Dear editor:
It has now been over two weeks since my letter to the editor regarding the 1,702.6% difference in the effect of the $300 landowner fee between large landowners and small landowners …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
The Powell Tribune has expanded its online content. To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free web account by clicking here.
If you already have a web account, but need to reset it, you can do so by clicking here.
If you would like to purchase a subscription click here.
Please log in to continue |
|
Dear editor:
It has now been over two weeks since my letter to the editor regarding the 1,702.6% difference in the effect of the $300 landowner fee between large landowners and small landowners of the Shoshone Irrigation District (SID), As of this date, I have neither seen nor heard a response from the SID. Why would there be no response?
One reason could be that the SID had not analyzed the impact of the fee on the small landowners and were shocked by what the simple analysis provided in my previous letter showed, and they are now reconsidering this matter and working on a proposal to resolve this issue in a fair manner.
Another possible reason is that the SID does not intend to change the methodology of the landowner fee, and their plan is to not consider any change and just wait for this matter to die down and go away. Basically, just business as usual.
The last possible reason that I can think of is that the SID is not used to receiving input and being asked to justify their actions are therefore unsure how to proceed.
Regardless of the reason for not responding, I and another landowner asked for a meeting with our commissioner. This meeting was held at the SID office on Tuesday, Oct. 15.
At the start, the meeting was stringent and emotional, and I had to interrupt to make any comments. Yet as the meeting progressed, I leamed some interesting things. Apparently when elected, a commissioner takes an oath and part of the oath is a statement to represent all members of the SID fully. Also, it was mentioned that perhaps the term “landowner fee" was maybe not the best term, and it could be replaced with the term “first acre" fee. Lastly, it was mentioned that SID had just implemented the same type of additional fee as two other irrigation districts in our area.
At the close of the meeting, I was invited by Mr. Trent Reed to attend the normal commissioners' meeting this coming Wednesday, Oct. 23 at 10:30 a.m. I have arranged my schedule so that I can attend. If what I have outlined above is incorrect, I ask that the SID print a correction so that everyone has the same information.
I became interested in the oath that was mentioned by our commissioner as I had not heard of this before, so I looked it up, Section 41-7-302 of the law, entitled "Oath and bond; quorum; term; removal; vacancies,” states that commissioners are required to “faithfully and impartially discharge their duties …” I also looked up the definition of impartially, to ensure that I correctly understood the term. The definition is, “impartially means in a way that is not partial, prejudiced or biased; fairly: justly." The concept of being impartial is one of the key aspects of the regulations.
One of the issues that any leadership team must manage is the appearance of the team having a conflict of interest in their decision making or not being impartial.
The leadership team must be able to make the appropriate decisions without considering their own personal interests or special interests of others. The SID is in an interesting position in regard to managing the appearance of a conflict of interest. Firstly, the state law that created irrigation districts granted one vote per acre of land that has water rights. Second, for reasons unknown by me, SID created a tracking system that identifies landowners as “large" or “small,” not just calling everyone "owners.”
Somehow, this distinction is important to the SID. Third, to the best of my knowledge, all current commissions are “large" landowners. Lastly, the commissioners created a rule in the current bylaws that requires a landowner who seeks to run for the office of the commissioner for their region, must have $20,000 in agricultural sales. This rule effectively disqualifies just about anyone who is a “small landowner" or about 1,140 out of a total of 1,408 total landowners.
Why this rule was created? I don't know.
I want to believe that the above information has always been considered by the commissioners of the SID and that they have put in place the necessary controls, systems and protocols to make decisions that agree with the principal of "impartiality" mentioned of their oath of office. I just don't know what these controls, systems and protocols are. The decision-making power of the commissioners is in the hands of the large landowners and the small landowners are currently blocked from running for election. I know that two years ago outside management training for the commissioners was restarted after a lapsing in the preceding however many years. Perhaps this issue was covered in the meetings that were held in the last two years? Perhaps the commissioners can share the meeting minutes, the agendas of these meetings and the meeting materials? I sincerely hope that the commissioners will publish a letter to the editor that outlines their efforts to mitigate any appearance of a conflict of interest and to demonstrate that they have been impartial in their decision making.
Regarding the possible renaming of the “landowner fee" to “first acre fee" and the reasoning for adopting such a system in the first place, I will again contact the editor of the Powell Tribune with another letter to the editor after I attend the meeting on the 23rd.
Rob Stevens
Powell