On Saturday May 12, 2012 at the Heber City Police Department Building located at 75 North Main Street. There is a Kid’s Health and Safety Fair starting at 10:00am to 2:00pm There will be free ID Kits, Free Blood Glucose Screenings, Free Blood Pressure Screenings, and lots of other free services. Safety demonstrations on ATV’s, Car Seats, Backpacking self-defense and much more. The admission is FREE, so bring your family down to enjoy a day with the Wasatch EMS, County Fire Department, Heber Hospital, Wasatch County Health Department and are own great Heber City Police officers. For more information log onto heberhospital.org or call 435-657-3260 county health department.

Over the recent months, the city council has been considering three critical pieces of legislation relating to ethics and conflicts of interest for public employees, government officials, and committee and board members. These proposed codes are designed to help public employees and officials understand what is required of them as representatives of the city, and they set the standards for them to follow. The conflict of interest laws of the state and the newly proposed policies of the city are founded upon state codes and best practices of other cites that have implemented similar policies.  These proposed policies are based on the belief that government officials, both elected and appointed, owe paramount loyalty to the public; and that personal or private financial gain in any form should not influence the fulfillment of public duties.

As a member of the city council, I have witnessed certain public officials make decisions that were in opposition to state codes and contrary to the best interests of Heber City.  These officials participated in discussions on important issues and then voted to approve items which would benefit their own personal interests.

Another example occurred when a certain member of the city council engaged in unsubstantiated personal attacks upon the character and motives of the other members of the city council. This council member’s actions were in direct violation of the State Code of Ethics.  Based upon these two examples alone, it has become clear that our city needs a formal written policy regarding conflicts of interest and ethics.

I spoke with Mayor Dave Phillips in December of last year concerning conflicts of interest and ethical behavior in December of last year. In this conversation, we both agreed that such violations should be discussed with the City Council in order to prevent future abuses. Mayor Phillips informed me that he desired to personally address the City Council in the January City Council Meeting concerning conflicts of interest, codes of conduct and ethical behavior.  I asked the Mayor if I might be allowed to proceed, with the ideas we had discussed, and draft legislation for the city that we might present together.

Mayor Philips stated he would be happy to work with me on this project. He asserted that the Utah State Code had a section regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest. He affirmed that City Councilmen and city employees should formally inform the city administration of any conflicts of interest that may affect their public duties. The mayor stated, “I am very supportive of pushing for decency and civility on the council as we work together to get business of the city done these next few years.  People can have difference [sic.] of opinions, including the mayor and council, city manager and staff, but we ought to be able to express it in a civil way and act like gentlemen and the elected officials we are.”

The mayor and I both felt that basic expectations of conduct and ethics were not being adhered to by some public officials, employees, and board members.
In January, the mayor addressed the city council as he had promised and spoke of the concerns we had previously discussed in December.  He gave his full support for my proposal  of this legislation by informing the council that he had read over the policies that I had proposed and stated that there were some good items in these policies that stressed integrity and honesty. He confirmed that these were excellent codes to live by.

I had several goals in mind while drafting this new code.  Effective codes are living, breathing guidelines, implemented with clear, useful policies and procedures. They become the cornerstone of ethical government and should never be waived.  If such codes are never explained and are simply written and posted on a wall, or stuffed in a drawer, they may only create contempt and cynicism among employees.

While researching state codes and the policies other government agencies have implemented, it became apparent that no written policy can define all conflicts of interest or ethics violations so exactly as to forbid all conflicts of interest.  It was not my intent to write such a policy, rather I intended on writing a policy that would limit such undesirable relationships within the local government as much as possible.  My research also made it clear that a good conflict of interest policy and code of ethics should have at least these basic goals and principles to achieve their purpose.

