![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
A thumbs up for Walker's pro-voter bill & some Davis County humor
This morning, the Senate committee over municipal governments voted unanimously to endorse a bill by Sen. Carlene Walker (R-SLC) requiring changes in the form of government to be voted on by the people. If this bill passes, there will be no more overthrowing of mayors by small-town city councils in Utah.
As reported in the media over the past year, city councils in Syracuse and Bluffdale either couldn't get along with and/or wanted more power than the mayors in those cities. So with the flick of a pen, they just erased the mayors' duties and gave them all to a city manager who reports only to the council, not to the mayor or the voters.
The amazing thing about this morning's hearing was not so much the outcome, but the arguments made by a few people in the audience against letting people vote. As Sen. Chris Buttars (R-South Jordan) said -- yes, we are actually quoting Buttars favorably -- “I see no sound argument on the side of those who are against this bill.” As others pointed out, "convenience" is not a legitimate basis for cutting voters out of the equation.
Gary Crane, the Layton city attorney who also happens to be with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, embarrassed himself by trying to minimize the real need for the bill, claiming Walker's bill would eliminate the ability of a town to "slip into" a "peaceful" change in government if "everyone agreed." Crane referred repeatedly to the "6 members" of a council who would be making that decision, but neglected to mention that, in a 6-member council, the mayor is a non-voting member. In other words, "everyone" agreeing would mean the 5 council members who are making the power grab.
Crane also said -- we kid you not -- that the current system allows for a "check and balance." According to Crane, if the "6 members" can't get along, "this serves as a check and balance for that." Across the globe, political philosophers rolled over in their graves. Who (besides Crane) actually thinks it is a "check and balance" for one branch of government to simply eliminate another branch if they can't agree? Unbelievable.
As Sen. Scott Jenkins (R-Plain City) told Crane, "I'm surprised with your objection to this, being from the League of Cities and Towns, because this bill as I see it is not about the form of government, but how we get to the form of government. Why would the League of Cities and Towns not want to take this to a vote?” A good question, and one that was not answered.
In sum: Under substituted S.B. 41, city councils cannot transfer a mayor's duties to a city manager without two public hearings, public notice of what the changes are, and a vote by the people. After the committee's unanimous approval, the chair complimented Sen. Walker, “You take on some tough stuff, and you handle yourself beautifully.” It is impressive that, to use Sen. Walker's own words, "I don't have a dog in this fight. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Biggest laugh of the hearing: Speaking in favor of voters' rights, Bob Van Velkinburgh introduced himself as the publicity director for the Davis County Democrats.
As reported in the media over the past year, city councils in Syracuse and Bluffdale either couldn't get along with and/or wanted more power than the mayors in those cities. So with the flick of a pen, they just erased the mayors' duties and gave them all to a city manager who reports only to the council, not to the mayor or the voters.
The amazing thing about this morning's hearing was not so much the outcome, but the arguments made by a few people in the audience against letting people vote. As Sen. Chris Buttars (R-South Jordan) said -- yes, we are actually quoting Buttars favorably -- “I see no sound argument on the side of those who are against this bill.” As others pointed out, "convenience" is not a legitimate basis for cutting voters out of the equation.
Gary Crane, the Layton city attorney who also happens to be with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, embarrassed himself by trying to minimize the real need for the bill, claiming Walker's bill would eliminate the ability of a town to "slip into" a "peaceful" change in government if "everyone agreed." Crane referred repeatedly to the "6 members" of a council who would be making that decision, but neglected to mention that, in a 6-member council, the mayor is a non-voting member. In other words, "everyone" agreeing would mean the 5 council members who are making the power grab.
Crane also said -- we kid you not -- that the current system allows for a "check and balance." According to Crane, if the "6 members" can't get along, "this serves as a check and balance for that." Across the globe, political philosophers rolled over in their graves. Who (besides Crane) actually thinks it is a "check and balance" for one branch of government to simply eliminate another branch if they can't agree? Unbelievable.
As Sen. Scott Jenkins (R-Plain City) told Crane, "I'm surprised with your objection to this, being from the League of Cities and Towns, because this bill as I see it is not about the form of government, but how we get to the form of government. Why would the League of Cities and Towns not want to take this to a vote?” A good question, and one that was not answered.
In sum: Under substituted S.B. 41, city councils cannot transfer a mayor's duties to a city manager without two public hearings, public notice of what the changes are, and a vote by the people. After the committee's unanimous approval, the chair complimented Sen. Walker, “You take on some tough stuff, and you handle yourself beautifully.” It is impressive that, to use Sen. Walker's own words, "I don't have a dog in this fight. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Biggest laugh of the hearing: Speaking in favor of voters' rights, Bob Van Velkinburgh introduced himself as the publicity director for the Davis County Democrats.
- “I didn’t know they had any of those up there,” the chair joked.
“We do have a lot of Democrats up in Davis County, as you can tell from the last vote,” van Velkinburgh replied in good humor. “We just have too many Republicans.”
Comments