- Mayor Sheri Bingham will retain her powers after a Hooper City Council attempt to strip her of authority failed in a split vote.
- One of Bingham's critics charged her with 67 unspecified violations of state and city code, though Bingham challenged the assertion.
- The measure in question received majority backing, 3-2, but needed unanimous support to succeed.
HOOPER, Weber County — Hooper Mayor Sheri Bingham, whose leadership has come under fire by some Hooper City Council members, will retain her power following a split vote on a proposal to strip her of much of her authority.
Her leadership has been focus of public debate since last February, when the City Council first debated a proposal to take over her decision-making responsibilities and turn the mayor into the "ceremonial head" of Hooper. The body tabled the ordinance proposal at that time, but revisited it on Thursday, voting 3-2 in favor of the measure — a majority but not the unanimous vote required by state law for passage.
"Let's just move on," Bingham said Friday, a day after the vote. Voting in favor of the proposal were council members Dale Fowers, Debra Marigoni and Bryce WIlcox while Ryan Hill and Lisa Northrop voted no.
Bingham — charged with overstepping her authority by some council members — suggested the City Council proposal was politically motivated during Thursday's meeting. Some council members "were not excited" when she decided to run for the post in 2023 "and even less excited" when she won. Wilcox, for his part, accused Bingham of violating 36 city codes and 31 state codes during the meeting, though he didn't detail them.
Either way, the meeting was the latest step in a saga that's embroiled the Weber County locale for several months.
Brother-sister conflict
In tabling the proposal to strip Bingham of her powers on Feb. 25, the Hooper leaders also set June 5 as a deadline to sort through their differences. The proposed change would have been significant, stripping the mayor of all executive and administrative powers, vesting authority instead with the City Council.
"The mayor shall serve as the ceremonial head of the city, representing the city at official functions and performing such duties as may be prescribed by the City Council. However, all executive authority, administrative powers and decision-making responsibilities shall reside with the City Council collectively," the proposal reads.
June 5 came and went without action, but the body met in executive session on June 10 to further discuss the issue, leading to Thursday's action, one of several items on the meeting agenda. The state code allowing city councils to strip their mayors of power stipulates that such action, to succeed, must have unanimous support.
The dispute between Bingham and the council really bubbled to the surface earlier this year after Bingham's move to essentially remove Hooper's legal counsel, which prompted an outcry from some City Council members. Underlying it, however, were apparent tensions between Bingham and Fowers — her brother and the mayor of Hooper before Bingham. Hill broached the siblings' tensions at the February meeting, though he didn't detail the apparent issues.
City Council members have also charged Bingham with stymying their involvement in city matters, while Wilcox, reading from a prepared statement, went further during Thursday's meeting. He charged Bingham with the 67 "documented" violations of city and state code, among other things, though he didn't spell out the alleged misdeeds.
"What's happening is not political, it's not personal. It's a necessary effort to restore accountability and reestablish checks and balances for our local government," he said.
He went on, describing the move against Bingham as a means of standing up for Hooper residents.
"The violations are real. The impact is growing. The time for silence and delay is over. The people deserve accountability, they deserve action," he said.
Speaking Friday, Bingham challenged Wilcox's allegations of code violations. Hooper's legal advisers would have told her if she was breaking the law, she said.
A handful of residents addressed the matter during the public comment period of Thursday's meeting. Some said they'd like to know more about what is discussed in closed meetings in the name of transparency. Two suggested the mayor knows better how to be mayor than the City Council.
Members of the City Council, meanwhile, seemed to agree that they want to work together notwithstanding their differences. Some expressed frustration with the constant disagreements and discussions about the mayor.