1. A good conflict of interest policy and code of ethics should establish a set of standards of conduct and behavior and require that actual or potential conflicts of interest between personal and public duties be disclosed.
2. The policy should make clear to the public and board members that conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed, as well as prohibited when appropriate.
3. The citizens and businesses of a community are entitled to responsible, fair, honest and accountable local government.
4. The policy should raise board members’ awareness of the possible existence of conflicts of interest and violations of codes of conduct.
5. A good conflict of interest policy should educate board members on the types of relationships and situations that might give rise to conflicts of interest. Because the city does not have a formal conflict of interest policy or a code of ethics, board and committee members are not be trained or being currently informed of the possible conflicts that may arise due to their involvement in city government. The potential for conflict of interest situations to arise is extensive, applying particularly but not exclusively to the exploitation of property, information, or opportunities, regardless of whether or not the board member takes advantage of it.  Board members should familiarize themselves with the key features of state law and city’s policies.
6. A good policy should remind board members of the broader interests of the city and the need to protect its reputation and its assets. They should avoid actions that are inconsistent with the best interests of the city. Their choices should not be based on any private or personal interest. They must endeavor to treat all persons, claims, and transactions in a fair and equitable manner.If someone can personally benefit from a decision or use their position for the purpose of rewarding themselves or another person from their official actions, then they should be aware that this is a conflict of interest.
7. The policy must establish a regular process to follow when a conflict of interest or potential conflicts arise.
8. A good policy should require that public officials avoid situations in which they do or may have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts with or may conflict with the city’s best interest.  This conflict of interest needs to be disclosed and/or the board or council member needs to remove themselves from the discussion and decision.

These points were mostly derived from the best practices of other government bodies, and they are what motivated the policy I have proposed to the City Council.  This policy has been reviewed by many people, including the City Council, the Mayor, the city attorney, and City Manager, and I have been interested to see which points have become the focus of attention by the various parties. Specifically, I have been most interested to hear certain public officials complain that the proposed standards were too restrictive and that these policies required a higher standard than they desired to adhere to.

I have been very disappointed by this minimum standard sort of conversation. I had hoped that the discussion amongst the leadership of our city would be rooted in the high expectations that the public wants and expects from them.  I sincerely believe that good leaders generally aspire to higher standards, and when certain members of our local government opted to discuss the minimum standard set by the state I was truly disheartened.

I realize that these policies are not perfect and that they are not intended to represent my ideas alone.  However, it is important to remember that the state has established minimum standards to merely prevent the most destructive scenarios.  I feel that Heber should demand more from our public officials and employees than the minimum required by the state.  Our city is not a ‘bare minimum’ kind of city; and our city leadership should be the first to require exceptionally high standards.

While government should not over regulate or restrict individuals or the private sector, it is important for government to tightly regulate itself.  There should be very clear restrictions and regulations on what government officials can and cannot do.

I energetically advocated for higher standards to prevail in these new policies. Despite my objections, some of the higher standards that I had intentionally included due to their success with other government agencies, were removed from the proposed policies.

The new conflict of interest policy for employees went through a review of the city council and was accepted by the  council.   The city manager then asked  that it  be sent to the Personnel Committee to be reviewed.  The Personnel Committee is made up of two city council members and city employees. Unfortunately, the Personnel Committee members felt that the newly revised conflict of interest policy for city employees  was not needed at all and consequently at this time the policy stands on the edge of being rejected. Members of the personnel committee complained that such detailed policies were too restrictive, unnecessary, and not applicable to them.

Regardless of the conclusion of the Personnel Committee, our local government history and current events have demonstrated that such policies are indeed necessary.  The standards set by these policies would act as a safeguard against corruption and would help us to regain the confidence of the public. Anyone can make a bad decision. It is important to recognize that pressure is a “major determinant of honesty.”  The influence of a superior, competition, and self-interest can affect a person’s level of honesty. History sadly shows that such pressures can edge people toward crossing the lines of what is legal and what is ethical. Integrity begins with being honest about dishonesty.

The city administration (the Mayor and City Manager), armed with sound policies, should determine whether or not an employee’s behavior is ethical or may be considered a conflict of interest; employees themselves should not be left to determine this. These policies were not designed to punish or create fear, but rather to set a clear standard that employees may safely follow. This policy was intended to educate employees regarding the standards of ethical behavior and proper conduct so that employees know what is expected of them.  It was designed to build honesty and integrity in the public system and with the employees.

