A week from Tuesday, residents of Salt Lake County will be asked whether they want to create a county king.
That, at least, is the contention of opponents to a Nov. 3 ballot proposal to change the county from a three-member commission to a council/mayor form of government.They say the county mayor would have too much power, so much that he would become, in essence, the monarch of the county - unanswerable to anyone, in practice, on a wide range of issues, too autonomous, not subject to open meeting laws.
"With three commissioners, anytime they get together to discuss county business they have to announce it," said Salt Lake County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi, an opponent of the change. "An executive can't call a meeting with himself."
Some county residents also are hesitant.
"I'm real uncomfortable with the amount of power given to the executive," said Sandy resident Donna Jensen.
Would the mayor in fact be the reincarnation of Henry VIII, or would he be a humble implementor of council policies?
How much would the proposed government form change cost?
What about the great American ideal of government checks and balances?
Should you, in fact, care?
Read on for the royal details.
A growing trend
Cache County changed to a council/executive form of government in 1988, and Grand County changed to a council/manager form in 1992 - the only two of Utah's 29 counties without a three-member commission.
However, Salt Lake is among three counties considering change this year - in the general election, Weber and Morgan county residents will also be asked whether they want to change their form of county government.
A trend? Perhaps.
"We're starting to see in Utah a very slow evolution away from the commission," said Ted Wilson, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics.
In Salt Lake and Weber counties, the ballot proposal is to switch from three county commissioners to an elected council - nine members in Salt Lake County, seven in Weber - and a separately elected executive (called a "mayor" in the Salt Lake proposal). In Morgan, the seven-member council would appoint a county manager.
Proponents of the change say the new form would bring the counties more in line with other governments that separate executive and legislative powers, providing checks and balances so that power isn't concentrated in three commissioners.
"What's driving all of this is this notion from seventh-grade civics that you ought to have a separation of powers," said Salt Lake County Commission attorney Gavin Anderson.
The vast majority of counties in the United States are governed by a board of county commissioners (sometimes called other things, such as "board of supervisors" in California). Twenty-seven of 29 counties in Utah have commissioners. The form has been around a long time.
Too much power?
But at least as regards Salt Lake County, proponents of change say the commissioner form is outdated partially because of the county's sheer size. With an annual budget of half a billion dollars, within Utah's boundaries Salt Lake County government is second only to state government in size.
That kind of power, say change proponents, is too much in the hands of only three people. But the power-concentration argument can also go the other way.
Opponents to change point out that the vast majority of what county commissions do is executive in nature. Look at a commission meeting agenda and you will see page after page of public works items, contracts and procurement, bonds, personnel, real estate, tax refund requests and other executive tasks. The budget is the most prominent legislative duty of the commission.
Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan, who was on a committee that drafted the Salt Lake County proposal, estimates that 90 percent of what the commission does is executive in nature, with 10 percent legislative.
Steve Harmsen, a former Salt Lake City commissioner who ran unsuccessfully for County Commission this year, says the dispersion of power in the proposed change actually concentrates it in the person of the mayor.
"This would be an executive second only to the governor in political power," Dolan said.
But County Commissioner Brent Overson, who favors the change, says opponents are missing the point. The power of the purse is the most important and influential responsibility in county government by far since by it, all governmental priorities are determined. The mayor, while he can lobby, will have no authority to change budget allocations.
What's more, Overson points out that council members, unlike commissioners, would have no ties to specific county departments. With no turf to defend, they "may be a bit more judicious" in budgeting, Overson contends.
Checks and balances are also skewed in county government. County governments are curious hybrids, distinct from municipalities, since in essence they are extensions of the state.
Lynn Price, another member of the drafting committee and an opponent to change, says Salt Lake County already has several checks and balances in the form of nine other independently elected county offices - especially the auditor - as well as the state judiciary, the media and voters.
Separating powers
Salt Lake County was officially created on Jan. 4, 1896, when Utah became a state, and for several decades thereafter was governed by the commissioner form with no agitation for change.
Since 1970, however, there have been seemingly innumerable studies and committees and reports on the issue of changing county government, almost all of which have recommended some variation of separating executive and legislative powers or consolidation of governments.
"Time after time those committees have come back with the recommendation that it is time for a change," said Bruce Jones, chairman of the drafting committee and one of the most visible champions of the modified form.
But despite the onslaught of proposals and ballot provisions, residents have consistently resisted revamping the form. County residents voted down proposed county government form changes in 1975, 1978 and 1979, as well as consolidation attempts in 1978 and 1982.
"Where is this passion for change?" one resident asked recently at a sparsely attended public hearing. "I don't see it."
In a 1997 poll commissioned by the county, a miniscule 3 percent of respondents said the form of county government was the most important issue facing Salt Lake County. Asked to judge the urgency of 11 different issues including mass transit, planning, taxation and human services, changing the form of government scored the lowest. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the current form of government.
But, curiously, in the same poll 70 percent of respondents said they would favor a change to a council/executive form.
