill. We see the business community coalescing and saying, this is what will work for us as we transition. And so I think there's a lot of different groups that will I think eventually come together, and hopefully be prepared for the 2011 legislative session to in fact address this in a reasonable and rational way, and develop an immigration bill.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: You're not saying that you're prepared to say "This is the correct course"? That you have a vision, a blueprint, and you say "Utah should pursue course A as opposed to course B."

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Yeah, I have my own ideas, as probably most people do as far as what should take place. But I'm going to listen and learn from other people, from their points of view. I think it's going to take all of us working together before we come up with something that we can all probably salute and say, "This is appropriate." So again, I think it's time to kind of get together, have the discussion from all different stake holders, law enforcement, legislators, the business community, individuals, the Latino community, there's going to be a variety of people around that have different points of view, and we'll listen and we'll reason together and we'll come up with something.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: Governor, you had an opportunity to start that discussion with a special session you planned to call to deal with the E verify bill. You wanted to soften it in the minds of many legislators to make it clear that the participation was voluntary, not just that it carried no penalties, but it was technically voluntary. And yet you pulled that off the table. Are you getting tougher on immigration in an election year, or do you not want that discussion now.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: No, we want to have the discussion. It is clearly, it's a need to have the discussion. It is mischaracterized if we thought that the special session was designed to have a comprehensive immigration bill. It was not. The special session discussion came about because the sponsor of the bill, Senator Buttars, having some concerns in relationship with the business community that said, you know, you've argued this was voluntary, and yet nowhere in the bill does it say voluntary. So their discussions themselves was, let's insert the word "voluntary," and just sunset that in a year.

It seemed like a reasonable thing to me as they presented it to me, and so we had discussion about, if that's, in fact, the consensus, you know, we can have a special session. That changed over time, and particularly as talk about having a more comprehensive immigration bill then presented itself. So that's different than just Senate Bill 251, which is E verify. I actually support the E verify system. I've been touting that for four years as far as having a verification and responsibility that's put upon the employer. So I don't have any problem with that concept.

But this is much bigger than that. This is a complicated issue, it's certainly fraught with a lot of emotion on all sides of it. You cannot come together and have some kind of comprehensive immigration bill in a two or three hour special session. This warrants much more in depth and thoughtful discussion from all the stake holders. That's going to take place, not just in a forty five-day session, but it's going to take place from now until the forty five-day session, and we're going to need every day of that in order I think to come up with something that stands the test of time and passes Constitutional muster.

DAN BAMMES, KUER: There's an June going process in several of Utah's counties, Emery, San Juan, Beaver, and Paiute, modeled on the Washington County lands bill, to come up with an agreement to designate wilderness and other issues as far as public land go. A lot of the local county commissioners who have been involved in that, other stake holders, are concerned that that process might falter now that Senator Bennett has been defeated. Are you backing that process? Are you in touch with some of the local leaders on that? What do you see happening there?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well I've been involved in the public lands issue for many, many years, even back when I was county commissioner. So I understand the issue well. I'm here to tell you, it will not falter. We will continue to move ahead, and certainly Senator Bennett was a big, integral part of that effort, and we had successes, and we're leading to more successes because of the good efforts of Senator Bennett. But we have Senator Hatch, who I've also talked to, and will help continue that effort. Whoever the new senator is from Utah will be able to get involved and do that too with maybe fresh eyes and ears and energy and a focus that will help us. Certainly our house members will be involved in that, also. So there's no reason for this to not continue.

I've had a number of discussions with Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar. As you know, we the great opportunity to have him here in our state, here, just a few weeks ago. Who he's also pledged his support to help us. We've come up with a model that I think works, and will continue to work, regardless of the individual players and who they are. And my thrust is to continue to move ahead and resolve that difficult issue of public lands and maintain multiple use of our public lands, as is appropriate.

MAX ROTH, FOX13: Governor, most of the people watching you on TV right now were not delegates to a state party convention. State party convention, the Republican party convention, treated you well, but kicked Bob Bennett off of the ticket for this November. Do you think that is a good way to conduct politics in Utah? Should that be reconsidered? Would it be more fair to allow the broader public to make those decisions?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I can tell you just historically, our system has served us well. The concern of the taxpayer, I think, should be first and foremost. What is the outcome? Do we get good leadership? Have we had good management in our state? And the answer is yes. I mean top to bottom, the system produces and has produced good leaders in the past. As evidenced by people outside our state looking at us and saying you know, Utah is a well managed state, maybe the best in America. Best for business, best to come out of the recovery. Fiscal responsibility. Forbes Magazine, I mean, outside interests look at Utah and say, "Hey, we like the outcome."

