Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study commission approves edits to ballot language for proposed commission form of government
Summary
The Granite County Study Commission voted to revise the draft ballot language for a proposal to replace the county's current elected-officials government with a commission form, and to have the county attorney review the changes before the final report is sent to the county commission for placement on the ballot.
The Granite County Study Commission voted to revise draft ballot language for a proposed shift to a commission form of government and to have the changes reviewed by county attorney Blaine Bradshaw before the final report is transmitted to the county commission.
At the meeting S2 (Luke) explained the main initiative and two contingent subquestions: if voters approve the commission form, they would also decide whether commissioner terms should change from six years to four and whether county elections should switch from partisan to nonpartisan. "The only additions to this," Luke said, "were as advised by MSU's Dan Clark that we have a certificate establishing the official ballot language." He pointed members to the language on pages 16–17 of the draft report.
Several members raised concerns about how the sample ballot presents choices. One member said the draft's format could confuse voters because it did not clearly show a standard 'for' or 'against' option for each issue. The member asked, "Shouldn't you have against adoption of commission form of government?" Luke acknowledged the inconsistency and said he could rephrase the suboptions so each question explicitly offers a for-or-against choice.
S2 moved "to make adjustments to the ballot language proposed by the final report and then have all changes reviewed by county attorney Blaine Bradshaw," and S1 seconded the motion. After brief discussion about who would review wording and the role of the commissioners in placing items on the ballot, the commission voted in favor. The motion carried.
Members agreed the next procedural step is to have Blaine review the revised language and then present the final report publicly at a county commission meeting so commissioners and the public can ask questions. The group discussed timing to meet an apparent August deadline to place the measure on the ballot and tentatively set a date to seek placement on the commission agenda later this month.
The commission did not take a final vote on placing the measure on the ballot; their action was limited to editing language and requesting legal review. The final decision about ballot placement rests with the county commission.
