This article by Colin B. Douglas was originally published December 18, 2008 in the Magna Times. For a while it could be found on the Magna Town Council site but no longer appears there, and now it is currently published on this blog by his permission.
Though some of the information in this story is outdated, it serves as an important historical resource for understanding of the on-going two-council question in Magna. It can also make clearer the issues of why or why not Magna should incorporate, take hold of its own future, insist that ALL of its representation (those who have the county's ear) should be made legitimate by the ballot box. It also clarifies the strange on-going relationship that Magna has with the County, why Magna's "silence" on the issue (and by no means has Magna been silent over the years, many concerned voices have been more or less ignored) constitutes "consent of the governed." Hopefully it might clear confusion on why a prospective business owner or developer would be expected to appear before two councils.
After all, the way we choose to govern ourselves still matters in 2014 as much as it mattered in 1776. Self-government takes work and education, and how educated the residents of Magna are of their own history, and how much effort residents of Magna make in making their voices heard will determine the quality of our government, whether someone outside Magna's boundaries makes the decisions for us, and whether someone who has been legitimized by ballot speaks for you makes all the difference.
Without further ado, I give you the history on Magna's two councils.
Donnie Sweazey's dispute with the Magna Township Planning Commission, County Planning and Zoning, and the Magna Community Council has a context: a 21-year-long tale of two councils that goes to the heart of Magna's history and politics.
The two councils are the Magna Community Council (MCC), which was a target of Sweazey's anger last Thursday, and the Magna Town Council, formerly the Magna Area Council (MAC-MTC).
So why does Magna have two councils? The question might occur to you if, as happened to Sweazey, you go before the Magna Township Planning Comission to obtain their blessing on a building project and are told that you need the blessing of both councils, whereas, in, say, Kearns, you would need to make your pitch to only one.
A short answer would be "tradition and politics." A longer answer requires long lessons in civic and history.
The civics lesson
The Magna Town Council
A community council as defined by this ordinance is formed not by the county government but by the citizens of the community as a private corporation. Though it is a private organization, all its members must be elected by nonpartisan secret ballot in an election free and open to all registered voters in the community council area. A community council established in accordance with the ordinance may be "recognized" in a community district. More than one may be recognized (as in Mill Creek, which has three councils representing different areas of the district) only if there is no boundary dispute.
Salt Lake County Ordinance 2.56 provides for "establishing community districts and recognizing community councils in the unincorporated area of the county...to provide a mechanism by which a geographical area may be identified as a community for purposes of formulating and presenting recommendations on actions within the authority of the county which affect that geographical area by force of law or practice."
Only a recognized council may receive appropriated funding from the county.
The MAC-MTC, which meets on the first Thursdays, at 7 p.m., at the Magna Chamber of Commerce building, 9141 W. Historic Magna Main Street, is Magna's recognized community council under the ordinance.
The Magna Community Council
The MCC, which meets on the fourth Thursday, at 7 p.m. at the Magna Senior Center, is also a private corporation but is a different sort of creature and is not recognized under the ordinance and receives no appropriated county funding (but otherwise, it is treated in virtually very respect by the county as if it were recognized). It is self-appointed and self-perpetuating. Under its articles of incorporation (as of 1986), it is made up largely of "appointed" members, mostly (at least on paper) representatives of community and industrial organizations and unions. At least two seats are reserved for elected public officials.
Each of the organizations represented on the MCC is entitled to one member. There is one exception to the rule: Kennecott Copper Corporation (which provides most if not all funding for the MCC; and also, by the way, donates some funding to the MAC-MTC) is entitled to two members.
The 1986 articles of incorporation "grandfathered in" all who were members at that time and provided for others to be appointed by application. Furthermore, they provide that "a seat shall be reserved for any member who has served two years or more as an officer of the corporation, providing he/she maintains continuous membership after his/her term of office expires."
The articles also provide for 20 percent of the member of the MCC to be elected from five geographical districts of Magna.
There is a residency requirement: "members of the corporation must be residents of Magna...except that the requirements as to residence shall not apply to present members."
That exception grandfathered in some members of the council who were not residents of Magna in 1986, including its president at that time, Laura Jo McDermaid, who presently serves as vice-president and who lives in the Hunter area of West Valley City.
