Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews legal opinion, debates clarifying amendments to county governance resolution
Summary
County attorney told commissioners that a resolution cannot alter the statutory three-commissioner form of government and that repealing a clarifying resolution would not remove statutory duties; commissioners debated proposed language restricting one-on-one meetings with the county administrator and clarifying when commissioners may meet department heads.
The San Juan County Commission spent a large portion of its May 5 meeting reviewing a legal opinion and considering two clarifying amendments to a past resolution about the county's commission form of government.
Attorney Man told the commission his legal opinion concluded the three-commissioner form of government and the duties it establishes are set by statute and cannot be transferred or eliminated by a local resolution. "A resolution that merely clarifies statutory duties does not create additional duties; repealing it does nothing because duties remain under statute," he said.
Commissioners pressed the attorney for details and asked where proposed language would fit in the existing resolution. One commissioner said the middle layer of a recently circulated organization chart made the chair responsible for oversight of many departments and raised concerns about concentrating power; another commissioner replied that the chair's extra duties are limited to setting the agenda and conducting meetings.
The two clarifications discussed for inclusion in a revised resolution were: (1) that no commissioner should meet privately with the county administrator unless the other commissioners are invited and (2) that commissioners may meet with department heads for routine, operational matters but should not discuss legislative or executive policies with department heads unless all commissioners are invited. Commissioners asked for explicit language allowing department heads to contact commissioners for day-to-day operational issues and sought a process for notifying other commissioners about meetings with administrators.
Commissioner Harvey said he had requested the opinion specifically to learn whether a previously adopted resolution could be amended or repealed and to determine the correct process for doing so. He noted the attorney's exhibit referencing Utah statute 17-52A-203 and county-class rules as relevant to the county's governance structure.
The commission agreed to have staff prepare a revised substitute resolution incorporating the two clarifying points for consideration at a future meeting, so that the board can decide whether to formally adopt the changes.
The commission did not take final action on the resolution at this meeting; the attorney said a new resolution would be required to amend or repeal a prior one and that the underlying statutory duties would remain in force regardless of the local resolution's language.