Most observers attributed the contradictory results to a "why not?" attitude by residents, one exemplified by Ellyn Sparrow, a resident of Ogden who is facing her own change-of-government proposal.
"I think change is always good," she said.
Salt Lake County currently has 12 elected officials - three commissioners, attorney, auditor, district attorney, recorder, surveyor, treasurer, sheriff, assessor and clerk (the Attorney and District Attorney offices will be merged Jan. 1). Creating a nine-member council and mayor would increase that number to 19.
There has been much discussion about consolidating some of the elected offices or making them appointed (many counties in Utah have merged, for example, the auditor and clerk positions). However, it was ultimately decided that including that type of proposal might endanger the success of the plan.
"This is in some ways a half step," Jones said.
The proposed change would become effective Jan. 1, 2001, with the new county officers being elected on Nov. 7, 2000.
How it works
In Salt Lake County, the proposed change calls for the part-time council to have all legislative and policy-making powers including planning and zoning appeals, ordinances, tax levies and, most importantly, budget approval.
The full-time mayor would take care of all supervisory, administrative and day-to-day managerial responsibilities. The mayor would have veto power over council ordinances, with a two-thirds override option.
Six council members would be elected by district, with three elected at large. The districts would be reapportioned every 10 years - one year after the census report - to keep approximately the same proportionate number of residents.
The council members elected by district would serve for four years, while the at-large members would serve six. This was a change the commission made from the committee's recommendations because of the expense of mounting a countywide campaign for a part-time position.
The problems and expense of campaigning even in the district races have become an issue. Proponents of change view larger councils, and thus relatively small districts, as less prone to influence-peddlers than at-large commissioners.
Under the council form, Wilson said, "You can win an election with shoe leather - you don't have to get $100,000 from the special interests."
Others, however, disagree. Price says the districts are too large for door-to-door campaigning but too small for mass media advertising. She says races would become prohibitively expensive, requiring special-interest money, and citizens would know less about candidates because most would have neither personal contact nor mass media exposure.
She points out that each district would be equal in size to more than five state House seats or two state Senate seats.
"The costs for campaigns will be astronomical," Price said. "This makes it difficult to even get candidates to run."
There's also the issue of accountability. Proponents of the plan say three at-large commissioners simply can't listen to all their constituents, giving moneyed special interests more say. What's more, having a council member representing your district would bring the government closer to the people.
"If you have a voting interest, you have a vested interest," Jones said.
Opponents counter that replacing full-time commissioners with part-time council members doesn't necessarily create better representation.
Gary McKean, former Cache County attorney who was involved in the change of form of that county's government, points out another problem. He says council members there have a tendency to get involved in areas that are not their responsibility, considerably complicating and muddling the process of efficient government.
The experience in Cache and Grand counties might serve as a template for the three counties now considering change, but it's not as helpful as one might think.
For one thing, Salt Lake County is bigger by far than Cache and Grand counties. For another, opinions vary widely on whether the change was good or bad. Depending on whom you talk to, the change was either a strong blow for democracy or a needless complication of governmental affairs.
The changed forms indeed make governing a bit messier. "As a mayor, I find it more difficult to deal with nine people instead of three," Dolan said.
Lack of efficiency, however, as proponents point out, is one of the costs of separation of powers. The most efficient government of all is a dictatorship.
The Doug Short problem
The widely publicized battles between the Salt Lake County Commission and Doug Short come up in almost every discussion of change. The current form is obviously not working, the feeling goes, so let's change it.
Nevertheless, even proponents of change say changing the form won't eliminate conflict. They point to Salt Lake City, Murray, American Fork and other cities with council/mayor forms that have had plenty of conflict of late.
"The public has used this optional form as a recall effort," said Brent Gardner, executive director of the Utah Association of Counties. "They think, hey, we've got some elected officials we don't like, so we'll change the form of government. . . . That's not the right reason to change the form of government. What's going to happen down the road when people get unhappy with the elected officials again?"
The specific reasons for change in fact have little to do with county infighting. But perception is often not congruent with reality.
"In Salt Lake County . . . it's less about the ideal of checks and balances than it is about the 3 1/2-year political battle between the commissioners and Doug Short," said commission spokesman Jim Braden in a presentation at the University of Utah.
Nevertheless, despite widespread doubts among even proponents of the plan, Jones maintains that the council form will reduce, if not eliminate, conflict.
"This plan will allow the council to determine issues, instead of determine who gets to decide the issues," he said.
The unincorporated areas
Salt Lake County is unique among counties in Utah - indeed, the nation - in the extent to which it provides municipal services to residents. One-quarter of Salt Lake County residents, about 240,000 in all, live in unincorporated areas and thus receive police and fire protection, garbage collection, street maintenance and the like from the county.
That makes Salt Lake County the largest "city" in Utah. Salt Lake City is a distant second with 180,000 residents.
