Judge to settle change of government kerfuffle
Lawyers agree issue boils down to interpretation
by Doug McMurdo
The Times-Independent
Dec 06, 2018 | 535 views | 0 0 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print


Legislative intent is at the heart of a court matter pitting members of the Grand County Republican Party against Grand County and its governing body over Utah’s Changing Forms of Government Act.

Seventh Judicial District Judge Don Torgerson took the issue under advisement at the conclusion of a fairly lengthy hearing held Wednesday, Nov. 28, and he said he hoped to issue a ruling soon.

The Republican plaintiffs claim the Grand County Council undermined their right to control who serves on an appointment committee, whose members would name people to a study committee, which in turn would spend 2019 creating a new form of government after lawmakers determined Grand and Morgan counties’ forms of government were not compliant with state law.

The legislature set a Dec. 31, 2020 deadline to have new forms of governments approved – or not – by voters.

How did we get here?

HB 224 is the law that codified the Changing Forms of Government Act. It went into effect on March 15. That morning, Grand County Republicans Lynn Jackson, Jeramy Day, Gene Ciarus, Jerry McNeely and Manuel Torres submitted a citizens’ petition to Grand County Clerk Diana Carroll. The petition was launched to give them authority over changing the county’s form of government.

They relied on one section of the new law in filing that notice. Less than a week later, Grand County Attorney Andrew Fitzgerald and the Grand County Council discussed the law, specifically whether or not it required the county council to initiate the process or if the “Jackson Petition” precluded them from doing so.

Fitzgerald initially opined the Jackson Petition held sway, but continued to research the issue. With the aid of outside counsel, it was determined the act mandated the county council initiate the change in government – citing a different section of the same law.

On March 26, the council adopted a resolution after learning of Fitzgerald’s findings. The sponsors behind the citizens’ petition retained their own attorney, who sent a letter to the county declaring only the Republicans’ petition was valid.

The county’s outside counsel came up with a very different interpretation of the law leading up to the Nov. 6 election, in which Proposition 9 was on the ballot. It asked voters if they wanted a study committee to work on the change of government. Nearly 70 percent of voters approved the study committee. Had it failed, Grand County’s form of government would have reverted to a three-person partisan commission.

A question of interpretation

Interestingly, the attorneys – Stewart Peay for the citizen petitioners and James Ahlstrom for Grand County – agreed there were no disputes to the facts, the evidence, or even the law itself. It all boils down to what lawmakers intended when they drafted the legislation.

Peay said the law makes it clear it mandates that the first group to file a petition controls the process. Ahlstrom, citing another section of the law, said it is equally clear – in this specific case – that the county is to initiate the process. The attorneys argued more about what the law doesn’t say than what it does.

While Peay insisted the law clearly supports his clients’ position, Ahlstrom told the judge the law “expressly precludes plaintiff’s requested relief.” Earlier this month, the same men who filed the petition in March hired Peay, who filed a lawsuit against the county.

Ahlstrom said it was unlikely lawmakers intended for the act to allow, “a small partisan group of petitioners to control a Utah legislatively mandated change to a county’s form of government.”

In his opposition, Ahlstrom said Peay misinterpreted “the crucial and controlling statutory provisions” of the act, which “mandates that the legislative bodies of two counties – Grand County and Morgan County … shall initiate a process to change their form of county government.”

Peay, speaking on behalf of the citizen petitioners, characterized that wording as a “backstop” that would only come into play if citizens didn’t file a petition.

While Peay used sports analogies to support his argument that the issue boils down to a race to the courthouse, Ahlstrom said citizen petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed to file their notice at this point – although they, and any other group of citizens for that matter, could file a notice to change the form of government in two years, and every two years thereafter if they are unhappy with how county government operates.

Torgerson must determine what lawmakers intended when they wrote the law, supposedly in plain language. Any omissions were to be deemed intentional.

Also, Torgerson agreed to postpone a legislatively imposed deadline for the appointment committee to hold its first meeting within 10 days of being formed. The original deadline passed Friday, Nov. 30.


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.