Opinion ID: 1161597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Effect of Council-Mayor Form of Government on Mayoral Selection Process

Text: ¶ 19 Having concluded that the council appropriately exercised its power to amend this aspect of the Ordinance adopted by the voters upon approval of the initiative petition, we next address the question of whether the Ordinance's requirement that the current mayor run for election under the new council-mayor form of government is in accordance with the Optional Forms Act. ¶ 20 Biddles argue that the mayor is definitionally a council member under section 10-3-105 of the Utah Code [2] and should be allowed to serve out the remainder of his term in the new government according to section 10-3-1208 of the Optional Forms Act. Furthermore, they argue that sections 10-3-202 [3] and -205 [4] of the Utah Code mandate that, once elected, the mayor is entitled to serve out his original four-year term despite the specific provisions to the contrary enumerated in the Optional Forms Act. ¶ 21 The relevant provision of the Optional Forms Act is section 10-3-1208, which explicitly provides for the election of new officers upon electoral approval of an optional form of government: Upon approval of an optional form of government by a municipality pursuant to this part, election of officers shall be held in the municipality on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November following approval of the optional form, or on the same day in the year next following, whichever day falls in an odd-numbered year. The new government shall become effective at 12 o'clock noon on the first Monday of January following the election of officers. Elected officers of the municipality whose positions would no longer exist as a result of the adoption of a form of government provided for in this act shall be paid at the same rate until the date on which their terms would have expired, if they hold no municipal office in the new government for which they are regularly compensated. At their option, former ... council members of third class cities ... may serve as one of the council members for the remainder of their term. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1208 (1999) (Emphases added). Based upon this provision, plaintiff's argument is flawed in five respects. ¶ 22 First, in harmonizing section 10-3-105 with section 10-3-1208 and interpreting the definition of council members in context, we conclude that the mayor is not a council member. While section 10-3-105 refers to the traditional governing body of a third class city as a council, the statute does not equate the position of mayor with that of the remaining council members. Furthermore, under rules of statutory construction, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. See Field, 952 P.2d at 1086-87 (Stewart, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Kennecott, 514 P.2d at 219. Section 10-3-1208 creates an exception that provides the option to former council members of serving out the remainder of their term as council members in the new government. No such provision is made for the former mayor to continue as the new mayor. Not only does the statute exclude the mayor in this exception, but the exception language also uses the term council members, instead of members of the governing body, which would have included the mayor under section 10-3-105. We therefore conclude that while the legislature allowed council members to serve the remainder of their terms in the new government, it did not provide the same opportunity to the mayor. Rather, it prescribed an election for the mayor under the new government. ¶ 23 Second, it is instructive to compare section 10-3-1208 with the transition procedures provided by the legislature when a city becomes a city of another class. Section 10-2-303 provides that each municipal officer in office at the time of the change shall continue as an officer until that officer's term expires and a successor is duly elected and qualified. Utah Code Ann. § 10-2-303(1)(e) (1999). If the legislature had intended parallel transition procedures under the Optional Forms Act, it would have used equally clear language. ¶ 24 Third, section 10-3-1208 specifically contemplates that there will be offices that will no longer exist as a result of the adoption of the new form of government. The Optional Forms Act provides for compensation to those officials who do not hold a position in the new government, thereby avoiding unfairness and financial hardship. The mayor's position under the traditional form of government is precisely one of those positions that no longer exists under the new form of government. ¶ 25 Fourth, we hold that section 10-3-1208 controls on the issue of the mayor holding office for the four-year term to which the mayor was elected, not sections 10-3-202 and -205. The intent behind section 10-3-202 is to prevent improper removal of elected officials against the express will of the electorate who voted them into office. In the instant case, the electorate of Washington Terrace City affirmatively voted to change their form of government, which action consequently cut short the term of office for the former mayor. That process is not the same as removing an elected official. ¶ 26 Finally, beyond the plain language of the Optional Forms Act, there are other indications that the legislature intended the result we reach here. As indicated above, the legislature intended to create a completely new form of government with separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches, thus essentially establishing a fundamentally different office under the new form of government, although giving it the same name, mayor, as a position existing under the traditional form. [5] Another indication is found in section 10-3-1221, which instructs that the first mayor elected under the new council-mayor form of government shall draft and submit for review and approval of the City Council a proposed ordinance establishing administrative departments and defining their functions and duties. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1221 (1999). The legislature intended to invest the first mayor elected with the power to create administrative departments at the beginning of the newly established government in order to establish a functioning executive branch. This language gives rise to the presumption that the legislature intended that the executive branch be organized sooner rather than later. If the legislature had intended former mayors to serve out their terms, this provision would be ineffective.