Hooper council tables ordinance that would remove mayor’s executive powers; agrees to closed-door talks

Mayor Sherry Beam opened discussion at the Feb. 25 Hooper City Council meeting by describing an ordinance in the meeting packet that would remove executive and administrative powers from the office of the mayor and vest those powers exclusively in the city council. "It is an ordinance amending the municipal code ... to remove the mayor's powers in a 6 member council form of government," Beam said, summarizing the proposal and noting the need for a transition plan if functions are shifted.

The ordinance prompted extended debate about transparency, personnel decisions and the city’s budgeting process. Council members said they had been frustrated by what they described as limited input into agenda-setting and hiring. "We've not been allowed to put things on the agenda, on several occasions," Council Member Ryan D. Wilcox said during the discussion, adding that the council had not received timely budget information for several months.

Supporters of tabling the ordinance said the city should try internal remedies first, including mediation between the mayor and council. Council Member Hill moved to table the ordinance for three months and to hold a closed-door meeting to attempt to resolve the council–mayor disputes; Council Member Northrop seconded. The council then took a roll-call voice vote; the minutes record the following recorded ayes: Council Member Wilcox; Council Member Hill; Council Member Northrop; Council Member Fowers; Council Member Debbie Maragone. The presiding mayor does not vote except to break ties. The motion carried. The council set a review date three months out to revisit the proposal.

Mayor Beam and several council members emphasized the operational implications of any change to mayoral authority. Beam cited guidance from the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Wasatch Front Regional Council stressing that a shift of administrative duties requires a transition plan covering personnel oversight, fiscal management and municipal procedures. She said the city does not have a city manager or administrator and that, in practice, the mayor had been handling many day-to-day functions.

Council members raised specific examples they said illustrated the need for greater transparency: several new or reallocated positions were filled (a city planner, a part-time deputy city recorder and a financial clerk, and money budgeted for a road supervisor), and some members said they learned of hires only after the fact. Mayor Beam responded that the hires were funded from positions that had vacated salaries and that she had discussed staffing needs with treasurer and staff. "We had a financial director. She left ... we were able to hire a city planner ... with money that was already allocated in the budget," Beam said.

Council Member Hill argued the ordinance could be divisive and asked for time to pursue mediation and improved communication before altering the structure of government. "I recommend that we table this for 3 months till June 25, contingent upon a discussion, a closed door meeting ... In 3 months' time, if we're all satisfied with where we're at, then we'll dismiss the ordinance. If we're not, then we'll move forward," Hill said.

Next steps: the council will schedule a closed-door session (per state law exceptions) to pursue conflict-resolution options and will review the ordinance at the council meeting set three months after Feb. 25.