Shurtleff’s Threat to Disincorporate Hildale

2010-03-13 12:27:15

By Donald Richter

In his letter of January 26, 2010, to attorneys Kenneth A. Okasaki and James C. Bradshaw, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff demanded that the dispute over the UEP Trust be settled in thirty days and also threatened the disincorporation of Hildale City regardless of any Trust settlement, stating, “I believe that serious issues must also be addressed with the local governments, and we are prepared to seek a disincorporation of the city of Hildale with the Legislature if necessary.”

Throughout the country, disincorporation is the prerogative of the voters within a municipality, not of the Attorney General or the legislature. Residents of a town may seek disincorporation if their local government is unable to provide such necessary services as police protection, garbage removal, etc. Usually this occurs when the population of the town has become too small to provide the necessary tax base to support a local government. In such a case the responsibility for providing these services reverts to the county government.

Title 10 of the Utah Code spells out the two ways in which a town may be disincorporated:

1. “A municipality having fewer than 50 residents may be dissolved on application to the district court by the county legislative body of the county where the municipality is located.”[1]

2. “Disincorporation of a municipality shall be initiated upon petition. The petition shall bear signatures equal in number to 25% of all votes cast from the municipality at the last congressional election. No signature is valid, for purposes of this section, unless it is that of a registered voter who is a resident of the municipality proposed for disincorporation.”[2]

Upon validation of the petition, the question is then “placed before the voters of the municipality.”

These are the only constitutional provisions for disincorporation. Either Mr. Shurtleff is attempting to bully the FLDS into making concessions in the UEP Trust negotiations or he is proposing special legislation targeting a religious minority, as was done when the Nauvoo Charter was repealed in 1845. As a practicing member of the LDS Church, he certainly is well aware of the persecution the Mormon people suffered at that time. How can he justify himself in being a party to a parallel persecution today?