Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County adopts campaign disclosure amendment after brief debate; commissioner Cross votes no
Summary
The commission amended county campaign disclosure rules to require post‑convention reporting and to incorporate new vacancy-reporting language; the ordinance keeps the term 'office holder' to preserve final-disclosure requirements. Commissioner John Cross voted against the measure.
The Davis County Commission voted to adopt amendments to the county campaign financial disclosure ordinance (Ordinance 2025‑9) during its Nov. 25 meeting, while Commissioner John Cross recorded a dissent.
County counsel (Brian) outlined three primary changes: add a required financial report following a political‑party convention, incorporate new statutory reporting requirements for candidates filling vacancies, and retain the term 'office holder' throughout the ordinance so final disclosure obligations (for departing office holders) remain in force. Counsel said the ordinance will take effect after Davis County completes the posting and waiting requirements of section 17‑53‑208 of the Utah Code.
Commissioner Cross asked whether the county should instead adopt an ordinance that simply mirrors state statute to avoid future divergence; he said having additional local requirements made him uncomfortable and said he would vote no. Other commissioners argued the county’s ordinance already contains minimums required by statute and that the county has chosen additional reporting requirements to increase transparency; one commissioner said adding a post‑convention reporting requirement promotes accountability.
Following discussion, a motion to adopt Ordinance 2025‑9 passed with a recorded no vote by Commissioner John Cross.
County staff said the ordinance would be published and become effective after the statute’s posting/waiting period so it is in place for candidate filing beginning Jan. 2.
