This campaign includes the controversy that some people will raise concerns over the sex offense that R. Wagner committed 23 years ago in 1989, and for which he has fully paid his debt to society. Voters should be equally concerned about the conflicts of interest that R. Wagner’s opponent, Mr. Lofgren, has on Land and Construction issues that are voted on by the School Board. Mr. Lofgren’s current conflict of interest has been noted on the minutes to School Board meetings and R. Wagner’s prior offense is also a matter of public record.
An important issue in this campaign is that R. Wagner stands for open access and public oversight on all matters that impact the School Board Budget, including the Land and Construction issues that Mr. Lofgren has successfully moved into executive sessions that are then closed to the public. Even when Mr. Lofgren voluntarily recuses himself from voting, his association with other members of the School Board may influence how they vote on the same Land and Construction issues.
Because of these controversies, this election may turn out to be a choice by the voters between two honorable men: One who has paid his debt to society and wishes to re-enter it. The other who has a current conflict of interest on issues that the School Board must vote on, and believes that recusing himself from voting justifies that voters should trust him to remain on the Board. Lofgren assumes that he can be trusted despite the conflicts of interest. Each of these men carry controversial baggage that the voters must carefully weigh. The upcoming election will be a test of whether or not voters will forgive a crime that was made 23 years ago out of confusion and of which all debts that society is owed have been paid, or if voters prefer to re-seat an entrenched board member with known conflicts of interest.
An important issue in this campaign is that R. Wagner stands for open access and public oversight on all matters that impact the School Board Budget, including the Land and Construction issues that Mr. Lofgren has successfully moved into executive sessions that are then closed to the public. Even when Mr. Lofgren voluntarily recuses himself from voting, his association with other members of the School Board may influence how they vote on the same Land and Construction issues.
Because of these controversies, this election may turn out to be a choice by the voters between two honorable men: One who has paid his debt to society and wishes to re-enter it. The other who has a current conflict of interest on issues that the School Board must vote on, and believes that recusing himself from voting justifies that voters should trust him to remain on the Board. Lofgren assumes that he can be trusted despite the conflicts of interest. Each of these men carry controversial baggage that the voters must carefully weigh. The upcoming election will be a test of whether or not voters will forgive a crime that was made 23 years ago out of confusion and of which all debts that society is owed have been paid, or if voters prefer to re-seat an entrenched board member with known conflicts of interest.
The office of School Board member does not require access to children while representing the voters to administer the important budget, as described within the "Platform" Tab of this website. Under the "Qualifications and Service" Tab, voters can see R. Wagner's many contributions and ways that he has given back. Scienticly sound statistics prove that R. Wagner is not a risk to Public Safety. He is an example of someone who has done everything that society wants a person to do to make amends. This election may be a test of the voter's will to forgive any man in the face of journalistic sensaonalism where the context may spin out of balance from the real issues that affect competent representative government for the benefit of educating our next generation. On the other hand, the prospect of a repentant sex offender giving back to society by running for public election to the Board of Education, is a hot button item that may spark debate between retribution advocates, and Judeo-Christian forces that understand and support the principles that enough is enough. That those who truly repent should be forgiven and often do give back in more effective ways as a result. The debate would include how families of prior sex offenders are often marginalized in a counter productive way that was never intended by law makers.
If this campaign becomes a focus for such a debate, then it is time that the debate begin. Our society may not be able to heal without it.
If this campaign becomes a focus for such a debate, then it is time that the debate begin. Our society may not be able to heal without it.
e-mail comments, controversy and answers:
An e-mail response to a friend who asked how this Campaign is going, is revealing: Oct 22, 2012
Campaign is going great (except the undercurrent). As you probably know already, there is no way to Google my name or the campaign without the awful yellow journalism news stories popping up from last June. I know that the press conference that I held when returning from Ruth's funeral in Colorado, stopped the news media from doing that, but the stories are still out there on the internet and pop up in first place on a Google search.