Any member, including elected members, "may be removed from membership by a majority vote of the members present at any regular meeting or at any special meeting of the member called for that purpose, for conduct deemed prejudicial" to the MCC. (That clause figured largely in the events of 1987 that led to the formation of the MAC-MTC).
In current fact, the MCC has eight active voting members, according to information provided by MCC Secretary Arlene Pattison. According to officers of the MCC, elections of community representatives have not been held in recent years. None of the eight current members represents industry or other organizations. Some of the current permanent members were originally elected member but became permanent by way of service as officers or by appointment.
The meetings are regularly attended by Megan Hillyard, liaison representative from the county mayor's office, and Greg Shulz, who is employed by the county to represent the west-side community councils to the county council. Magna resident Dan Peay serves as president, and West Valley City resident Laura Jo Mc Dermaid as vice-president.
The history lesson
The established order
The MCC was here first, by about 60 years, and is the standard bearer of an old Magna tradition. According to documents in the possession of the MCC, it was first organized in 1927 by a Utah Copper foreman.
Magna of that time was a mining company town overlaid on an earlier Mormon farming community called Pleasant Green. The company town has become the core of "old" Magna. The newer developments to the south and east of that core (mainly eastward of 8400 W.) are built over the farms.
Though the oral history tells of some division between the older agricultural Magna and the newer company town, at least the company-town Magna itself had a strong sense of community. As explained by Kent Goble, a Magna resident and former member of the MCC who has deep roots in the community and is a local-history buff, "The county government was not a factor in those days." Whatever was done to improve the community had to be done by local volunteer service, and through the years much was done, much of it with leadership from the Magna-Garfield Lions and the MCC.
"We built our own churches out here," Goble says. "We created our own water company. It was our labor that put in sidewalks and roads. There was a time in Magna when you could raise an army of volunteer workers for a civic project."
Magna's main street became a vibrant center of life and business. The vestiges remain of a J.C. Penny store, a hotel, two movie theaters, a Safeway, and other evidences of a past prosperity.
Those years are remembered by older residents as something of a golden age, Goble explains: "We old-timers, myself included, remember the way Magna used to be 'back in the day' and dream of it's one day being that way once more. You had to be there to understand, but it was something very, very special. They (the MCC) are vestiges of something that was really special. In their own way they are trying to perpetuate that concept of community." (MCC president Dan Peay recently said as much, comparing the two councils: "The Community Council is probably more concerned with restoring Magna to what it used to be.")
The MCC seems to have entered a new phase of its life in 1945. Dissatisfaction with county government's responsiveness to Magna's needs gave rise to an incorporation movement, led by one George Cromar, who was connected with the Lions. The movement fizzled (as with others since) when a study showed that incorporation would raise Magna's property taxes to an unacceptable level.
At the time, representatives of Utah Copper Company and the neighboring smelting and refining company (which later was absorbed into the copper company) approached the incorporation committee with the suggestion that many of the aims could be achieved through a community council. Cromar became president of the council, and the two companies together put up $3,000 to hire and executive secretary for it, and also paid off the debts fro the Magna sewer development that had been in the works since 1941. Since then, the copper company, under its changing names and forms, has, according to current president Dan Peay, been the MCC's sole financial support.
The MCC as organized in 1945 was not a democratic institution. In an article published in the Magna Times in 1946, Cromar responded to criticism that "the group should have been more democratically chosen" by outlining the organization and bylaws of the council. One representative each had been appointed to it by the copper and smelting companies and also by Bingham and Garfield Railroad, Garfield Smelter, the fire department, The American Legion, the Lion's club, the Arthur-Magna Millmen's union, the AF of L Machinists' Union, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineermen. Three individuals were "asked" to be members at large. Cromar explained that a mass election would have been prohibitively expensive, though later newspaper reports indicate that mass elections of three at large members came to be held.
In the process of time, the MCC came to be treated by county government as the "voice of Magna," much as a "recognized" council is treated now, and it can claim credit for many good works, including the Magna Water and Sewer Improvement District, the Mosquito Abatement District, the Cyprus High School swimming pool and skating rink, the senior center, and several parks.
Unrest
As Magna changed, however, dissatisfaction with the structure and performance of the MCC emerged.
Change began after World War II, not long after the original organization of the MCC. New homes began to be built to the east of 8400 West. (Kent Goble grew up in the first "new" house built on the east side of 8400 W., in 1948; the house is still inhabited). The development continues to this day. Meanwhile, economic change came to Magna. Harder times came to the copper industry, and by the 1960s shopping centers were growing up further eastward. By the end of the 1960s, Magna's Main Street was well on its way into blight.