The situation came about because during the growth spurt after World War II, Salt Lake City made an explicit decision not to expand its boundaries, forcing the county to accommodate them.
Many opponents to the county council/mayor plan say unincorporated residents would not be adequately represented. Horiuchi, for example, points out that it's possible that every council member would live in the incorporated areas, with no vested interest in the unincorporated residents.
"It's like somebody in, say, New Hampshire deciding things in Utah that don't affect them at all," he said.
The commissioners have taken great pains to keep the unincorporated residents consolidated within the proposed council districts as much as possible so that their voice isn't lost. Two districts, 4 and 6, have a majority of unincorporated residents with 59 percent and 52 percent, respectively, and District 2 is split almost evenly. The other three districts are all incorporated.
Myriad studies have recommended that Salt Lake County change its form of government, and many of the political cognoscenti favor change. Both Salt Lake newspapers have editorialized in favor of change.
Even some opponents of change say yes, the council/mayor form might be superior. But if the present form is basically working, why go to considerable cost and trouble to jump into the unknown?
"When a person or group recommends change, the burden of proof that a need or problem exists is upon the shoulders of those who advocate change," Price said.
She points out that "citizens in general are not clamoring for change," and says no specific problems with the present form were presented to the draft committee.
"County government is not `broke' and does not require a major change," Price said.
In fact, if one looks only at the financial picture Salt Lake County is, on the whole, doing very well. Despite the current budget problems, of the 3,043 counties and 7,175 cities in the nation, Salt Lake County is one of only 35 with a triple-A bond rating.
Proponents counter that just because the crisis point hasn't been reached, that shouldn't stop them from trying to improve on the present situation.
*****
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Salt Lake County Government: Timeline
A long history lies behind the current proposal to change Salt Lake County's form of government:
- 1970: A University of Utah report, the Local Government Modernization Study, proposes a Salt Lake city-county consolidated form of government with a governing mayor and council.
- 1974: Pushed by Commissioner William Dunn, a study committee reviews the two issues of form of government and delivery of municipal services and proposes basically the same form of government proposed by the U. study but with 15 community council chairmen serving on the county council.
- 1975: Voters defeat the community council form in a special election.
- 1977: Another study committee is formed and delivers the so-called Booze, Allen, Hamilton Report. It recommends consolidation of Salt Lake city and county into one large entity called "Bonneville City" and a council/chief administrative officer form of government.
- 1978: Voters reject the proposal in the general election. Draper and Bluffdale incorporate.
- 1979: A new form-of-government charter, the so-called Urban County form, plus a measure granting the unincorporated areas power equivalent to a city's, fail in a special election. Salt Lake City changes from a five-member commission to a council/mayor form of government.
- 1980: West Valley City incorporates.
- 1980: A new proposal, the General County (Modified) form, which would create a county council, is drafted but dies before reaching voters.
- 1982: Voters in Salt Lake County's unincorporated areas reject a proposed consolidation of most of the county's unincorporated area into "Lake Valley City."
- 1985: The Business Government Alliance initiates a study and prepares a report recommending a council-executive form of government. Nothing is done with it.
- 1987: The County Commission creates a task force, County Government for the Next Century, which recommends an executive-council form. The plan is never submitted to voters because of legal concerns.
- 1988: In response to a citizen petition, Cache County changes to a council/executive form.
- 1992: Also in response to a petition, Grand County changes to a council/manager form.
- 1995: Taylorsville incorporates.
- 1997: In response to legislative pressure, county commissioners propose a council/mayor form of government and vote to put it on the ballot. They later change their minds.
- 1998: The commissioners' proposal is studied and tinkered with, and commissioners approve its placement on the Nov. 3 ballot.
*****
Salt Lake County council districts
- District 1: All Salt Lake City, from Redwood Road to about 2100 East, and from the county line to 2100 South. 100 percent incorporated.
- District 2: The entire west side of the valley, with both unincorporated areas Magna, Copperton, Herriman, Kearns and parts of various cities - Salt Lake City, West Valley, West Jordan, South Jordan, Riverton and Bluffdale. 51 percent incorporated.
- District 3: Central valley, with half of West Valley and most of Taylorsville and Murray. 100 percent incorporated.
- District 4: The northeast part of the valley, including unincorporated Emigration Canyon, Canyon Rim, Millcreek, East Millcreek and Mt. Olympus, with part of Salt Lake City and all of South Salt Lake. Runs from county borders on the northeast to Murray/Hollady Boulevard and the mountain ridge north of Big Cottonwood Canyon to the south, 2100 South and the Jordan River. 41 percent incorporated.
- District 5: South/central valley, including parts of West Jordan and South Jordan and most of Sandy. 100 percent incorporated.
- District 6: Southeast region of Salt Lake Valley, including unincorporated Holladay/Cottonwood, South Cottonwood, Cottonwood Heights, Big Cottonwood, Granite and White City, with all of incorporated Midvale, Draper and Alta with part of Riverton and Bluffdale. 48 percent incorporated.