Our Mayor and the City Council should have led the way and set an example of high morals and standards with their own words and behavior regarding the policies that relate to public officials. Nevertheless, because of the hesitancy of some members of the City Council to live by a higher standard of moral conduct, the Conflicts of Interest policy for Public Officials has been watered down to the minimum state requirements. It has been diluted to the point where most of the conflicts that were originally prohibited or that required removal of the person in question from the issues have been left to prohibition or removal on a voluntary basis.

I have included a link to a copy of the original documents and policies I presented to the city council below prior to their revision. If the city council decides to adopt a conflict of interest policy for public officials and employees, I will post any modifications made.

The Code of Conduct and Ethics policy so far remains in its original form.  This is on schedule to be on the April 5th city council meeting for adoption.

If you have any concerns or comments on these policies please send them to me.

Code of Conduct & Ethics

City Employee Conflict of Interest Policy

Public Official Conflict of Interest Policy

Utah State Code for Municipalities

Want to meet the candidates? They’re coming to Heber, and you’re invited to come mingle with them. You’ll be able to speak with the State Gubernatorial candidates, US Congressional 3rd District candidates, US Senate candidates, State Attorney General candidates, & District #54 State Representative candidates. The meeting will be tomorrow, March 16, at 7:00 pm (come early to speak with the candidates), and will be held in the Senior Center (465 E 1200 S).

Have you heard about the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSI)? The issue is coming to our community, and we need to know where we stand on it. I’ve found a few resources that you might be interested in to help clear up what the fuss is all about.

After you’ve done your research, I invite you to voice your opinion at the next School Board meeting on March 20, at 6:30 PM in the North school.

These websites explain the details and support for CCSI:
http://www.corestandards.org/
http://www.schools.utah.gov/core/
http://www.uen.org/commoncore/

The following websites argue against CCSI:
www.keepeducationlocal.com
http://alicelinahan.net/2011/05/11/lets-get-off-the-national-standards-train-2/
www.utahsrepublic.org/common-core

February 29, 2012

Recently, the Heber Light & Power board decided to rescind their decision to award it’s members a significant pay increase.  I applaud their decision, and thank each of you for speaking out against this exorbitant pay raise.  I am convinced that your participation was the driving reason that led to this undeserved benefit being rescinded.  Understandably, many residents have asked me how this could be avoided in the future.

First, I should explain how our elected officials are compensated for these assignments.  Historically, certain boards have paid their members (which are composed of elected officials among others) for their service while others have required service without compensation.  Because the Mayor has the authority to assign council members to the various boards, the potential for a Mayor to award the councilmen that support him with high paying assignments has been significant in the past.

When I first took office I did not know that certain boards received compensation for attendance.  I believed the City Council was providing a volunteer public service without pay, and I welcomed the opportunity.  However, I quickly learned that not only were members being paid, but that the pay they were receiving was the source of many problems among the members of the Governing Body.

Last year I asked my fellow councilmen to address this issue by requiring that the compensation council members receive for serving on their various board assignments be used by the city to pay for expenses related to the City Council.  My proposal was met with a great deal of resistance, and ultimately the City Council decided to simply divide the total compensation up equally amongst the members of the City Council, while the Mayor was permitted to receive his usual full share.

If this policy had not been put in place the current compensation for 2012 board assignments would have two city council members receiving over $30,000 annually, and two city council members with greater time commitments would be receiving nothing for their hard work.

This system has been mostly effective at reducing the potential for political favoritism, and has made compensation more fair for each councilman, but has demonstrated significant flaws as well.  One glaring example was demonstrated by the most recent controversy involving the Heber Light & Power Board.  This system does nothing to prevent that abuse.  In addition to the potential for abuse, under the current system a member’s pay is unrelated to attendance of their assigned board meetings.   A board member may simply choose not to attend their meetings, and still receive their full share of compensation.  On the other hand this form of compensation fails to reward members with a proportionately greater time commitment than their counterparts.