So I think that's the first and foremost question, are we getting the outcomes we want to have? Secondly, probably any system has got its flaws. There's probably no perfect system. And particularly if you go through a system and you lose you think, "Gee, there's something wrong with the system." You go through and win, "Hey, that was great." We are in a Democratic republic, and our system here really mirrors that. We have neighborhood caucuses that everybody is invited to participate in. You have to be proactive, though, and go do it. You have to go there and articulate your cause and support somebody that represents your points of view, and get them elected. It's a mini microcosm of our republic. You send those representatives to conventions, where they take extreme care to understand the candidates and the issues. They certainly are much more enlightened and informed on the issues and the candidates than the general public, because that's their job, representing their neighborhoods. And then they make decisions. And generally speaking, it works pretty darn well. Is it perfect? No.

But the other system with just having general primaries where anybody can play, and you can have ten or twelve candidates that dilute the numbers and just have a plurality that gets elected, does not necessarily always serve the public's need, either. And those who are rich and famous tend to have a much significant leg up in the process of winning. So I think our system has served us pretty darn well. I'm not an advocate of changing it. We can improve it by participation of everybody. The more people participate the better the system works.

JEFF ROBINSON, KCPW: Governor, speaking about elections, there's been a lot of scrutiny about the state school board selection process with incumbent Denis Morrill not being forwarded to be on the ballot, despite his ten years of service on the board. For example, one of the people who did make the cut was an assistant school janitor. People wondering, is he more qualified to be on the ballot than Denis Morrill? Do you think this process is Democratic, where this committee and you choose who gets to be on the ballot for the general election for school board? Or should it change?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think the process is certainly statutorily correct. I just think the statute needs changing. I think the system that we have in place, although people would argue it's better than what we had before, certainly currently leads to confusion, misunderstanding, allegations of manipulation, too much politics involved. I think the legislature needs to take a closer look at the process and see if there's not a better way of doing things. I do have concerns about it.

I've inherited a system, you know, like it or not you have to play the cards you're dealt. I'm going to have to deal with it currently, but I think we can do better. In fact I've called upon our own office, we're doing a review, now, of the other 49 states, to find out, how are you applying school board members? How are you electing school board members and what is their process? And we're going to take that as a review and I'm going to probably meet with legislative leadership and say, you know, there's other opportunities out there that are being done in other states. Let's find a system that's better in Utah, that people have more confidence in, that's not so confusing. The public doesn't understand it, the process from different districts, and have to appoint people from different disciplines, and I know there's a desire to have kind of half business and half education, so we have kind of a consensus building, bipartisan stake holders approach.

But it's hard, when they have to go out and recruit people, please come and run for this office, and by the way, I may vote for somebody else other than the person I'm recruiting. It just lends itself to a lot of, I think, frustration. So I think it's time for us to take a review of that process, and I'm going to get this review done under my own office and meet with legislative leadership and see what they think about it.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: Do you have plans to appoint the top two, in the past the top two nominees have been the ones that have been selected?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Governor Huntsman, I know that's how he's done it. He just kind of took the top two vote getters, and that's probably as good as anything. It just, whatever it is, it is. But I've got some concerns and reservations about a number of issues, and so I'm actually in the process of reviewing that, and haven't made a decision on what I'm going to do yet. Again, some of these things are coming to light. We've got one person that's come out that his wife is suing, you know, the state school board, and that causes me some concerns. And the janitorial thing, and I just need to review and understand the candidates a little bit better before I make any kind of decision. Historically you just take the top two vote getters.

RICHARD PIATT, KSL-TV: Governor, a couple of months ago we asked you about the salary of John Inglish, the head of UTA, who's now been moved into a relatively new position. Since then there's been an audit of UTA salaries that is not public. Should that information be public, and are you concerned about the way that UTA is being run?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think that the salaries are public. I may be mistaken, there, Rich, but I think the salaries are public, but the process of how they got the salaries, what they used as parameters to make the decision, that this is the salary that's commensurate with the job, I think that's been a problem. I'm one who believes in openness and transparency. I think that if we have salaries we ought to be able to defend why the salary is what it is. I expect there is good argument for a salary for anybody, and if you can defend it, it's probably the right number. If you can't defend it then maybe you need to take a second look. So I would hope that the UTA would be as open and transparent as needs be so the public has confidence.

