Granite County study commission updates tentative report to add ballot certificates; discusses changing form and term lengths

The Granite County study commission voted to update its tentative report to include the certificates and ballot language needed to place proposed changes before voters, commissioners said at a public hearing.

Dan Clark, the director of the Local Government Center, told the commission that because the elected county officials form was codified in state law, ‘‘to change anything about the plan of government … you would need to ask the voters to shift from elected county officials form and adopt the commission form’’ and then approve any proposed changes to the plan (for example, moving from six-year to four-year terms). Clark said that two questions on the ballot must pass for a change to take effect: a question approving the alternative form of government and a separate question approving the proposed plan tied to that form.

The discussion centered on three linked topics: whether to recommend that voters approve a switch from the elected county officials form to a commission form; whether to include a sub-option changing commissioner terms from six to four years; and whether to include a separate question on switching partisan elections to nonpartisan contests. Commissioners debated strategy, with some warning that multiple sub-options could ‘‘muddy the waters’’ and confuse voters and others arguing that offering more options could engage different groups of voters.

Clark outlined practical options and constraints. If the commission recommends both the alternative form and a plan change, the county would adopt a transition plan to stagger terms so the new four-year cycle takes effect without cutting short current elected terms; he said effective dates commonly used are Jan. 1 or July 1 to avoid disrupting municipal election cycles. Clark also described the petition route as an alternative: citizens may gather signatures (the director cited a 15% threshold) to force a ballot question if the study commission route does not produce a proposal.

Members discussed outreach and documentation modeled on Gallatin County, which Clark described as having produced a detailed packet and appendix of survey results and having held hearings across its communities. Commissioners agreed to append certificates (including a ballot certificate) and suggested including an executive summary and survey materials in the final filing for posterity and for the county archives.

During the hearing, Commissioner (speaker 3) moved to update the tentative report with the certificates and ballot wording and to post the updated tentative report on the commission website. The motion was seconded and the commission voted in favor; the motion carried.

The commission left substantive choices—such as whether to include the nonpartisan-election question as a concurrent sub-option—largely intact for members to finalize. Commissioners also discussed the statutory requirement to include any written minority report signed by members who do not support the majority proposal; the director said the commission may include a signed minority report if any member dissenting to the final proposal chooses to file one.

The commission set its next meeting for June 3 at the regular start time and adjourned. The updated tentative report (with certificates and ballot language) will be available on the commission website; final adoption and any official vote will follow the public notice and required adoption procedures at a future meeting.