Recently I have been in the process of refining a proposal that would address these issues.  I want board members to attend their meetings, and actively participate on their assignments.  The best way to accomplish this would be to use the total money received for all paying boards to pay each board member a set fee for each board meeting they attend.  This form of compensation would incentivize meeting attendance, and would reward members that serve on more boards with a proportional increase in their compensation.  It would be fair, and a good policy for the city.

However, during the most recent City Council meeting Councilman Erik Rowland proposed that the City Council adopt changes that were very similar to those that I proposed last year.  He proposed that the City Council place all money paid by the various boards into a separate fund to be used for paying any business related expenses of the City Council (i.e. travel, training, etc.).

Given the resistance I received last year with a similar proposal, I was surprised to see the same council that refused my ideas welcomed his.  Regardless, I appreciate Councilman Rowland’s proposal, and the City Council’s willingness to accept it.  It demonstrates a greater desire to demand more from our City Council members in terms of serving the city.  When it comes to our compensation as elected officials, we should only report to you, the taxpayer.

I feel that this sort of system brings us closer to that idea.  However, there are two things that I feel must be addressed for this system to work.  First, I have concerns when any elected official determines to set aside a “special fund” that only they are responsible for.  And second, I believe that any changes made to the compensation of the City Council should apply to the entire Governing Body of the city, including the Mayor.

Allow me to explain my first point.  Councilman Rowland’s proposal says that “the remuneration that is received from any services or attendance by a member of the (5) five member city council that is on a board, committee, or commission shall be payable to Heber City and placed directly into a new fund hereto referred to as the “council fund”…  This fund shall be under the sole dissection [sic.] of the council and all payments made from this fund will be authorized through the council by way of majority vote.”

There are a number of technical problems with maintaining a separate account for the City Council to use at it’s sole discretion, but apart from those technicalities, one of the major underlying problems is that this additional account would provide opportunities for misuse.  The creation of a separate City Council fund makes it possible for future officials to create an unintelligible web of transactions between the City Council fund and the General fund of the city.  It could simply amount to a shell game with public funds.  I understand that Councilman Rowland’s intentions are good, but I become suspicious whenever any government institution attempts to complicate or obscure it’s access to public funds.

In addition to the potential for misuse, under this new policy there is significant potential for a three member tyranny over the City Council, given that payments from the account would only require a majority vote.  Members of future City Councils may consider withholding their votes when other members seek reimbursement from the City Council fund, in exchange for their support on unrelated issues (& vice versa). This policy sets the stage for a bartering system where favors and votes are currency.

As I mentioned previously, my second point was that any changes made to compensation of the City Council should include the entire Governing Body of the city, including the Mayor.  Currently a large portion of the Mayor’s annual compensation is derived from his service on various boards.  In-fact, the Mayor receives over $12,000 annually from his board positions alone.

Unlike the City Council, the Mayor keeps every cent from each paying board he serves on.  Of all the elected officials who represented Heber City on the Heber Light & Power Board when their infamous pay increase was passed, the Mayor was in a position to gain the most from the decision.  Councilman Rowland’s proposal does not address one of the major underlying issues that contributed to the passage of that unpopular decision; that the Mayor maintains the ability to influence his compensation from outside sources other than the city.   This is a conflict of interest.

As you can see, Councilman Rowland’s proposal, although certainly headed in the right direction, has some significant flaws.  Luckily, the solutions to these problems are simple.  First, the money that would have been paid to board members should be deposited into the General Fund of the city, and should be counted among the city’s assets.  There is no need for a separate fund.  The entire process is simplified by depositing this money directly into the General Fund of the city.  The City Council already has procedures in place to account for it’s expenses, and the public can easily trace expenditures from the General Fund of the city.  The City Council wants this money to benefit the city, and this is the best way to do so.