I would hasten to add that this transit authority is not part of state government. I know there's confusion out there. This really is not something that is a state government, they could all be volunteers and it wouldn't do anything for the state budget, for me. This is an organization that's been put together under state statute by local governments, by the vote of the people. So they've imposed this upon themselves, this tax increment, this cost, for transit authority. They also have created a board, and this board is comprised of Republicans, Democrats, elected officials, appointed people by elected officials, and their job is to manage that transit authority, including the salaries. And I think that board needs to be able to defend their numbers and why they come up with the numbers. Again, I think there's a lot of factors going to determine what a person's worth is in the marketplace.

RICHARD PIATT, KSL-TV: But you have a representative on the board. Do you talk to that person and tell them, for example, an $80,000 increase for one of the top people there in one year is a lot, what's going on? Are you satisfied you're getting answers?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I'm concerned about the answers are that I'm not getting, and the fact that I'm just as much in the dark on, you know, whys and the wherefores, the justification for the salary amounts as any other taxpayer. So I mean I'm concerned about that as a taxpayer myself. We do have a representative that's on there, that was Governor Huntsman's appointment, and we've had some discussion about, is the process working right? And I'm asking, in fact working about the opportunity maybe to go address the board as the Governor and say, "I've got concerns, based on a state wide concern," and make my suggestions as a taxpayer and as a person that's got some interest. Again, the responsibility is not mine, the responsibility is, in fact, the UTA board of directors as currently constituted. And clearly there's energy out there, and concern, and angst about how come the salaries are where they are? They seem too high. They need to be able to step up and say, "They're that high because of thus and so."

MAX ROTH, FOX13: Governor, you have listed your donors on your campaign web site, and I've been looking through that list of donors. You got $10,000 in November from the Utah Consumer Lending Association, pay day lenders. What do you think about that industry?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: You know, I didn't know I'd received money from them. I think that, just like any other entity out there, they have a right to practice in a free market system. They clearly are finding customers out there, or they wouldn't have any. And so they found a niche in the market. Some people like it, some people don't like it, at least their usury, and what they charge for the lending money. For some people it's better, though, because, one, you can get the money, even though they have to pay an exorbitant amount of interest, as opposed to not getting the money and having something foreclosed on or repossessed. So again, they found a niche in the market, and as long as they're abiding by the law I don't have any problem with them.

MAX ROTH, FOX13: You did use two terms, usury and exorbitant, to describe what they do. So it sounds like you do have a pretty strong opinion about their methods.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I'm explaining that there are different points of view out there of people that say "I don't particularly like the pay day lenders system because I think their usury is too high and is exorbitant." Others are saying, "Hey, I'm sure glad they're there because I've needed to use them and they've bailed me out of a difficult circumstance in my life, and I've been able to move on." So it's not like they're forcing anybody to come through their doors. Again, as long as they're abiding by the law, I'm happy with them. Now, if the law needs to be modified and changed we will find that probably as market voices occur, and I know there's been discussion in the legislature in the past. It may happen in the future. But again, I'm appreciative of people that are supporting me, the business community that understands that our number one focus ought to be on jobs and growing the economy.

KEN VERDOIA, KUED: Governor, very limited amount of time left in our consideration this morning. Every governor I've interviewed over the past thirty five years says that when the state is involved in taking the life of a convicted criminal through the execution process, they consider it one of the most profound days in office. Even if they may not have a direct role. We're approaching the scheduled execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner on June 18th. Have you found your thoughts going in that direction, about the rightful role of the state in this criminal justice process?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I have. And you're right, Ken, it's a solemn occasion. It's something that we ought not to be looking at with any kind of joy and glee. I think justice needs to be served, and the process, I think, has worked its way through a very long period of time. If there's any frustration, I think that anybody has, that we all share, is it's taken so long. But you know, the law is the law, and we need to uphold the law, and that includes capital punishment.

KEN VERDOIA: Governor, thank you very much for your time today. Good evening.

Return to home page