At first, most of the people building houses eastward had Magna roots and family connections, but then more "outsiders" came in. By 1980, the population of "East Magna" was largely Anglo, Mormon, white collar, non union, and Republican, with no connection to the copper company or the unions and no historical or cultural roots in "old" Magna, which tended to be southern European, Roman Catholic, and blue-collar, with strong loyalties to both the copper company and the unions. (The two populations still have not melded into a unified community.)
Furthermore, east-siders wanted services and parks to be more centrally located. Many came to perceive the MCC as representing the "old" Magna and being too narrowly focused on revitalization of Main Street. The began to demand more representation on the council, whit at some point responded by increasing the elected members to five, who represented districts.
As Goble explains it, it was a problem of mistrust: "The old-timers didn't trust the newcomers to understand and honor the old magna tradition, and the newcomers didn't trust the old-timers to look after their interests."
The rift between old and new widened in the early 1980s., with the rodeo grounds issue. For years, a 24-acre parcel of land near 3700 S. and 8000 W., on the south side of the irrigation canal, commonly known as the "rodeo grounds," had been designated in Magna's master plan as green space. It had long been the expectation among east-siders that it would eventually be developed as a park.
Then, on Aug. 12, 1980, the County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider rezoning the parcel for subdivision development. Petitions were circulated, and a concerted effort to secure the property for a park got underway, led by the East Magna Community Parks Association.
A Magna Times article published on Aug. 7 noted, "The last area tentatively earmarked for consideration as a park was located south of Lake Ridge School. Unfortunately, Granite School District sold the property to a developer and a subdivision was built there. Hundred of homes have been constructed since in the Lake Ridge area and still there are no decent prospects for a park to serve the new families and their children."
The park movement eventually lost, and the rodeo grounds became a subdivision. An individual who was present to observe events at the time recalls that the east-side residents felt betrayed by the MCC, which was perceived as having refused to support their cause.
In the early 1960s and the early 1980s, at least two attempts were made to establish community councils to represent "East Magna," but neither gained traction. As a person who was involved in one of those movements put it, "We got so much opposition from the Community Council that we just got tired of fighting it." We withhold the individual's name by request. That is a request that we encountered frequently in preparation of this article with explanations like "I've put all that behind me" and "I don't want to start another war with so-and-so."
Insurrection
What finally "tore it" for the east-siders was a controversy over the location of the new Magna Library branch (which is now under construction on Magna's Historic Main Street).
The MCC favored a Main Street location. East-siders, still wanting more centrally located services, wanted it to be built more eastward, preferably in the Arbor Park shopping center. After discussion in 1985 and 1986, the MCC's recommendation was forwarded to the county.
Opposition to that recommendation resurfaced in 1987. In the spring of 1987, an elected member of the MCC, Craig Taylor, representing the MCC's District 5, mailed a letter to all of his constituents urging them to write to the county if they disagreed with the Main Street location of the library. As reported in the Magna Times of Apr. 9, 1987, "Taylor said he had been approached by residents in his district who had questions. 'I was elected by the district,' he said, 'and I have a responsibility to let them know what's going on.'"
The article continues, "Taylor's letter prompted considerable discussion among Council members, some of whom felt Taylor was reopening last summer's controversy unnecessarily after the Council had voted to support the (Main Street) site." The MCC had, in fact, voted unanimously.
The controversy brought back the old complaints about what some saw as the nonrepresentative nature of the MCC, and a new movement to establish an all-elected council in conformity with county ordinances ensued, with support from some MCC members.
"One disgruntled resident" was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune on June 10, 1987, as complaining that the structure of the MCC "opens the door for control by special-interest groups." Craig Taylor's wife elaborated, "Even if the five elected officials vote the way the community wants, they are still outvoted by the others."
There were also complaints that the representation was unbalanced, since one district had only one representative, and another had twelve. Furthermore, it was argued, three of the members (including then MCC president Laura Jo McDermaid, who now serves as vice-president of the council) did not live in Magna.
On the evening following that Tribune report, the MCC in a closed-door session voted 11-5 to expel three of its members--elected members Craig Taylor and Marlene Norcross and also Chick Paris--for actions "prejudicial to the council" (not, be it noted, to their constituents). Two other members resigned on the spot in protest, and another, also and elected member, resigned later.