Second, the Mayor should be subject to the same policy that the City Council will be subject to.  To prevent the misuse of authority, the Mayor’s compensation should be consolidated into one source, the city.  By consolidating the Mayor’s compensation into one source, the potential for misuse of his office will be reduced, and transparency in our local government (particularly the governing body) will be fostered.

I congratulate Councilman Rowland for the main idea of his proposal.  Combined with the solutions I have proposed, this policy will call for all members of our Governing Body to return to the service of our community.

February 22, 2012

Today I attended a public meeting held by the Heber Light & Power board, and asked the members of the board to return the money they have collected from their most recent pay increase.

Click Here to See Coverage of the Meeting by Channel 2 News

Click Here for Coverage by the Salt Lake Tribune

Here is the transcript of the comments I made at the meeting:

I am Alan McDonald, member of the Heber City Council, customer of Heber Light & Power and former board member of Heber Light & Power.

I had the privilege of working with the Heber Light & Power Company and most of the board members last year.  The majority of the decisions that we made as a board last year where based on a genuine commitment to serve our community and the company   with one    glaring exception, the most recent pay increase   for members of the board.     The decision by some of the board members to increase the benefits of its constituent members was self-serving, and wrong.

This pay increase was agreed upon by   certain members    before it was even considered by the board as a whole.  I was on the Heber Light & Power board from Jan. to Dec. 2011.    No information on any wage increase or health benefit for the board was ever presented during this time to the board as a whole nor was the full 6 member board given the opportunity to just ask why we are even looking at this.  There were 3 of the 6 board members who were not part of the Human Resource Committee that had no clue that this was even being discussed by other board members.

I and board member Kohler had other obligations and were not able to attend the board meeting in November when it was presented.     As a board member, I had been given the opportunity in the past to study the actions that we as a board were to take   carefully and seek   input from the   staff and other board members on most issues; and yet, this pay increase was presented and passed without prior discussion or notice to the full board.

I have gone through the 2012 budget and there is no line item for board health insurance costs or for the in lieu of wage increase for the board nor any adjustments made to the 2012 budget to say where  the money was coming from to pay for it.   This health package decision was not justified nor has anyone provide the facts on why it needed to be put in place.

There seemed to be an attempt to obscure this action from other board members and the public.

From this health insurance benefit package, the public has lost confidence in the Heber Light & Power board to make sound decisions in the best interest of the company and the people they represent.  This single decision has blighted the reputation of the company, and fostered the   disdain   of the general public.

The people you were supposed to represent have demonstrated their disapproval by signing petitions, voicing opposition through the local media, and even appearing in large numbers before this very board.  Can there be any ambiguity concerning the will of the public?

The public has demanded that this pay increase be rescinded and the money received form it be paid back and yet it remains unchanged.  I’m not sure if the board is oblivious of the will of its constituents, or if it is simply contemptuously defiant to it.  In either case it is clear that the board is not eager to rescind this decision and repay the money on the basis of what is right.  Perhaps the board would consider its own set of by-laws instead.

According to the Heber Light & Power by-laws that govern the actions of the board, “the board may adopt and amend by-laws not inconsistent with… the laws of the State of Utah”.  This most recent policy that was adopted by certain members of the board is clearly inconsistent with at least two state laws.

1. The Health care package exceeds the $5K annual compensation limit for board members in State Code 17B-1-307. (The state code also says that pay provided to a member with health coverage under group insurance plans shall be included as part of the member’s compensation.)
2. The board failed to provide a public hearing as is required by State Code 10-3-818; which says that in the event that the governing body decides that the compensation schedules [for board members] should be adapted, changed, or amended, it shall set a time for a public hearing at which all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

The board must consider the potential for a class action lawsuit against the company for not adhering to its own by-laws.  The board ought to amend its policies and add at least the two state codes I have stated to help prevent this sort of problem from occurring in the future.

In addition to following state law, the board should follow the HL&P resolution which says that “Each board member shall make Diligent efforts to inform the governing body of the Party (or the Municipality) that he represents, of the Company’s business including the Company’s operations, long term contracts, debts, and general financial conditions.”

