A protection for taxpayers

Deseret Morning News editorial
Published: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:11 p.m. MST
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
From time to time, voters in Utah will complain about having to elect the so-called "minor" offices of county government. Why, they ask, do we have to elect a surveyor, an assessor, a treasurer, a recorder or any of the other people who do specific jobs? Why not simply let the county mayor appoint someone to those tasks?

Anyone paying attention to the Alliant Techsystems tax-refund case, which was decided by the state Supreme Court late last week, got as good an answer as could be given to those questions.

We elect those offices because it is in the taxpayers' interest for them to be independent and accountable.

The Supreme Court ruled that a deal the former Salt Lake County Commission struck with Alliant, granting the company a $5 million tax refund, was unconstitutional. But the court would not have ruled this way if not for elected Salt Lake County Assessor Lee Gardner. That's because Gardner filed a lawsuit. He did not feel the settlement was right, and he felt it was wrong that the commission barred him from attending nearly every meeting in which it was discussed.

Had Gardner been an appointed assessor, working under the good graces of the commission (or a county mayor, as the current form of government calls for), he could easily have been cowed into going along with a deal he disliked. Shut up or lose your job, he might have been told. His loyalties would lie toward the county's executive branch, not toward the taxpayers who elected him.

Story continues below
The Utah Constitution charges the assessor with determining a fair market value for all properties so that taxes can be applied fairly. It also gives the assessor the right to challenge decisions made by the county's board of equalization, which in this case was made up of the same people who sat on the County Commission. When it comes to taxes, fairness is absolutely essential. Counties should not be allowed to go about making assessments or refunds based on anything but fair and objective standards. Ultimately, this becomes an issue fundamental to public trust.

The same sort of argument could be made for all the county's elected officials (as well as for the state auditor and treasurer). The surveyor from time to time has to confront developers who destroy monuments that are used to set property boundaries. County mayors or commissioners may be inclined to look the other way because of the revenue new developments bring, but property owners would end up with a mess when their boundaries are called into question.

Likewise, the treasurer is assigned to invest the county's money and must be accountable for those decisions, and so on.

Voters may have trouble deciding among candidates for these positions, but they should never doubt that their ability to decide is fundamental to the protection of their rights.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.