McDermaid was quoted by the Deseret News (June 11-12, 1988) as saying that the three were stripped of membership for "systematically throwing suspicions on the council's structures and its accomplishments," which she termed "subversive actions."
McDermaid added: "The five elected members (two of whom had just been expelled) represent neighborhoods, while the others were elected by their organizations to represent the groups on the council. I think that's pretty democratic." (McDermaid still holds to that view. "We feel that we are very democratic.... It's always been a very open council," she said in a recent MCC meeting. "We're the voice of the people, as much as an elected body. We're still the voice of a lot of people in the community." )
A few days later, at a stormy MCC meeting, about 100 residents attended to demand that the council reorganize in conformity with county ordinances. When the council refused to discuss the crowd's demands, the Deseret News reported (June 19, 1987), the crowd exited to the parking lot of the senior center, where the meeting was being held, and voted to form a steering committee to establish by-laws that conformed to those of the United Association of Community Councils (UACC, now the Association of Community Councils Acting Together, or ACTT).
Eleven member so the new council (called the Magna Area Council), all representing districts, were elected on Aug. 3 and on Aug. 4 the Board of County Commissioners issued a notice that it had "formerly accepted and recognized the MAGNA AREA COUNCIL as the County Community Council for the Magna Community District," directing that "all Salt Lake County agencies are to accord to this Council the same status as other County Community Councils.
A new equilibrium, more or less
Despite the setback, the MCC managed to hold on to its influence with the county, as county officials first set out to treat the MAC-MTC as the "voice of Magna," then wavered, then determined on a strict "middle-of-the-road" course between the two councils.
On July 13, 1987, County Commissioner David Watson told a town meeting of those supporting the all-elected council that he had instructed the Public Works Department and its director, John Hiskey, "to recognize the Magna Area Council as the official voice of Magna," and, since elections would not be held until Aug. 3, to recognize the steering committee during the transition (Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 1987). "This is the community council (meaning the MAC-MTC) that we will listen to," he said.
Laura Jo McDermaid reacted with what the Magna Times (July 23, 1987) described as "outrage" over Watson's statements, at a MCC meeting shortly afterward.
"He took sides," McDermaid said. "Why does COmmissioner Watson take such a divisive stand against the council that has served this community effectively and loyally for so many years?"
She continued: "Why are we being ignored? The new group is quick to charge that they are not receiving their democratic rights. Well, I say that we are denied our civil rights also, and found to be guilty without first being heard."
At a meeting, requested by McDermaid, just before the Aug. 3 election, representatives of the MCC (including McDermaid), the steering committee for the new council representatives of the UACC, and the Salt Lake County Commission engaged in a long discussion, Former Governor Calvin Rampton also attended, in behalf of the MCC (Magna Times, Aug. 6, 1987)
Rampton observed, "I worked with this council (the MCC) for many years and would hate to see the experience (of the MCC) thrown away." He advised the commissioners to slow down their decision-making process on which council to recognize, "before we break something."
Commissioner Mike Stewart said, "I don't think we need to hear one group over the other. We can take advice from wherever and weigh it accordingly and hope that down the road evolution will maybe bring them back together."
Beginning to back off from his earlier bold statement about the new council's being "the one we will listen to," Watson ended the meeting by saying, "Just to be fair, it is not our purpose to discourage the new group if they want to go ahead." As the polls closed for the new council's election, he said, "The county will consider the wishes of both councils. If there's a conflict, the commissioners will decide which opinion to back. We've decided not to really pick one over the other as long as they are working toward the betterment of this area."
At the MCC's August meeting, after the election, McDermaid reported, "The county commissioners never intended to exclude any interested group from giving input on county decisions, whether the group is a member of the UACC or not."
An interoffice memo from John J. Hiskey, the Director of Salt Lake County Public Works, dated Aug. 18, 1987, stated: "Please be advised that it will be necessary for our Divisions to include both the Magna Area Council and the Magna Community Council on any mailings or notifications of County meetings impacting the Magna area.... Although the Magna Area Council will be formally recognized by the County, this will not preclude other groups already in existence from partidipation in County government."
The county planning commission began referring zoning applicants to both councils.
