Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill allowing county executives to appoint counsel in conflicts with county attorneys
Summary
HB112 gives county executives and commissions an option to appoint or hire independent counsel when a conflict of interest exists with elected county attorneys; sponsors said it mirrors the Governor's Office practice and does not remove county attorneys' statutory duties.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Feb. 16 passed House Bill 112, which authorizes county executives and county commissions, in certain conflict-of-interest situations, to appoint or retain independent legal counsel rather than rely solely on the elected county attorney.
Representative John E. Swallow, sponsor of HB112, said the bill addresses occasional conflicts that arise between county governments and elected county attorneys. "What House Bill 112 does is say that when there's an elected county executive in a certain county, that county executive has the option of appointing legal counsel to represent that executive," Swallow said. He emphasized the bill does not remove duties from a county attorney: "The county attorney would still have all of its duties and responsibilities that are set forth in statute currently."
Members questioned who determines whether a conflict exists and who pays when independent counsel is hired. Swallow said conflicts could be determined by the parties or ultimately by the courts and that payment responsibility would generally rest with the county, though budget mechanics were not specified on the floor.
After discussion and summation, the House voted: 64 yes, 9 no. HB112 passed and will be referred to the Senate.
Next steps: The bill moves to the Senate. Floor discussion left several operational questions unresolved, chiefly how counties will handle payment of appointed counsel and how conflicts will be administratively identified in practice.