The by-laws state clearly that the Heber Light & Power board member represents their municipality and not themselves.  It is their duty to be diligent to inform their governing bodies or councils that they represent of the affairs of Heber Light & Power.  To a large degree, this is not happening.  Your governing bodies have the duty and authority to ask detailed questions of their representatives and you have the duty to tell them even if they do not ask.  Members of your governing bodies are being told that they have no business in the affairs of HL&P.  Your By-laws state they do.

This decision on the health insurance package is not yours to make, but belongs to the governing body that you represent.  I ask that you follow the Heber Light & Power resolution, and seek to represent the will of your governing bodies and shareholders of the company.

Councilman Kohler and I voiced our discontent with this new benefit in last December’s board meeting upon learning that it had been passed.  We asked then, that the decision be rescinded, and we were ignored.  Once again, I call on the board to rescind this benefit and return to sound governing principles.

Councilman Kohler was the first to return the money he received from this pay increase, and Councilman Mergist and I have also followed suit.  I ask the remaining board members to follow the example that County Councilman Kohler set, and return the money you have been given from this health care package.

Last month I notified Heber Light & Power of my intention to return any money that I had received as a result of the board’s controversial decision to increase their compensation.  I announced my intentions to the City Council via email after I informed the company of the impending refund, and at that time I called on the City Council to take whatever actions we could to voice our discontent from our positions on the Council.

“To Heber City Council:

We are all aware of the HL&P health benefits package and the extra compensation that has been given to the city council.  I am informing the city council that I am returning the portion of the money that I have received due to this health benefits package back to HL&P.  What you decide to do with your portion is up to you.

I would like to make a statement to the council concerning  boards and committees that the city council members have been appointed to.

When a city council member has been asked to fill an appointed position on a board or committee, they represent the whole governing body of the city, and should act in the best interest of the city.  Their actions, or in-actions, must reflect the position of the governing body and not their own personal interests.  We do not serve on these committees and boards due to any personal achievement of our own, rather we serve in these positions because the Mayor has asked us to represent the governing body of Heber City.

With that in mind, I feel the governing body should make a decision concerning the HL&P board health benefits package as a body, and voice that opinion through our representatives on the board.   I ask the City Council representatives on the HL&P board to reconsider the actions taken by some of the HL&P board members in November and remove from the amendments of HL&P Employee and Exempt Employee Manual the health benefit that the board members receive.  I would like the City Council to resolve to a vote on how the city and the governing body should be represented on the board by the council’s representatives.

I vote to rescind this health care benefit that has been extended to the HL&P Board members.  I respect each of you and your position concerning the best interests of the council and the city.   But we need to make it clear to the public and to HL&P board what the city council’s position is on this issue.

What each council member does with the money that they have received is up to each individual, but I recommend that council members return all monies received from this action.

Sincerely,
Alan McDonald”

On February 22, at 4:00 PM the board of Heber Light & Power will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. I encourage you to attend this meeting, and voice your opinion on the most recent board pay increase.

There has been some uncertainty as to where this meeting will be held. I called Heber Light & Power this morning and was informed that as of now, they are planning on holding the meeting in the usual location at Heber Light & Power itself, in the basement of the Business Office on 31 South 100 West. I was told that if the meeting location is changed, there will be a sign on the door informing the public of this change. If the location is changed, the meeting will likely be held in the City Council chambers (the old tabernacle on Main Street).

On January 25th, at 4:15 PM in the basement of the Business Office on 31 South 100 West, the Heber Light & Power board will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. I invite you to attend and voice your opinion concerning the board’s decision to give each member of the board a new health benefits package.

Did you notice last year when the cost of your electricity went up? I know I’ve come to expect an increase in nearly every utility bill as time goes by. I don’t like it, but sometimes it is necessary to simply cover the increased cost of doing business. That was how the proposed rate increase was presented to us in July last year. The rate was described as necessary to simply cover the increasing expenses of the company, and that is why I voted for it. But how has that additional money been used? Surely the increase in your electric bill last year did something to improve the supply of energy to our community, right?

