What in the world is going on in our cities between mayors and city councils? In Syracuse and Bluffdale, the city councils each passed laws stripping their mayor's executive duties and powers and dressing them up on city council-appointed employees. They each did so without a public vote. Predictably, the mayors in both cities successfully supported referendum petitions, which challenged the one-sided ordinances and now require an affirmative vote by the people before either law can go into effect. The same thing would have happened in Lehi but for the last-minute intervention of the Utah Legislature. Things have gotten so bad, the Legislature placed a moratorium on changing the forms of city government until the Legislature can "study" (i.e. figure out) what is going on.

The cure prescribed by some is to lecture the mayors and city council members on anger management. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I say, no. And it is not because our elected mayors and council members lack brains or manners. It is because, as Charles Dickens eloquently put it in "Oliver Twist," "the law is a ass — a idiot ... . I wish the law ... be opened by experience." When it comes to providing checks and balances between mayors and city council members, the statutory law, as it applies to cities, is not grounded in experience or voters' expectations.

Most of us might not spend a lot of time thinking about city government. As long as the garbage is picked up, potholes are filled and development is not approved near our back yards, we don't worry about it. But, if pressed by a "citizenship in the community" merit badge counselor, in general we might say, as one Riverton City Council member said, "the city council legislates and the mayor (administers) them." Most of us look upon our mayor as the city's chief executive. Like him or hate him, that's the image of Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. But, thanks to the Legislature, that's not the way it works in most cities. Under the historical or traditional form of city government, section 10-3-830 of the Utah Code allows city councils to unilaterally pass an ordinance establishing a manager form of government. The ordinance appoints a city manager "to serve at the pleasure of the governing body." The city council then delegates away the mayor's executive duties and powers to the beholden bureaucrat. The individual that the citizens think they voted to be the CEO now isn't.

When the city council benches a mayor, what's a mayor to do? What's the right thing to do? First, the mayor can cheerfully carry on as the town mascot, wave at parades, conduct flag ceremonies, that sort of thing. But if that is all you do, why be a mayor? Why run for mayor? Why not do something else more productive, perhaps resign and go fly a kite! But if the mayor does that, he or she is a quitter and breaches the public trust of the citizens who elected him or her. A mayor can contest the city council takeover in court, but the separation of power arguments get complicated and no one has the stomach or the wallet to take it up to the Utah Supreme Court for a final ruling. And if a mayor does seek judicial help, those on the sidelines complain that taxpayer funds are wasted. Lastly, the mayor can support a referendum petition requiring a vote on the city council's ordinance. But again, petitions and elections cost time and taxpayer money. As a practical matter, when a city council decides to bench the mayor, there is not much an elected mayor can do.

The same is not true of the Utah Legislature. City governments are created by the Utah Legislature. It gives the rules, changes the rules and takes the rules away. There is currently a Utah Legislative committee studying the issues. One effective solution is to require ordinances passed under Section 10-3-830 to automatically go to a public vote before they take effect. Coups would be replaced by the ballot box.

---

Dale F. Gardiner has practiced municipal law for more than 30 years. His wife is the current mayor of Bluffdale.