OCR Text |
Show A the Utah ENTERPRISE -- PRAGMATIC on ZO DOGMATICS The costs of consolidation By Kent Shearer consequences of that form. Currently citv and countv officials arc elected at large from the entire political subdivision. This means that each vote, whether from the bench or from central city, counts the same for each office. The League would change this. Its unified council would be chosen not at large, but from m Undaunted by the 1974 defeat of a consolidation scheme, the League of Women Voters now seeks approval of a similar unification" proposal. Where the League leads, the Salt Lake Tribune usually follows. So we can expect a heavy barrage of publicity. One of the claims that will be made, as before, is that consolidation will lead to less On one level costly local government. although even it is open to question this may be true. At least in theory, there could be a cut in administrative expenditures for garbage collection, street maintenance, parks, police and fire protection. On a more practical level, however, governmental outlays inevitaably will rise. This is due to the form of government which the League presents, and the pragmatic city-coun- pro-unificati- ty on -- I G&t WITH SO v eleven separate geographic districts apportioned on the basis of population. Anyone's ballot for councilman would have impact only on one of the eleven seats. The practical effect of the system would be to reduce the influence of heavy-votin- g affluent sectors and to g enhance the power of poverty light-votin- sectors. received 2,596 or 4,146 votes cast in her district. Now it is obvious that Johnsons e 2.596 obtained the representation as did Richards 4,423 even though Richards alone received more votes than the total cast in Johnsons district. The same situation will obtain in local government if the League's plan is adopted. The benches, where the taxpayers live, will have much less strength than now. Central city and the west side will have much more. A council dominated by poverty representatives will rule. The new poor majority will expand government services to themselves for which the benches will be taxed to self-sam- pay. To illustrate, we now have the district system for the state legislature. In 1974, on the bench. Rep. LaMont Richards, a Republican. received 4,423 of 6,995 ballots cast in his district. Also elected, from central city was Rep. Mary Lorraine Johnson, a Democrat. She So unification means higher taxes. If the League and the Tribune dont know that, they're dumber than 1 think they arc. I suspect, rather, that it is they that think the taxpaying public is too dumb to know the score. UOUH0R6 W CO06R6 I AM m'h ro ins eccp,i mieease GO HOME AMP PBOPtf-- mr amp ieV5 faft w PHcue ctus Richard Helms, Protector of Society Z oQ. CC z UJ I- o o by Parker M. Nielson unfortunate fact that many of those who occupy high fundamental notions government positions do not believe in the of our representative form of government. They do not believe, for example, that the people can best govern themselves. To of contempt for contrary, they distrust that notion to the point and contempt for the duly elected representatives of the people, Constitution. A vivid example was supplied this past week in the for lying to a sentencing of former CIA director Richard Helms Senate committee conducting in inquiry into the CIAs involvement in the overthrow of the Allendc government of Chile. Following his sentencing. Helms offered the excuse that he had lied, not out of dishonesty, but because his testimony involved "state scerets" and eonfidential communications between governments which were so sensitive that they could not even be disclosed to Congress. Under our Constitution. Congress is the government, and Helms was merely its employee. He was thus asserting that the that there was government should not know its own secrets, some higher authority (to wit. himself) which should protect Such Constitution. government from itself and override the comments would be laughable were they not so serious. It is the Congress which the A government's interest. Constitution declares shall determine what is in the best interest to our society, and the inquiry to which Helms lied was It is an one convened to make that precise determination. Helms pious that secrets must protests to the contrary aside, the argument be kept from Congress because otherwise they might be "leaked" and security compromised is plain nonsense. That is a throwback to the philosophy of the Nixon days which ought to be put behind us. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Helms is more honorable or worthy of trust with state secrets than any Senator, or that the thousands of CIA staff employees who handle such information arc more trustworthy than those employed by the Senate. It cannot be assumed that one becomes more American because he or she is employed by the executive department than if employed by the legislative branch. If we are to have a representative form of government and no one gave Mr. Helms authority to decide that we shall not the duly elected representatives of the people must conduct the business of government, as the Constitution directs. If Helms is privy to communications so sensitive that even in closed they cannot be revealed to Congress, sessions Richard Nixons "secret agreements with the Viet so tainted Namese, for example such communications are with impropriety that they should never have been made in the first place. There is more, not less, reason to require their disclosure. The issue is whether we can have a free and open that government. Those who authored our Constitution thought we amid, and I am not prepared to abandon their judgment for that of Mr. Helms. |