The Newly organized MAC-MTC was not as satisfied with the county's accommodation to the situation as was the MCC. In a letter to the Board of Commissioners dated Oct. 2, 1987, MAC-MTC President Steve Harris wrote: "Since this decision of August 5 (to recognize officially the MAC-MTC as the County Community Council for the Magna Community District), the County has decided to refer zoning applicants to two Magna Councils. This is not acceptable and is unfair to applicants, neighboring property owners, and the voters of Magna and the Council members they elected to represent them."
Harris quoted a Magna resident as saying, "Doesn't the voice of the people mean anything?"
He told the commissioners that they were "sending a confusing and frankly disappointing message to the residents of Magna."
He wrote, "The Magna Area Council, hereby, requests that the Board of County Commissioners direct the Salt Lake County Planning and Zoning Department to refer applicants to and request recommendations from the Magna Area Council as it is the only officially recognized all-elected County Community Council in the Magna Area."
Twenty-five days later, another interoffice memo in the Public Works Department directed, "Only the Magna Area Council name should appear on Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting agendas. Developers should clearly understand that they are not required to go before two councils (italics added). Listening to both councils on division letters, rosters, etc. is causing confusion."
Meanwhile, the MCC was trying a new tactic. An attorney for the MCC addressed a letter to the MAC-MTC president pointing out that "the Magna Area Community Counsel (sic) has been in existence and used this name since 1927." The letter continued: "Please cease and desist in using the phrase "Magna Area Counsel" immediately (italics in original) as it is 'deceptively similar' and has been the cause of confusion for individuals and entities dealing with my clients. Be aware that you are now violative of Utah Code Annotated 16-10-8 1984 (1985) and as such my client could be entitled to injunctive relief, damages, cost and associated fees should you not comply voluntarily."
One of the original members of the MAC-MTC (name withheld by request) told the Magna Newspapers, "That scared us." Nothing seems to have come of it, however, as the MAC continued to use the name "Magna Area Council" until with advent of the township status it changed to "Magna Town Council."
At some point in the process, McDermaid, of the MCC, requested to the County Commissioners that the MCC "be granted the rights, privileges, and authority provided to community councils under Salt Lake County Ordinance Title 2, Chapter 2.56." The county declined to do so. A letter from Commissioner Stewart to McDermaid dated Feb. 10, 1989, stated: "It is our determination that these powers cannot be granted to your organization because the ordinance stipulates that a community district ma be represented by only one community council. A council already exists and is formally recognized by the County as prescribed in the ordinances."
The letter pointed out that "the bylaws of your organization allow for appointed council members as well as elected members" and continued, "This is in conflict with the ordinance as it makes no provision for appointed council members."
The letter made one concession: "Your request to receive the agendas of all public Planning Commission meetings and Planning Division staff recommendations that are provided to other community groups will be honored."
Despite those policy statements, the Magna Township Planning Commission continues to refer applicants to both councils, although according to Bev Uipi, of the Mayor's Office, no one has directed the Magna Township Planning Commission to do so.
Beginning to back off from his earlier bold statement about the new council's being "the one we will listen to," Watson ended the meeting by saying, "Just to be fair, it is not our purpose to discourage the new group if they want to go ahead." As the polls closed for the new council's election, he said, "The county will consider the wishes of both councils. If there's a conflict, the commissioners will decide which opinion to back. We've decided not to really pick one over the other as long as they are working toward the betterment of this area."
At the MCC's August meeting, after the election, McDermaid reported, "The county commissioners never intended to exclude any interested group from giving input on county decisions, whether the group is a member of the UACC or not."
An interoffice memo from John J. Hiskey, the Director of Salt Lake County Public Works, dated Aug. 18, 1987, stated: "Please be advised that it will be necessary for our Divisions to include both the Magna Area Council and the Magna Community Council on any mailings or notifications of County meetings impacting the Magna area.... Although the Magna Area Council will be formally recognized by the County, this will not preclude other groups already in existence from partidipation in County government."
The county planning commission began referring zoning applicants to both councils.
The Newly organized MAC-MTC was not as satisfied with the county's accommodation to the situation as was the MCC. In a letter to the Board of Commissioners dated Oct. 2, 1987, MAC-MTC President Steve Harris wrote: "Since this decision of August 5 (to recognize officially the MAC-MTC as the County Community Council for the Magna Community District), the County has decided to refer zoning applicants to two Magna Councils. This is not acceptable and is unfair to applicants, neighboring property owners, and the voters of Magna and the Council members they elected to represent them."