It is too bad that most news media wrote their own story around only one sentence of the half hour press conference. Only one media source, "Alaska Pride" summarized everything that was said during the Press
Conference. Have you Googled the "Alaska Pride, Dan Lofgren conflict of interest" search yet? There was one Oct 14 "Republican hate" blog that also came up recently from a group of radical Left people who regularly bash Mitt Romney and Conservative issues. They go out of their way to find things negative to say about anything connected to "Republican". Interestingly, my campaign is a Non-partisan race. In one early news story, it was said that I was a Republican. However, I have served in both Democrat and Republican parties. See my "Qualifications and Service" tab on my website. Undercurrent also includes that most other candidates are pleasantly stand offish. Only Jim Bradley (at Large County Council Incumbent, Democrat), Jim Matheson (U.S. Congress incumbent, Democrat), Scott Howell (U.S. Senate Challenger, Democrat) and Rick Raile (Utah House challenger, Republican) are openly friendly and supportive. Other candidates are stand offish and I do not know how deep that will go. The going great part is that I have TOTALLY OUT CAMPAIGNED my opponent. Virtually ALL voters that hear us at meet the candidate events love what I say about issues. Two voters had apparently already made up their minds and said they will not vote for me despite my good presentation. Dan keeps changing his issues like a moving target, and also has poor presentation. I am surprised because he is a successful business man and has a reputation for being forceful and "pushy". In fact, about five voters and one candidate, have commented that they are voting for me, because they know him and simply do not like him. But positive votes for me are apparent. My Campaign Signs are all over the election boundaries, while Dan's campaign signs are hard to find and few. I just completed a mailer to 37,000 voters (and I sent you a copy of the proof). Saturday, I walked (canvased) an entire precinct (one out of sixty in the election area) to get very good responses and no negatives. In fact I spoke to 3 School Board employees who liked me, one teacher of which had me put a campaign sign in front of her family home as an endorsement. Early voting starts tomorrow (Tuesday). Once a vote is cast, it cannot be changed, and no negative mud slinging has started yet. I still believe that with a half billion dollar annual budget at stake, as my campaign begins to look stronger, special interests who wish to keep control of those annual funds will start throwing mud. The Utah Education Association has chosen NOT TO ENDORSE either me nor my opponent (an incumbent). UEA generally always makes an endorsement in School Board races. I have effectively neutralized them by being the best on issues, despite the stigma of my past. And I hope you are with me and I hope the general public is with me, when it comes down to an election between a repentant sinner and a person with conflicts that are not in the interest of tax paying voters and good spending decisions. I know that the election will turn out the way God wants it to, and my hope is that enough Judeo/Christian voters are left to stand behind someone who has truly repented, when the alternative is to elect someone with serious conflicts of interest with the voters. As I said in the Press Conference last June, we still live within a society that believes in rehabilitation, and forgiveness for true repentance, especially after 23 years and statistical proof shows that there is no risk to public safety. This election will truly be a test of voter insight.
Best Regards, Dick Jones
It is too bad that most news media wrote their own story around only one sentence of the half hour press conference. Only one media source, "Alaska Pride" summarized everything that was said during the Press
Conference. Have you Googled the "Alaska Pride, Dan Lofgren conflict of interest" search yet? There was one Oct 14 "Republican hate" blog that also came up recently from a group of radical Left people who regularly bash Mitt Romney and Conservative issues. They go out of their way to find things negative to say about anything connected to "Republican". Interestingly, my campaign is a Non-partisan race. In one early news story, it was said that I was a Republican. However, I have served in both Democrat and Republican parties. See my "Qualifications and Service" tab on my website. Undercurrent also includes that most other candidates are pleasantly stand offish. Only Jim Bradley (at Large County Council Incumbent, Democrat), Jim Matheson (U.S. Congress incumbent, Democrat), Scott Howell (U.S. Senate Challenger, Democrat) and Rick Raile (Utah House challenger, Republican) are openly friendly and supportive. Other candidates are stand offish and I do not know how deep that will go. The going great part is that I have TOTALLY OUT CAMPAIGNED my opponent. Virtually ALL voters that hear us at meet the candidate events love what I say about issues. Two voters had apparently already made up their minds and said they will not vote for me despite my good presentation. Dan keeps changing his issues like a moving target, and also has poor presentation. I am surprised because he is a successful business man and has a reputation for being forceful and "pushy". In fact, about five voters and one candidate, have commented that they are voting for me, because they know him and simply do not like him. But positive votes for me are apparent. My Campaign Signs are all over the election boundaries, while Dan's campaign signs are hard to find and few. I just completed a mailer to 37,000 voters (and I sent you a copy of the proof). Saturday, I walked (canvased) an entire precinct (one out of sixty in the election area) to get very good responses and no negatives. In fact I spoke to 3 School Board employees who liked me, one teacher of which had me put a campaign sign in front of her family home as an endorsement. Early voting starts tomorrow (Tuesday). Once a vote is cast, it cannot be changed, and no negative mud slinging has started yet. I still believe that with a half billion dollar annual budget at stake, as my campaign begins to look stronger, special interests who wish to keep control of those annual funds will start throwing mud. The Utah Education Association has chosen NOT TO ENDORSE either me nor my opponent (an incumbent). UEA generally always makes an endorsement in School Board races. I have effectively neutralized them by being the best on issues, despite the stigma of my past. And I hope you are with me and I hope the general public is with me, when it comes down to an election between a repentant sinner and a person with conflicts that are not in the interest of tax paying voters and good spending decisions. I know that the election will turn out the way God wants it to, and my hope is that enough Judeo/Christian voters are left to stand behind someone who has truly repented, when the alternative is to elect someone with serious conflicts of interest with the voters. As I said in the Press Conference last June, we still live within a society that believes in rehabilitation, and forgiveness for true repentance, especially after 23 years and statistical proof shows that there is no risk to public safety. This election will truly be a test of voter insight.
