| OCR Text |
Show Utah Legislative Reorganization Is a Controversial Issue Controversy over the recent reorganization of the Utah Legislature may be just one facet of a larger problem concerning the state's basic philosophy on governmental operation. This point was brought out by Utah Foundation, Founda-tion, the private research organization in an analysis of the legislative reorganization effected last year. According to the Foundation report, the real issue may be the on-going question of whether Utah should stick to its traditional pattern of limited legislative activity, conducted by citizen-legislators who represent a cross-section cross-section of the community. Some legislators have urged extended ex-tended sessions and the development of "career" legislators leg-islators who devote full working work-ing time to this pursuit. To date, Utah voters have shown a preference for the historic pattern of citizen-legislators citizen-legislators and limited sessions, sess-ions, although the move to annual sessions in 1970 mav be viewed as a step in the opposite direction. Controversy over the reorganization reor-ganization program goes into the larger question, the Foundation notes. Critics charge that expanded involvement involve-ment of legislators in interim activity is a move toward the full-time professional legislator. legislat-or. Supporters of reorganization, reorganiza-tion, however, assert that only by thus spreading the workload work-load and by providing adequate ade-quate professional staff assistance assis-tance can the citizen-legislator be preserved. Interim work requirements have become so heavy, it is argued, that it could not be carried by a few individuals wihout their having hav-ing to sacrifice their professional profess-ional and business interests. Extensive reorganization of legislative activity was effected effec-ted in 1975. abolishing the former Legislative Council and Joint Budget and Audit. Legal Services, and Legislative Operations Op-erations Committees, the Foundation noted in a research report released this week. Under the reorganization plan, all legislators participate in interim activities previously conducted by the relatively few legislators assigned to the Council and the three joint committees. All members of the Legislature are also assigned to subcommittees of the Joint Appropriations Committee Com-mittee in a program "launched when Utah adopted annual legislative sessions in 1970. Sessions in even-numbered years are limited to 20 days and restricted primarily to consideration of matters directly di-rectly affecting the state budget. Broad-based participation has proved highly contover-sial, contover-sial, the Foundation reports. Critics charge that committees are overloaded, that many members are neither technically techni-cally qualified nor deeply interested in important subject areas to which they are assigned, and that "hard" decisions are rarely reached in politically-sensitive areas. Supporters of legislative reorganization, on the other hand, feel that the program provides better continuity between be-tween interim and in-session activity and that it effectively answers the charges of "rule by clique" that were brought against the old system. "Regardless of the merit, or lack of merit, of the new program, many observers feel that existing patterns are unlikely to be changed," the Foundation reports. "The rank and file of legislators are believed unlikely to relinquish the positions they now hold, and return control of critical areas to a designated few." An important feature of the reorganization program was establishment of the office of Legislative Auditor, the Foundation Foun-dation points out. In establishing establish-ing this office, by constitutional constitution-al amendment and subsequent statutory provision, Utah did not abolish the office of elected State Auditor and now has two separate auditing authorities. The two offices have to date worked without serious conflict, con-flict, but this appears to be due primarily to the ability of the two incumbents to work harmoniously. With the certainty cer-tainty of a new elected auditor next year (the State Auditor mav 'not serve consecutive terms under the Utah Constitution; Consti-tution; the future appears somewhat uncertain. While there are no legal definitions of how the work load should be divided tween the two auditors r Foundation suggests that " ties could be divided I assigning the veriflcati X past records primarily to i elected auditor and havim, r legislative auditor ernphl f performance audits to u that legislative inte followed in the expend state funds. |