Harris quoted a Magna resident as saying, "Doesn't the voice of the people mean anything?"
He told the commissioners that they were "sending a confusing and frankly disappointing message to the residents of Magna."
He wrote, "The Magna Area Council, hereby, requests that the Board of County Commissioners direct the Salt Lake County Planning and Zoning Department to refer applicants to and request recommendations from the Magna Area Council as it is the only officially recognized all-elected County Community Council in the Magna Area."
Twenty-five days later, another interoffice memo in the Public Works Department directed, "Only the Magna Area Council name should appear on Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment meeting agendas. Developers should clearly understand that they are not required to go before two councils (italics added). Listening to both councils on division letters, rosters, etc. is causing confusion."
Meanwhile, the MCC was trying a new tactic. An attorney for the MCC addressed a letter to the MAC-MTC president pointing out that "the Magna Area Community Counsel (sic) has been in existence and used this name since 1927." The letter continued: "Please cease and desist in using the phrase "Magna Area Counsel" immediately (italics in original) as it is 'deceptively similar' and has been the cause of confusion for individuals and entities dealing with my clients. Be aware that you are now violative of Utah Code Annotated 16-10-8 1984 (1985) and as such my client could be entitled to injunctive relief, damages, cost and associated fees should you not comply voluntarily."
One of the original members of the MAC-MTC (name withheld by request) told the Magna Newspapers, "That scared us." Nothing seems to have come of it, however, as the MAC continued to use the name "Magna Area Council" until with advent of the township status it changed to "Magna Town Council."
At some point in the process, McDermaid, of the MCC, requested to the County Commissioners that the MCC "be granted the rights, privileges, and authority provided to community councils under Salt Lake County Ordinance Title 2, Chapter 2.56." The county declined to do so. A letter from Commissioner Stewart to McDermaid dated Feb. 10, 1989, stated: "It is our determination that these powers cannot be granted to your organization because the ordinance stipulates that a community district ma be represented by only one community council. A council already exists and is formally recognized by the County as prescribed in the ordinances."
The letter pointed out that "the bylaws of your organization allow for appointed council members as well as elected members" and continued, "This is in conflict with the ordinance as it makes no provision for appointed council members."
The letter made one concession: "Your request to receive the agendas of all public Planning Commission meetings and Planning Division staff recommendations that are provided to other community groups will be honored."
Despite those policy statements, the Magna Township Planning Commission continues to refer applicants to both councils, although according to Bev Uipi, of the Mayor's Office, no one has directed the Magna Township Planning Commission to do so.
The current situation
The objective of the county government treatment of the two councils is, as one county official (name withheld) recently said, "to keep the peace."
According to Bev Uipi, of the County Mayor's Office, Mayor Peter Corroon has directed county representatives to attend both councils, because "both are functioning councils." She said that "the only difference between the two is that the Community Council does not receive appropriated funds."
Some of the acrimony that existed earlier between the two councils has dissipated, and they frequently cooperate and collaborate on events. They send representatives to each other's meetings. One member of the MAC-MTC, Norm Fitzgerald, is also and appointed voting member of the MCC. A seasoned member of the MTC said that new member of the MTC tend to want to insist that "we are Magna's council!" but overall relations are more amicable.
Some might say that that is because the MTC has learned to "remember its place." One MTC member was heard to say in an open meeting, "We know we're second-class citizens," though other members took issue with that view.
The MCC's view of the relative place and importance of each council may have been revealed in a glossy business guide published in 2007 by the Magna Chamber of Commerce, of which Laura Jo McDermaid, vice president of the MCC, was president at the time. All of page 10 is devoted to a history of the MCC, with a quarter-page photo of its president, Dan Peay. It is faced by a half-page photo at the top of the page, of seven of the then nine members of the council, with an identifying caption. By contrast, on page 15 is a half-page photo of the MAC-MTC, set at the bottom of the page, with now descriptive or historical information.
Some might say that that is because the MTC has learned to "remember its place." One MTC member was heard to say in an open meeting, "We know we're second-class citizens," though other members took issue with that view.