Best Regards, Dick Jones
P. S. Remember the statistical proof that I submitted in my 2001 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court when all nine justices agreed that adding new punishments are unconstitutional when retroactively applied to old crimes committed from a bygone age when social evolution had not caught up to today's morale standards? Well, I am attaching that statistical graph:
You can see that two out of five (40%) of offenders are fixated and re-offend. However 60% or three out of every five, are crimes of confusion where the problem is corrected once confronted. This majority of offenders never offend again in a lifetime. When I presented this proof to the U. S. Supreme Court the justices saw that there was a conflict between upholding the constitution, and public safety: That by not retroactively punishing the entire population of offenders with registry requirements, the 40% that would eventually re-offend would go without tracking. Thus, the famous split decision occurred by the High Court, where all nine justices knew it was unconstitutional to retroactively punish people for past crimes that happened before a penalty existed, but only four voted to uphold the constitution. Five voted in favor of retroactive registries in order to secure better public safety during the 20 year period until the re-offense curve goes completely flat and, by passage of time, we finally know the faces of the 60% who did not offend again. They are statistically identified as safe and never will offend again in their lifetime.
Voter message comment by Scott:
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:53:47 -0600
> To: dick4acre@hotmail.com
> I salute you for running for a public
office when you have to wear the sex offender sash tied to your arm.
> I did see that you would require special permission from school administrators in
order to visit schools. I didn't see that issue addressed on your web site.
> I wish you the best of luck.
Reply:
Scott, you are right that the extra baggage from 23 years ago is something that has to be understood correctly before voters can go on to the real issues. I have a "CONTROVERSY" tab on www.electwagner.com that puts the offense into context, including statistical proof that 3 out of 5 sex offenses are crimes of confusion where the offenders never offend again in a lifetime. Also, that the 2 out of 5 fixated offenders who do re-offend, mostly do so within 5 years, but some take as long as 20 years before the curve goes completely Flat. In other words, it takes 20 years before real faces can be put on the 3 of 5 who have truly repented and pose no Public Safety Risk. Fortunately, statistics now prove that I am one of the 60% who will never offend again. It is my hope that voters recognize this and grant forgiveness for true
repentance, so that the real School Board issues will become the center of this election. As you know from my website, the real issues are: Local Control, Student Motivation, Lower Classroom Size, and the issue between Dan and I that
the Conflicts of Interest that he has on Land Negotiations with the Board, and the Cottonwood Mall Redevelopment Agency shift of Tax Money from the School Board to Developers including Dan's Cowboy Partners Company. To me, the statement in Dan's Literature of "Leadership that you can trust", should not be a retributive assessment of past confusion that I have abandoned, but instead should be an assessment of whether or not voters are comfortable with continuing the Conflicts of Interest that he has that divert tax money that belongs to the School Board to Cottonwood Mall Developers including himself, and impact School Board spending decisions on Land that he has an interest in. I believe both of these Conflicts should be addressed with OPEN GOVERNMENT meetings instead of discussed only within closed "executive" sessions of the Board where voters cannot tell what was said in order to arrive at the conclusions.
I addressed your question about "special permission from school administration in order to visit schools" in an interview with Melinda Rogers, Tribune political editor, yesterday. Her article was scheduled to appear today. Granite School Board has a Policy that persons on the registry may not go on School property unless they first receive approval by the principal of the school in question. Already, during my campaign, there have been two situations where this was necessary: PTA sponsored Meet the Candidates at Skyline High; PTA sponsored League of Women Voters questions and answers at Cottonwood High. In both instances I contacted the respective High School Principals (Dan Bingham and Alan Parrish) to inform them that I had been invited to speak at these events, and requested to know their requirements for approval for me to attend. Approval was granted in each case. This issue was first brought up by a comment from an assistant in the School District who made the incorrect assumption that it is necessary for a School Board Member to regularly visit schools in order to carry out the Duties of Board Members to Administer the annual budget. However, most budget decisions do not require visits to school sites, and those that involve construction or other issues that require site visits can readily be accommodated in the same fashion that I recently did at the two PTA sponsored after hours High School Events. This, and the fact that I pose no Public Safety risk, should be enough to satisfy any legitimate concerns.
Please feel free to contact me again with additional questions if you wish. I promise to remain accessible to you, other voters, parents, and teachers while in office and ask for your vote. I believe in OPEN GOVERNMENT, including on issues like these, because otherwise the elected official is not representing the people.
