The Coalville City Council is inching closer to an agreement regarding the distribution of appointment powers and the city’s operating procedures, but the controversial ordinance outlining and defining those specific roles and duties was ultimately tabled for a second time this week.
City Councilors Lynn Wood and Louise Willoughby spearheaded the development of the ordinance, which they presented to the full council last month. Wood said their goal was to better define the municipality’s operating procedures and to outline the roles of the City Council in relation to the mayor.
Most of the ordinance simply codified how the city already functions, but there was one key change involving the city attorney position. Instead of being appointed by the mayor, the individual would be appointed by a majority vote of the City Council — a key shift amid the long-rumored tension between some councilors and current City Attorney Sheldon Smith.
Smith on Monday presented his own revised version of the ordinance, which he said was approximately 90% “the same document” as the one drafted by Wood and Willoughby. He explained his revisions were an attempt to make the ordinance consistent so that all staff are hired and fired using the same process.
“I would ask you to look at this without looking at personalities who are in the positions. Don’t look at who’s in the city attorney position. Don’t look at who’s the city planner. Don’t look at who’s the recorder or any of the others,” Smith said. “Look at what the provisions are and how they will affect Coalville today and moving forward.”
The revised ordinance still transfers the selection of the city attorney to the City Council’s purview, but it includes more details about the appointment process. Moreover, it specifically allows the city attorney to work under the direction of both the mayor and City Council.
“The City Council may direct the City Attorney only during a duly noticed public meeting, either through a formal motion or an informal consensus recorded in the meeting minutes,” the ordinance states. “The Mayor is authorized to direct the City Attorney on routine administrative and operational matters within the scope of day-to-day municipal administration.”
Smith also urged the City Council to consider the checks and balances system created by the Founding Fathers and to focus on the legislative process.
“It’s not the most reasonable way to handle it,” he said. “You’ve got a mayor that’s very capable, and I’m sure whoever replaces him or if he’s the next mayor too, they’ll be very, very capable. … I’ve probably worked with six or seven mayors. Every mayor has been very, very competent and able to take care of his duties. In my opinion, if there’s anybody that’s lacking right here, and you’re not going to want to hear this, it’s the City Council.”
A handful of Coalville residents spoke during the public hearing, reiterating Smith’s concerns and advocating for a separation of powers.
Martin Bushman, a Coalville resident who worked for the Utah Attorney General’s Office for over 30 years, said he also wanted the City Council to consider the difficulties of hiring personnel while adhering to the state’s open meetings laws.
“In the hiring process, the council would have to meet and decide. If they have a quorum present, which they need to vote, it’s got to be in an open meeting,” Bushman explained. “Interviewing somebody in an open meeting for a job, there are a couple of problems that come. Sometimes, they don’t want to be overly frank and open, like they might in a more quiet setting. They may not want their boss or their employer knowing that they’re applying for this job and now it’s in a public record. Also, you’ve got to discuss salary and benefit negotiations.”
Former Coalville City Councilor Jodie Coleman questioned why the City Council would want to add more to its plate and also reminded councilors they’re making decisions for the future of the city, not just current staff.
“Taking power away from the mayor, besides sitting there looking pretty, I don’t know what else his job would be. Managing you guys, I guess, but I say leave it as it is,” she said. “Personal agendas should not create policy ever, so whatever personal agenda is behind this, which I think there is a little bit of that, I think you need to get rid of it because you might not be here, and you’re creating policy for the next council, the next attorney, the next public.”
Wood said she’s willing to “back off” on the change to the city attorney based on both community feedback and the complexity of the position.
“We need to also have advisors that help us in creating policy and deciding where we go, and that’s really what’s driving this,” she explained. “We want to make sure that we have some say, or a little bit more say, in some of these positions that are more important to us, and I think the city attorney’s a tough one. I think that’s a 50-50, where he’s advising the council and he’s advising the mayor.”
She added that the strategic planner — a proposed new contractual position intended to advise councilors on special projects on a case-by-case basis — was more important to have under City Council’s direction than the city attorney.
“Hopefully that helps a little bit to understand where we are,” Wood said.
The City Council unanimously voted to table the ordinance until the next meeting to look over Smith’s revisions and suggest further changes.