OCR Text |
Show Consolidation Pros-Cons Aired in Feature (Editor's Note: Since an editorial stand has been taken by this newspaper regarding the. consolidation proposition, those both for and against the plan were asked to state their position and the reasons therefor, and these are printed in this article regarding consolidation.) A position statement opposing consolidation: ' One of the most important reasons for opposing the consolidation plan is the reduction of elected officials in local government. Those opposing point out that the current total of elected officials would be reduced from 16 to 6; and that elected public officials are answerable only to the voters, whereas under consolidation they are responsible to their employer. The broad powers of the appointed county manager under the consolidation plan are objected to on the basis that they may be abused; and some feel these powers should only be vested in an elected official. Centralization of power and an apparent abolishment of checks and balances is seen by some as a serious weakness in the consolidation proposal. There is a strong feeling by those opposing consolidation that Thompson, Castle Valley, or any other area desiring to incorporate should be allowed the opportunity to do so. The consolidation plan prohibits any such action. Opponents object to the general power grant contained in the proposal, specifically Section 4.01(i), since they feel that any powers not mentioned should be vested with the citizens rather than with the government. The full consolidation plan appears elsewhere in this issue, and anyone with questions regarding the wording of the plan is asked to refer directly thereto. Presently, for any outside thought or influence to inject itself into Grand County, it has to go through the City Council, Mayor and County Commission. Opponents feel that with only one governing body, there is less protection from these outside influences. Persons opposed to consolidation object to the fact that the plan does not allow voters the right to initiative and referendum regarding appropriation of money, capital programs. levy of taxes or salaries. Those against consolidation also object to the fact that a new form of government cannot be abandoned for six i years. t Control of the sheriff s duties is also i objected to on the basis that the county's ! chief law enforcement officer would no ! longer be answerable to the people; he i would be answerable to the county ! manager and only indirectly answerable to l he county council. 1 Opponents also contend that the ' countv can be taxed up to 2 per cent of its total valuation under the current system, hut that taxes can be raised to 12 per cent under consolidation, which they feel will eventually raise taxes to pav off hiuhcr ICnnlinued To Pg. A5 Consolidation Pros-Cons j Aired in T-l Feature : Continued From Pg. Al bonds debts for citizens. A position statement In favor of consolidation: Those favoring consolidation of government feel that the people will have more power and control over their elected officials under consolidated government than they have now. They feel that county residents especially will have more representation with a 5-man county council rather than the present 3-man county commission. In addition, they feel that the initiative and referendum provisions of the plan give them substantially more power over elected officials compared to the present form of government where I these recourses are not available. I Those in favor feel consolidation will provide government which is more responsive to the wishes and needs of the people, and more efficient in meeting those needs. They also feel that the needless duplications of departments j such as roads, law enforcement and j records keeping should be eliminated, and that consolidation will accomplish I this. I The responsibilities delegated to the I county manager under consolidation are I viewed as major strong points in the plan by those who support it. They contend J that no organization, be it private . business or government, can be run effectively unless it has a strong leader who possesses the knowledge, ability and control to oversee and direct activities. I That the county manager is I answerable to the county council for all of I his actions provides the necessary checks j and balances, proponents feel. They feel J also that a separation of legislative and j executive duties, as set forth in the consolidation plan, is a vast improvement j over the current form of county j government, where the separation does not exist. I The flexibility of the consolidation I plan is also viewed as a strong point by I those favoring consolidation. The plan I provides in simple and concise terms for j changes to be made in governmental J structure when they are found necessary. These changes can be instigated either by a petition of the people or by action of the j county council. j The plan calls for a method of recourse for employees who might be fire I I or feel they are being unfairly treated, I ' through adoption of the Utah Administra- j ! tive Code, a provision not present in local j I government currently. ! If a person is fired by the manager or a department head, he will have i opportunity to have his situation j reviewed by the council under this code, j providing substantially more protection j than city or county employees now have, those favoring consolidation contend. I |