Hooper City Council fails to strip executive powers from Mayor again after tense meeting

HOOPER, Utah (ABC4) — Following controversy on social media and a tense City Council meeting, the Hooper City Council failed to strip executive powers from the Hooper Mayor for a second time.

After much discussion, the Council decided to amend the ordinance to only strip the mayor’s powers over employees/staffing and finances because of their concerns over appropriate staffing and staff morale. The Council voted on the motion, which needed to be unanimous to pass, and it failed 4-1.

Councilmember Ryan Hill made the motion, and Councilmember Bryce Wilcox seconded it. Councilmembers Hill, Wilcox, Debra Marigoni, and Dale Flowers voted in favor of the motion. Councilmember Lisa Northrup was the no vote.

In February, the Hooper City Council discussed an ordinance that would strip powers from the city’s mayor, which they ultimately tabled in order to have a closed-door meeting. Following that meeting, in July, the Council voted on the issue. The vote needed to be unanimous, and it failed 3-2.

Back in February, the Council said that the change of powers was necessary to “promote fairness, accountability, and effective governance.”

In that July meeting, Councilmember Hill said that he believed progress was made in the closed-door meeting, though they added measures to improve transparency with regards to the city’s finances. However, Councilmember Wilcox accused Mayor Sheri Bingham of violating over 60 state and city codes.

At Thursday’s City Council meeting, the issue of removing powers from the mayor came up again, and it had gained a lot of attention on social media, causing confusion and outrage from members of the public. The meeting began with public comment, and many people voiced their concerns.

Most of the people voiced the same couple of concerns. They did not understand what the mayor has done to warrant this ordinance, and they felt like there was a lack of transparency to the community on this issue.

Several other people felt that it was unethical to attempt to strip the Mayor of her powers when three of the five City Council members are going to be leaving office in January. Others questioned why they would do it now and what the benefit would be to the community.

“Put your feelings aside and do your job, and if you can’t do your job because of your quarrels with family members or whatever, we will have to hold you responsible,” One man said.

When it came time to discuss the ordinance, Mayor Bingham addressed the Council and the public. “We are all good people. At times we have had a communication problem… At times we have let our differences impact this council. At times, our differences have impacted you,” she said.

Then Councilmember Hill spoke. He said that the underlying reason to bring this up again was the mayor’s inability to treat people with respect. He explained that he voted against stripping the mayor’s powers in July, but that with the election, she began to behave the way she did before their closed-door meeting.

“It was as if two years ago started all over again. Attacks were made against political rivals, there was division and hate all over again, and not treating people with dignity and respect,” Hill said. He added that he felt like she walked back on her promise to do better and say better, and that he felt targeted and singled out as a councilmember.

Mayor Bingham responded, and it became clear that this was at least partially influenced by posts made on social media by her children. She said that she cannot dictate to her adult children what they can and cannot say or post on social media, and that she should not be held accountable for their words.

Hill then accused her of liking the post on Facebook, and Bingham responded that she likes everything her kids post on Facebook, and that it was on her daughter’s private Facebook page. The screenshots were later sent to the other councilmembers.

Hill said that the post was not the reason they brought this vote back up again, only that it was indicative of a larger pattern of behavior.

Councilmember Wilcox addressed the council, and he said that this vote was not about changing the form of government and it was not about a family feud. He explained that he was concerned about turnover for the city’s employees and about attracting new talent.

He said that staff morale is down, and he wants to protect public works. He stated that the Council wants to have the power to give itself the responsibility over employees, so that they can hire a city manager.

“Hooper has outgrown this form of government,” he said. He clarified that this isn’t because he doesn’t like Mayor Bingham, but rather that he believes it’s time for the city to try something different.

Bingham agreed that the city needs a city manager, but she said that they don’t have the budget to hire one yet, and it’s an extreme measure to take the power away from the mayor just for that.

Hill read the Utah code that allows any powers to be taken from (or reinstated to) the mayors of any cities with the same form of government as Hooper: a five-person city council. He asked that, because the primary concern is power over employees, if they could only remove some powers from the mayor.

Wilcox said that he’s most concerned about power over employees, and the Council discussed amending the ordinance to only remove the mayor’s power over employees and finance. After deliberations with the city’s attorney, they voted on the amended ordinance, and the vote failed 4-1.