Checks and balances necessary for good government

Last Tuesday, those attending the Worland City Council saw a balanced government at work.

In dealing with a citizen request to close one block of a street off for a neighborhood block party, Mayor Jim Gill expressed concern about citizens making requests for street closures. Organizations and businesses have for years made requests regarding events, some open to the public and some strictly for that organization.

There was concern about setting a precedent and about liability for a citizen requesting a street closure.

After hearing from the citizen, Josh Garcia, hearing from the mayor and some department heads, a few council members expressed support for the request.

When it seemed as if no action was going to be taken, in favor or in opposition to the request, one council member asked if they would be voting on the request. The mayor said a motion could be entertained. A motion was made, seconded and given unanimous approval from the council.

The mayor did note his dissent.

This week I am not here to debate the decision that was made, that is for another time but rather express appreciation for the wonderful checks and balances that were created for government, from the local level all the way up to the federal level.

The council and the mayor were all representing the citizens of Worland and all bring a unique perspective to their roles.

Having checks and balances ensures no one person can obtain too much power and as wonderfully as it worked Tuesday night with the Worland City Council, the checks and balance system has gotten way out of balance at the state and federal levels.

During the COVID-19 pandemic we saw many states, including our own, use executive orders to declare emergencies. But executive orders have been used before and will again unless we say enough.

Locally, the mayor does not have executive order authority and that’s a good thing. Executive orders should not be used to override the will of the people. And the will of the people can be shown in whom the people elect into office, whether it is the council, state legislature or Congress.

According to the American Presidency Project, every president has issued at least one executive order while serving. Most were less than 100 until Ulysses S. Grant, who issues 217 during his two terms.

Theodore Roosevelt issues 1,081, Woodrow Wilson 1,803, Calvin Coolidge 1,203 and then Franklin D. Roosevelt set the record with 3,721 orders in his 12 years in office. Numbers dropped considerably after Harry S. Truman with 907.

However, each president was still issuing more than 100 orders during their term. Between Dwight D. Eisenhower and George Bush, each president issued an average of 62 executive orders per year. The last five presidents are averaging 44 orders per year. Bill Clinton had the most with 364, George W. Bush 291, Barack Obama 276, all had two terms or eight years to issue the orders.

Most recently Donald Trump in just four years issues 220 orders and Joe Biden has issued 122 order with more than one year left on his term.

Ironically there is no specific allowance in the constitution granting an executive order, which has the same effect as a federal law, according to the American Bar Association, however, Section 1 of Article II is generally cited for granting authority. Section 1 states, “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

I believe executive orders have a place in our government, albeit a rare and under extremely special circumstances, but instead they have become too common place and the other branches of government are not doing enough to curtail the orders or slow their use.

In comparing the federal level and, what I believe is the overuse of executive orders, to what happened at last week’s council meeting, I could foresee a far different outcome. Had that been Congress and the president, the president could have easily issued an executive order banning block parties or banning private citizen requests of street closures.

It sounds insane but that seems to be what happens with presidential executive orders. If you do not get your way by working with the other branches of government then just wield that executive order privilege.

That is not how government should work.

Government with true checks and balances should work as it did last week in Worland – all voices were heard, a vote was taken (again not debating whether or not you agree with the decision), but in the end the city moved forward and the mayor directed Mr. Garcia to work with Public Works Superintendent Nick Kruger on the proper street closure cones and/or signs.

--Karla Pomeroy