Provost Pay

Now that we have learned that Wasatch County has a potential 2003 budget shortfall of over $200,000 and that 2002 spending found a depletion of the surplus fund of about $800,000, I believe it is long past time to officially question the payment of over $80,000 to an outgoing Commissioner.

I would strongly urge at least one of our new Council members to formally request an opinion from Attorney General for a clarification of the legality of the decision that was made in the last County Commission meeting of 2002 to authorize such a payment.

1. There was, and is, no statutory authority requiring said payment in Utah Code.

2. The Optional Plan forming the new government specified "Sec 5.01(5). The office of County Commissioner of Wasatch County shall be dissolved at the time the new council members are sworn in."

3. It was the clear intent of the authors of the plan that no further payment would be made for the office of County Commissioner after the adoption of the Optional Plan.

4. There was a clear understanding at the time of the election that the office of Commissioner would exist only until the new form of government was adopted. Four of the persons who ran for the Commissioner seat agreed that they did not expect to be paid for the full term if the new Council form of government was voted in.

5. Salt Lake County had to pay their outgoing Commissioners because it was specifically required to do so in the change of government plan.

6. The County Attorney’s opinion that the payment could be made was based on Municipal law - not County Law. His argument that the Optional Plan dissolved the office but "made no adjustment to the term of office" is weak, at best. The cited case of Biddles vs. Washington Terrace City is about municipal, not county, offices. While he found it "curious" that no corresponding legislation is found in county law, the clear intent of the Optional Plan Sponsors and the voters, by their approval, was that the office of Commissioner was dissolved and no payment was due.

There were no services rendered for the payment and a return of $80,000 will cover about one-third of the 2003 shortfall. To quote Biddles, there was no "unfairness and financial hardship" unless it is to the taxpayers of Wasatch County because the erroneous payment was made.