The MCC's view of the relative place and importance of each council may have been revealed in a glossy business guide published in 2007 by the Magna Chamber of Commerce, of which Laura Jo McDermaid, vice president of the MCC, was president at the time. All of page 10 is devoted to a history of the MCC, with a quarter-page photo of its president, Dan Peay. It is faced by a half-page photo at the top of the page, of seven of the then nine members of the council, with an identifying caption. By contrast, on page 15 is a half-page photo of the MAC-MTC, set at the bottom of the page, with now descriptive or historical information.
Is this good for Magna?
Does this arrangement--one council formally recognized, and another treated virtually in every way except fundings if it were formally recognized--serve the general welfare of Magna? Opinions differ, of course.
As Bev Uipi sees it: "Both groups of private citizens have always had the best interests of the Magna constituency at heart. Though they may be involved in different activities, they collaborate on many events."
LaDell Bishop, former president of the MAC-MTC, said at a Magna Town Hall meeting held last spring as a joint meeting of the two councils, "Magna is fortunate to have two groups of citizens so concerned about her welfare."
Ron Henline, a long-time Magna resident who once served as president of the MAC-MTC, and also as member and chairman of the Magna Township Planning Commission, says it's a good thing. "We didn't have to exclude one at the cost of the other," he said, "and I firmly believe in that."
Henline sees certain advantages for Magna in having the two councils. "The Community Council as an ad hoc committee can go in and say things and do things the Council can't do," he explained. "The Town Council is more limited because all they can do is go in and say, 'County Council, we need money.' They go out and lobby some of the businesses and some of the large concerns, like Rio Tinto." Explaining why the Magna Township Planning Commission refers applicants to both councils, Henline said, "It increases public input."
Chick Paris, one of the three tho were expelled from the MCC during the 1987 fracas, disagrees: "It doesn't serve the interests of Magna to have two councils acting as voices of Magna to the Salt Lake County Council. It confuses people, and sometimes the two councils take different positions. Then what is the county supposed to do?"
Outgoing MAC-MTC member William Penton said, "I think it's purely political, a good-old-boy thing--you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I think when people are told they need to go talk to both, they ought to raise hell about it. There's no way I'd go to both."
And some express their disapproval with even less gentility. At that Town Hall Meeting last spring, one Magna resident said to Democratic County Council Member Jim Bradley after the meeting, "This two-council situation is ridiculous. The county just needs to have the balls to fix it." (Bradley stood with his arms folded and gazed silently back.)
What of the future?
Commissioner Stewart's hope expressed in 1987 that "down the road evolution will maybe bring them back together" has not been wholly fulfilled, and there is no sign that it will be, beyond occasion collaboration on activities.
Politically the MCC is heavily Democratic, and all along it seems to have enjoyed patronage from Democratic allies in county government. A current member of the MTC, who asked not to be identified, recalls being told by a currently serving Democratic member of the county council, whom he also asked not to be identified, "I know that you are the official council, but those people are my friends." Also, an elected official (a Democrat) from the Magna area, who asked not to be identified, asked us rhetorically and with good humor, "Don't you know the Community Council is the Democratic council and the Town Council is the Republican council?")
With a Democrat in the Mayor's Office and a Democratic majority on the County Council, that political reality seems unlikely to change.
Meanwhile, the MCC has been diminishing in size, and President Peay explained why they haven't held elections for community representatives in recent years: "We've just had such a hard time getting participation."
In the end, it comes down to the consent of the governed. Magna as a whole has implicitly accepted this arrangement for 20 years. How long it continues depends largely on how long that consent continues.
Last word
To those inclined to find fault with the MCC, Kent Goble might well be given the last word: "We need to keep in perspective the contributions of the old council and the historic Magna that it represents. They have a vision for the future of Magna as valid as other folks do, and it's a legitimate vision, based on their love and passion and caring for this community. The county and other government entities that have come in here to replace the old ethic of community and self-reliance don't have the same love and loyalty to Magna. The council is there because they have a vision, and they refuse to give up."
"Keep things in perspective," Goble urges. "Remember the great good that the Community Council has done for Magna."
The Magna Town Council (MAC-MTC) currently (as of March 2014) meets every first Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at the new UFA station #111 8200 West 3500 South.
The Magna Community Council (MCC) currently (as of March 2014) meets the fourth Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at the Webster Center (formerly the Senior Citizen's Center) 8952 West 2700 South.
For more information please see the following two articles that had come out in the Salt Lake Tribune after the Colin B. Douglas article in the Magna Times had gained attention:
