The year of the governor

The legislative session that ended this week may well be remembered as the moment Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. found his voice. Accused by some last year of sitting back and letting lawmakers do essentially whatever they liked, he came on this year like a Teddy Roosevelt, except that he didn't exactly walk softly. He did, however, wield the threat of a big stick and even defiantly vetoed a bill before the session ended.

This was good to see.

Utahns are best served when the executive and legislative branches operate as a check on each other's power. That is especially important in a state where one party dominates both houses of the Legislature, a condition that often gives rise to ideologues. In the past, enough cool heads were around to make sure not many so-called "message bills" got the votes they needed. But this year that wasn't so certain. When the governor stepped in and threatened to veto such bills, it took the steam out of measures such as the one attacking how evolution is taught in schools.

His veto of a bill that would have ruined a good system for keeping hazardous waste sites from proliferating or expanding was an important message of his own. The Legislature's failure to override it gave the governor a sense of gravity and weight that was missing last year.

The one thing the governor didn't succeed at, however, was enacting any meaningful tax reform. That chapter remains unfinished. He may yet pull together a majority for a "flatter" income tax and the removal of all state sales taxes from unprepared food sales. The final version of that issue — a 2 percent reduction in the food tax — was an unsatisfying half measure. Utahns deserve better, particularly in a year with record budget surpluses.

For a year in which money flowed freely, this was an unusually contentious session. Much has been made of lawmakers' incivility to each other, to the media and to the public. This attitude was particularly disturbing, however, when, at various times, those in charge of committee hearings did not allow members of the public to speak. More than anything, this sent a message to the public that its representatives were agenda-driven and not interested in weighing all sides to an issue.

That is, for the most part, an inaccurate assessment. Most lawmakers, we believe, are interested in fairness. But an uncouth minority succeeded in sending the opposite message, regardless. All that does is increase voter apathy and fuel a sense of powerlessness among average people.