Well, not quite. About 22% of that increase was recently allocated to the board of directors in the form of full time health benefits. This expenditure was called for and approved by a handful of board members themselves. These new benefits represent an increase of more than 360% in total monthly compensation. As a member of the board I opposed this irresponsible increase in pay at the time, and I oppose it now.

Allow me to clarify that I am pleased with Heber Light & Power as a whole. The company provides our community with a resource that significantly improves our quality of life, and they do it effectively. The employees are honest, hard working people who seek nothing more than to provide the highest quality services at the lowest possible rates to their customers. I’m proud to have been able to work with them over the previous year.

While I am proud of the company as a whole, I am saddened to witness the misuse of this great organization. The good people who work there deserve better, and as customers so do you and I. During this time of economic hardship, it seems unreasonable to allow a few board members to use their position to help themselves. I respect the right of each board member to vote as their conscience dictates, and each member is entitled to their own opinion, even if I do not agree. But in this case I believe they made a poor choice.

I can hear you asking “So, why didn’t you stop this?” Good question. I’ll explain the circumstances that led to this poor decision, but first a little background might be useful here. The governing board over Heber Light & Power is composed of elected officials from Wasatch County, Midway, Charleston, and Heber City; and the chairman of the board is Mayor Dave Phillips. Each member of the board receives a monthly salary of $466 whether or not they attend board meetings, except for the chairman who receives $596.

In November last year the board voted to give themselves full-time health benefits worth a total of $1,687 per month in addition to their monthly pay. This brings the total monthly compensation of each board member up to $2,153, and after bonuses it makes their annual compensation $26,400. I’ll mention here for the sake of accountability that the board members that voted in support of this new benefit were Heber City Mayor Dave Phillips, Heber City Councilman Benny Mergist, Midway Mayor Connie Tatton, and Charleston Mayor John Whiting. The board members are supposed to represent the public and act in the best interests of the company, and their communities. Sadly, they failed in this instance.

The board voted on this issue only after I made arrangements to be absent for personal business prior to the November board meeting. I did not know that this pay increase was going to be discussed during that meeting. In-fact, out of the many meetings I attended last year I don’t recall any discussion of an additional benefits package for the board. It was believed that the rate increase we voted for in July was simply to cover the cost of business.

I learned of the board member’s decision to add the new benefits package only after Mayor Phillips briefly mentioned it during the December City Council meeting, and even then I had no idea how much the increase was. Councilman Kohler and I spoke together after we learned of the increase in compensation. We both felt it was wrong for the board to have made such an important decision without having all board members present to express their thoughts and opinions.

At the next Heber Light & Power board meeting I expressed my disapproval along with County Councilman Kohler. At the suggestion of Chairman Dave Phillips, the board decided to discuss the issue in a closed session since it involved private information regarding certain personnel. Because I am under oath not to reveal the business of closed meetings, I cannot divulge what was said during the meeting. I assure you, however, that the other board members were well aware of my opposition to the increase, and my desire to have another vote on the issue. Ultimately, Chairman Phillips decided not to bring the issue to a new vote despite our protests.

Was it legal for them to do this? Yes, but it was unethical. When rate increases are used in this way by elected officials, it amounts to a direct transfer of financial resources from the communities they represent to their own personal bank accounts. It is important to remember that as elected officials they represent their communities, and not themselves.

In addition to their responsibility to represent the welfare of their communities, the board members have a fiduciary responsibility to Heber Light & Power and it’s customers. The board should serve to provide direction and oversight to the company with the benefit of it’s customers in mind. The board should not create a burden for the company.

Unfortunately, as of this month the mayor has removed me from my position at Heber Light & Power. So, I will not be able to pursue this issue as a board member any longer. However, I continue to believe that this additional benefits package for board members is bad policy. I hope that the newly appointed board members will reconsider this decision, and restore confidence in the board of directors of Heber Light & Power.