Best Regards, Dick Jones, [On the Ballot: R. Wagner (Dick) Jones] cell phone 801-708-1696
P.S. I believe that when one person asks a question that others may also want to know. Therefore, I will post your inquiry on my website using only your first name. Thank you.
> To: dick4acre@hotmail.com
> I salute you for running for a public
office when you have to wear the sex offender sash tied to your arm.
> I did see that you would require special permission from school administrators in
order to visit schools. I didn't see that issue addressed on your web site.
> I wish you the best of luck.
Reply:
Scott, you are right that the extra baggage from 23 years ago is something that has to be understood correctly before voters can go on to the real issues. I have a "CONTROVERSY" tab on www.electwagner.com that puts the offense into context, including statistical proof that 3 out of 5 sex offenses are crimes of confusion where the offenders never offend again in a lifetime. Also, that the 2 out of 5 fixated offenders who do re-offend, mostly do so within 5 years, but some take as long as 20 years before the curve goes completely Flat. In other words, it takes 20 years before real faces can be put on the 3 of 5 who have truly repented and pose no Public Safety Risk. Fortunately, statistics now prove that I am one of the 60% who will never offend again. It is my hope that voters recognize this and grant forgiveness for true
repentance, so that the real School Board issues will become the center of this election. As you know from my website, the real issues are: Local Control, Student Motivation, Lower Classroom Size, and the issue between Dan and I that
the Conflicts of Interest that he has on Land Negotiations with the Board, and the Cottonwood Mall Redevelopment Agency shift of Tax Money from the School Board to Developers including Dan's Cowboy Partners Company. To me, the statement in Dan's Literature of "Leadership that you can trust", should not be a retributive assessment of past confusion that I have abandoned, but instead should be an assessment of whether or not voters are comfortable with continuing the Conflicts of Interest that he has that divert tax money that belongs to the School Board to Cottonwood Mall Developers including himself, and impact School Board spending decisions on Land that he has an interest in. I believe both of these Conflicts should be addressed with OPEN GOVERNMENT meetings instead of discussed only within closed "executive" sessions of the Board where voters cannot tell what was said in order to arrive at the conclusions.
I addressed your question about "special permission from school administration in order to visit schools" in an interview with Melinda Rogers, Tribune political editor, yesterday. Her article was scheduled to appear today. Granite School Board has a Policy that persons on the registry may not go on School property unless they first receive approval by the principal of the school in question. Already, during my campaign, there have been two situations where this was necessary: PTA sponsored Meet the Candidates at Skyline High; PTA sponsored League of Women Voters questions and answers at Cottonwood High. In both instances I contacted the respective High School Principals (Dan Bingham and Alan Parrish) to inform them that I had been invited to speak at these events, and requested to know their requirements for approval for me to attend. Approval was granted in each case. This issue was first brought up by a comment from an assistant in the School District who made the incorrect assumption that it is necessary for a School Board Member to regularly visit schools in order to carry out the Duties of Board Members to Administer the annual budget. However, most budget decisions do not require visits to school sites, and those that involve construction or other issues that require site visits can readily be accommodated in the same fashion that I recently did at the two PTA sponsored after hours High School Events. This, and the fact that I pose no Public Safety risk, should be enough to satisfy any legitimate concerns.
Please feel free to contact me again with additional questions if you wish. I promise to remain accessible to you, other voters, parents, and teachers while in office and ask for your vote. I believe in OPEN GOVERNMENT, including on issues like these, because otherwise the elected official is not representing the people.
Best Regards, Dick Jones, [On the Ballot: R. Wagner (Dick) Jones] cell phone 801-708-1696
P.S. I believe that when one person asks a question that others may also want to know. Therefore, I will post your inquiry on my website using only your first name. Thank you.
Contributions are not tax deductible as charitable donations. Utah law does not limit contribution amounts or prohibit any entity from making a contribution. A
corporation that is incorporated, organized, or otherwise created less than 90 days before the date of a general election must file a statement of organization
with the lieutenant governor's office before making a contribution to a candidate's committee. Each corporation that has made expenditures for political purposes that
total at least $750 during a calendar year must file a verified financial statement with the lieutenant governor's office as needed on January 10, August 31, and seven days
before the regular general election. (Utah Code 20A-11) Federal law prohibits contributions from foreign nationals.
corporation that is incorporated, organized, or otherwise created less than 90 days before the date of a general election must file a statement of organization
with the lieutenant governor's office before making a contribution to a candidate's committee. Each corporation that has made expenditures for political purposes that
total at least $750 during a calendar year must file a verified financial statement with the lieutenant governor's office as needed on January 10, August 31, and seven days
before the regular general election. (Utah Code 20A-11) Federal law prohibits contributions from foreign nationals.