While it sounds genteel and collegial and evokes images of cultured, gentlemanly politicians sipping brandy and smoking big cigars as they carefully consider what, in their superior and beneficent wisdom is best for their constituents, the so called “Gentlemen’s Agreement” under which our party has operated for many years has grown outdated and become potentially dangerous to the party.

The uninitiated may ask, “What is the Gentlemen’s Agreement?”  It is not a written agreement or published party policy because doing so would immediately reveal its illegal nature.  Rather, it is an unspoken but long-accepted party practice, quietly encouraged and supported behind the scenes by a succession of party administrations, in which the county is divided de facto into three areas, North County, comprising everything from Spring City north, Central comprising Ephraim, Manti and Sterling, and South County, comprising the Gunnison Valley.   Come election time the party quietly and informally conspires to nominate one candidate specifically and exclusively from each area.  Since fortunately our party dominates the electoral process in the county, nomination virtually assures the candidate’s election.

So what’s wrong with the Gentlemen’s Agreement?  Two things.  It makes every election for county commissioner susceptible to legal challenge in which the party could be held liable for damages claimed by any unsuccessful candidate who claims he or she suffered due to the detrimental effects of an institutionalized system of discrimination promoted by the party, and the practice constitutes a actual substantive conspiracy to deny equal representation to a large portion of the county citizenry.

It must be made clear that there has never been any nefarious or sinister intent in the development and implementation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  Quite the opposite.  The scheme was born out of a benevolent abundance of concern that no area of the county be disadvantaged or excluded from the political process.  While that is a noble and correct intent, the problem is that the county has changed significantly since the practice was first begun.  Back then the three areas were much more closely balanced in population and other factors.  But today the rapid growth of the north end of the county has tilted the geopolitical balance of the county significantly.  The result has been that now the commissioner from Gunnison Valley only has a local constituency of 20% of the county population while the commissioner from the north has a local constituency of over 43% of the population. 

Another problem is the perception that the Gentlemen’s Agreement unfairly gives the south end of the county a permanent majority in the makeup of the county commission.  Manti is considered by most of the citizens as being a part of south county.  (The high school in Manti is named South Sanpete high school.)  For many years the commissioner from the central area has been a Manti resident.  With a three-commissioner commission, the Gentlemen’s Agreement automatically places the north area commissioner in a permanent minority against the two south area commissioners. 

The problem is at the very least one of perception.  The less populous south enjoys a permanent advocacy advantage on the commission over the north despite the fact that the north now outnumbers the population of the south by more than two to one.  It is a fact that, completely unintentionally, the Gentlemen’s Agreement has created a very serious imbalance in representation in the county. 

Why is that a problem for the party?  Aside from significant fairness questions that are obvious, the practice could get the county party sued.  And in today’s liberal judicial environment, in all likelihood the complainant would prevail.  Let’s say a candidate from the north in the current election cycle were to stand against Commissioner Anderson (central area resident from Manti) in his upcoming bid for reelection, and the candidate from the north lost the bid for nomination at the county convention.  If the party in any way encouraged or colluded, either publicly or behind the scenes, or if it were shown that the party in any way fostered, encouraged or even passively allowed an “atmosphere” in which the honoring of the Gentlemen’s Agreement to the advantage of Commissioner Anderson’s reelection could be shown, the losing candidate could make a legitimate claim of discrimination and violation of the principal of equal representation.  Conceivably the candidate could have the election overturned and prevail on a claim of damages against the party. 

Is there a way out?  Fortunately yes, but it will take a couple of positive actions to protect party interests.  The first thing the party needs to do is to publicly and in writing and practice engage in a campaign that completely repudiates any continuation or support of the Gentlemen’s Agreement.  As long as commission seats are considered countywide seats, the party must make it its absolute policy and practice to encourage without bias candidates from any part of the county to run for any commission seat without regard to what part of the county the candidate may be from. To do anything less places the party at risk.

Does that create a jeopardy for smaller geopolitical areas of the county?  Yes, it absolutely does.  In a completely open political environment it will be easier for a candidate from the north with its 65% of the population to get elected than it will be for a candidate from Gunnison Valley, for example, with its 20% of the population.  That is the drawback to a political structure in which candidates are elected on a countywide basis functioning legally with no de facto institutionalized discriminatory scheme based on geographic residency.

Is there a way out that works for everyone?  Happily, there is a good solution that would not only solve the problem but, if instituted, would bring a significant improvement to the structure of county government.  That solution is for the Party to endorse and work hard to implement the change in county government being proposed by the Sanpete County Better Government Committee.  That committee is proposing that the county be divided into at least five defined political districts with one elected representative from each district who would serve on a County Council that would replace the current County Commission.  Having more districts would assure representation in every geopolitical area.  It would eliminate all the problems created by the Gentlemen’s Agreement, and it would eliminate any perception of an unfair political bias in favor of any one part of the county over another. 

We call on the Party to endorse the work of the Sanpete County Better Government Committee in bringing about the vital changes to county government they are working on.  These changes would open up at least two new elected seat opportunities for the party and remove it from the painfully uncomfortable petard of the Gentlemen’s Agreement conundrum.

This subject is posted on the website blog.  We encourage you to read and become a participant in the blog by registering and sharing your opinion about this any other subjects important to Sanpete County.