If nothing else, Doug Short and the County Commission have made it abundantly clear that the office of county attorney has many inherent conflicts.
During his rocky four-year term, Short has at various times insisted he has a watchdog role over the commission and that he is accountable to the people who elected him. He was right. The County Commission, on the other hand, has insisted the attorney should represent it as well as other county officers. That, also, was right.Now, with about a month left until Short leaves office, the commission has told him he no longer can represent the county because he is suing the county in federal court. Under the rules of ethics for Utah attorneys, a barrister cannot both represent and sue the same client. The commission's point seems right, as well.
Yet, despite it all, Short remains the duly elected county attorney. It's a situation laced with confusion.
Of course, the conflicts inherent with the office become either more or less pronounced depending on who is elected. When David Yocom takes over as both county and district attorney in January, these are likely to recede considerably, even to the point where the commission will allow the county attorney once again to have a full staff.
Yocom held the office previously and got along fine with commissioners. But even he was aware of the conflicts. In fact, he fought for years to give the county the ability to separate the attorney position into a district attorney, who is primarily a criminal prosecutor, and a county attorney, who primarily defends the county. Obviously, that didn't do away with all the conflicts, but it did away with many of them. Unfortunately, the commission now has decided to combine the two offices again, compounding the conflicts once again.
In two years the county's entire system will change, replaced by a nine-member council and an elected executive. That will provide much-needed checks and balances, but it won't do anything to solve the multiheaded beast of the elected attorney's office.
That needs to be the next focus of county reform. State lawmakers are expected to weigh in next year. Some are likely to propose forcing the county to elect a separate district attorney again. Others will want to make the attorney an appointed position. Both proposals make sense.
When a county council and an executive are keeping an eye on each other, residents would seem well served by having a district attorney at the ready to pursue criminal charges. But the county attorney ought to be appointed by the executive and ratified by the council, putting an end to all the confusion.