Cache County Council slated to amend constitutional Organic Act

By a 4-to-3 decision, members of the Cache County Council voted to approve a budget of more than $102 million for 2024 in their last meeting of the year on Dec. 12. That vote came over the objections of a visibly annoyed council chair David L. Erickson.

CACHE COUNTY — The Cache County Council is likely to vote on an ordinance that would give themselves a say in the dismissal of county department heads on Tuesday, Nov. 22.

Proposed Ordinance 2022-32 would amend the 1987 Organic Act for the Government of Cache County and the Cache County Code to clarify the council’s consent authority to appoint, suspend and remove the directors of county departments.

That ordinance is listed on the Cache County Council’s agenda under “Pending Action,” implying that a vote could be taken.

The question is whether the council members have the unilateral authority to amend the Organic Act, a constitution-like document that gave Cache County the option to change to an executive and council form of government rather than the normal commission-based form of government adopted by many Utah counties.

The ordinance is the brainchild of council member Gina Worthen who argued logically on Nov. 8 that if the council members had the authority to provide “advice and consent” to the county executive on the appointment of department heads, they should also have a review authority on the dismissal of those same department heads.

“We (council members) represent the public,” Worthen went on to explain. “If the county council has to give its permission for department heads to be suspended or removed, that’s going to strengthen the ability of those department heads to do their jobs and to have accountability to a wider group and to the public.”

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” observed Paul Borup, Wothen’s most staunch ally on the council, “for the council to have to give advice and consent on appointments and yet not have to give advice and consent on dismissals. That just seems to cross purposes.”

Worthen’s proposal was also supported by Council chair Barbara Tidewell and council members Karl Ward and Nolan Gunnell during that previous discussion on Nov. 8.

Prior to his departure from county government to serve on the Utah Court of Appeals, former county attorney John Luthy reportedly suggested, however, that the Organic Act can only be changed by a vote of all county residents.

The newly appointed interim county attorney Dane Murray also advised caution on Nov. 8, when he compared changing the Organic Act to amending the county’s constitution.

During that same meeting, deputy executive Dirk Anderson was representing executive David Zook, who won re-election that evening over write-in candidate Marc Ensign.

Anderson advised Tidwell that the executive’s department had major concerns with Ordinance 2022-32, but did not share any of them during the public meeting.

In the mid-1970, various public interest groups – include the Utah League of Women Voters and the Cache County Mayors Association – began to investigate ways to modernize the structure of Cache County’s government.

Their intent was to reform the county’s three-member commission form of government, which they argued was too small to adequately represent the public and provided insufficient separation of powers.

They insisted that a seven-member legislative council would be cheaper, more democratic and more in accordance with the intent of the Utah Legislature.

The measure was put to a vote of the citizens in November of 1984, where it passed by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin of victory.

The county’s new form of government under the Organic Act officially took effect on Jan. 5, 1987.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

1 Comment

  • Reavers November 22, 2022 at 11:36 pm Reply

    Councils are not executive, there is a reason for the 3 branches of government, local or Federal. If other counties have done it, that just means they have no respect for the framers and seek more power to get their own ways. Representing is suppose to be about cooporation and compromise for the better of their constituants. Representing has become what the reps. think their constituants want based on relativity not actuality. How many representitives actually go out and talk with the public on descisions? And even if they do, do representitives go against their own beliefs if the majority of the public disagrees? To many reps. these days use the excuse that they “know whats best for the people” to implement personal desires.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.