I’m a Wyoming native, born and raised in the same small town I currently call home — the same town where my parents were born and raised. Yet sometimes people tell me that I’m “not very Wyoming,” whatever that means. 

I think it has something to do with my political beliefs, which I openly embrace. In response to this assertion about whether or not I am, in fact, “Wyoming,” I would argue that first, my family has lived in Evanston for 132 of its 150 years in existence, and second, if Wyoming values include honesty, fairness, hard work, responsibility and taking a stand for your beliefs even when others may not like it, then I am very much “Wyoming.” 

Since I began writing for the Herald last summer, I’ve received many compliments and words of thanks for the commitment I show to my work. To those issuing the compliments and gratitude, my response has been the same, “Thank you. Keep that in mind when I inevitably write something you don’t like very much.” 

These past few months have put that to the test. I know very well that some of what I’ve written has not been as warmly received as my past work. That’s unfortunate, but, being the Wyoming woman I am, I can honestly say that I have never let the possibility of some not liking a news story deter me from writing the facts about what happened. 

When it comes to this column, I have never let the prospect of whether or not others will agree with my positions dissuade me from writing. 

This isn’t as easy as it may sound. I’m a fairly tough Wyoming girl trying to survive in a very Good Ol’ Boy dominated world. We call ourselves the Equality State, but we’re actually quite far away from equality when you look at measures like equal pay, the percentage of women in government or the way we sometimes don’t take kindly to women expressing themselves. 

I have a graduate degree from UW in public administration, meaning I know quite a bit about how government is supposed to work and how policies should be created. I think about someday running for office based on my background and my passion for the place I call home. Yet I’m also acutely aware that every word I write is being judged. It’s daunting at times, to say the least. 

I ultimately come back to the belief that if I can’t speak out and stay true to my values, then I don’t ever deserve to be elected to any office anyway. 

I find it quite ironic that we pride ourselves on the Wyoming values I mentioned — honesty and fairness, in particular — when Wyoming government has earned dismal reviews in the transparency and accountability department. A couple of years ago Wyoming government was ranked second to last in the U.S. on those attributes of transparency and accountability. 

The most recent legislative session exemplifies why our state earns this distinction. Take, for example, the case of SF74 — a bill that attempted to create harsh penalties for “impeding” infrastructure development, inspired by the Standing Rock protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline.

SF74 mirrored bills introduced in numerous other states because the bills weren’t the result of legislative hard work but were instead the work of special interest groups. We in Wyoming supposedly abhor the work of outside interest groups, but our lawmakers regularly introduce legislation written by them. Multiple bills this year were nearly identical to those debated in Florida and several other states. So much for accountability. 

Prior to being vetoed by Governor Mead, and prior to an unsuccessful attempt to override that veto, SF74 became known as the “Zombie Bill” after it was resurrected from the dead. The House Minerals Committee failed to advance the bill, yet it somehow managed to come back the following day, when two legislators had a sudden and mysterious change of heart, changed their votes and advanced the bill. So much for transparency. 

I wish I could say this questionable policy-making stops in Cheyenne. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. 

The recent adoption of Policy CKA by the UCSD No. 1 school board is an example of this questionable policy making.

Some may say I’m just upset because the policy passed, and I don’t agree with it. You’re absolutely right. I loathe this policy and there is nothing that will ever make me happy about it. 

However, my discomfort with the policy was compounded by the way it was crafted and passed. I have at times throughout this process attempted to reassure myself that even if the policy were enacted, it would be OK because of the level of trust I had in the district. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. 

Let’s start with the confusion about whether a third reading was required. I understand it’s district policy that only two readings are necessary. But why didn’t trustees themselves all know that? Further, why did one trustee tell concerned members of the public there would be three readings, a fact I can attest to because I was there and heard it for myself? 

Given the public outcry over lack of communication and transparency in recent years, the trustee in question should have moved to table the vote given her role in spreading misinformation. It doesn’t matter if the outcome wouldn’t have changed; it matters that when someone screws up, they should say so and take steps to rectify the situation. 

Officials with the district have claimed all questions posed in the Herald prior to the vote were answered. I beg to differ. I have been at every single school board meeting about this issue, and I watch the meetings again the next day to ensure accuracy of quotes and information before publication. If I still feel there are questions that haven’t been answered adequately, that’s because they haven’t been. 

Finally, let’s talk about the committee involved in drafting this policy. According to district Policy BCF: Advisory Committees to the Board, “the composition of all advisory committees shall be broadly representative of the community, and the residents of Uinta County School District Number One shall be encouraged to take an active part in school affairs by serving on such committees.” 

Note the wording there: Not “should” be broadly representative, but “shall” be. 

After being given a list of members of this committee, I fail to see how the superintendent, one district department head, two principals, one non-instructional staff member, one teacher, one parent, one student, and multiple law enforcement officers are “broadly representative” of our community.  As near as I can tell, this committee wasn’t even broadly representative of the district since staff of only two of eight schools had any representation.  

I’ve asked numerous teachers and other district staff, as well as other very active and involved parents and community members, if they were invited to provide input on this committee, and they have all said they were not. 

This isn’t personal and has nothing to do with the individual players involved, some of whom I like and respect very much — which actually makes this situation even more disappointing. This is a simple matter of good government policy making. If the district doesn’t follow their own policy on advisory committees in terms of representation and public participation, why should we put any faith in their policy on staff concealed carry? 

It pains me to say it, but government at all levels in Wyoming has a long way to go to live up to the image we project — to others and to ourselves.