Doug Short says he left office as the Salt Lake County attorney with a damaged reputation, but he says the Utah Supreme Court has vindicated him in his long bitter battle with county commissioners.
The high court ruled Tuesday that Short was right when he said it was illegal for commissioners to contribute county funds to charitable organizations. The Supreme Court also ruled that the county attorney works for the county as an entity and not for the county commission. The commission can only hire outside counsel in certain circumstances but not to serve in an advisory capacity, the court ruled."We think the opinion is virtually total vindication for Mr. Short, and we are very pleased with the Supreme Court's opinion," said Mary Anne Q. Wood, Short's attorney.
Short says the ruling doesn't surprise him because he always believed the law was clear on the issues. However, he said he's saddened that it cost him his reputation to prove commissioners wrong.
"I laid everything on the line, but I had an ethical duty to do what I did and I did it because I knew it was the right thing," Short said.
"They have done everything they could for the last four years to say I was incompetent and did not know what I was talking about, and now the Supreme Court said they were wrong."
County commissioners would not comment on the ruling Tuesday, saying they are still involved in litigation with Short on a similar case in federal court. That lawsuit alleges the commission violated Short's right of free speech. It was filed in U.S. District Court one day after Short and the commissioners took their ongoing battles to the Utah Supreme Court and just six weeks before Short left office.
Last year commissioners filed a complaint in 3rd District Court seeking a judgment to clarify the roles of the county attorney and the commission and to rule on whether the county could legally make charitable contributions.
The court action was an attempt to end a four-year legal struggle between commissioners and Short, which was ignited when Short challenged the commissioners on the legality of them giving county funds to charity. The commissioners also hired outside legal counsel when they didn't like the way Short was representing the county and them on issues they supported.
Judge Robert K. Hilder found in the commission's favor, ruling Short worked for the commission and not the county and that commissioners had broad authority to hire an outside lawyer if Short didn't do their bidding. Hilder also ruled the charitable contributions were legal.
In reversing part of Hilder's ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that state law used to read that the county attorney was the "adviser to the county commission" before 1993, but the wording was changed to read "adviser to the county."
"The county attorney has an attorney-client relationship only with the county as an entity, not with the commission or the individual commissioners apart from the entity on behalf of which they act," the court ruled.
However, a county attorney will at times have dual roles when he or she represents the county in action against county officials. In these cases the county can seek the help of outside counsel, the court ruled. The justices also ruled that commissioners can use outside legal help when the county attorney is unwilling or unable to perform his or her duties, but not just because they dislike the legal advice or are dissatisfied with the county attorney's skills.
The high court ruled state law gives counties the authority to provide welfare and social services, but no authority to disburse funds to an outside agency
"While the commission claims that these disbursements will flow directly to people in need, technically the funds will flow from the county to these organizations, not to members of the public," the court ruled.
Short says the commissioners knew all along they were wrong on the charitable contribution issue. He said commissioner got a legal opinion in 1992 saying the contributions were not legal.
"They were told they couldn't do it. They were shown they couldn't do it, and they knew before I got into office they couldn't do it," he said.
The ruling likely will have policy ramifications for the county but could also hit the county in the pocketbook. Short believes the county will have to recover more than $1 million it has given to charity the past few years.
"What are the commissioners going to do to correct their unlawful conduct?" Short said.
"(Giving county funds to charitable organizations) is going to have to stop now," Wood said.