This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Democrats are accusing Republicans of a partisan power grab in trying to revamp a pair of bipartisan committees — including the one that decides which state agencies will be investigated by legislative auditors — to tilt in favor of the GOP majority.

HB220, sponsored by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, would add Republican members to the Legislative Audit Subcommittee and the Legislative Management Committee, which coordinates scheduling of meetings and the hiring of the non-partisan staff.

For decades, both committees have had equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, because their functions have been seen as administrative and non-partisan.

But Christensen said that such a makeup "dilutes" the voice of the majority that voters put into power.

"It saddens me to hear any discussion of partisanship. I cringe every time I hear the word politics or politicians," Christensen said. "It wouldn't matter to me if I was on the other side. … I just really believe the principles of representative government and representative democracy" call for the change.

Democrats argued that the bill could introduce partisanship into the previously non-partisan staff functions and make the Legislature function more like Congress.

"If [staffers] know their boss is hired by one party, it changes — it dramatically changes — their working environment. It will not be the same," said Rep. Patrice Arent, D-Millcreek, who is a former legislative attorney. "This bill leads us down the wrong path."

Democrats provided letters from former House Speaker Nolan Karras and former Sen. Karl Snow, both Republicans, who said the even split between parties on the management committee is appropriate.

Karras said, despite large GOP majorities, the management committee split was even "as a signal to the nonpartisan staff that they were not to act in the interest of one party versus the other party. From my view, this practice worked well over my 10 years of service."

After passing a House committee Wednesday, with six of seven Republican members approving it, HB220 is on its way to the full House.

Underlying the issue appears to be a shift in the relationship between House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper, and House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City.

During the debate last fall over whether the state should expand Medicaid to low-income Utahns, King was critical of Hughes for not including Democrats in the discussions, contending that Hughes should act as the speaker for the entire House, not just Republicans.

Hughes said in an interview that, if that's the way King wants it, then he and Senate President Wayne Niederhauser should have spots on the committees that reflect their positions as presiding officers for their respective chambers and are not considered Republicans or Democrats.

But Hughes said the move is not motivated by bad blood between him and King. As proof, Hughes points to a bill file that House Majority Whip Francis Gibson, R-Mapleton, had opened last session that would have changed the makeup of the management committee, but Democrats asked Republican leaders not to run the bill.

"[We said] 'Let's not make waves. We're brand new, let's get along,'" Hughes said. This year, Christensen sponsored the bill on his own, Hughes said, but the speaker still supports it.

"It comes at a time when the minority leader keeps pointing out that I'm the speaker of the whole House and he keeps making the case that the structure isn't the way it should be," Hughes said.

Claire Geddes, a long-time legislative watchdog, said it is the revamp of the audit subcommittee that is especially disconcerting to her, since the auditors have proven to be a valuable source of unbiased information on problems festering in state government, particularly when it comes to the Utah Transit Authority.

Geddes believes a pair of scathing audits of the UTA — where Hughes served as chairman — may be motivating the change in the committee's makeup.

"UTA is a prime example where I have seen some really troubling aspects of that agency which [Hughes] was the cheerleader for and wasn't happy with the audit," Geddes said. "So what am I supposed to think when he's going to change the makeup of the audit committee?"

When one party controls what audits get done, Geddes said, they control the information that the public gets about their government.

"What assurances can the public have that when there is a problem the public will know about it?" she asked. "[Republicans] ought to understand the way this is perceived by the public. The public has such little confidence in government anymore … When they do things like this, all it does is reinforce to the public that their interests are not being looked after."

Hughes denied that he was trying to protect UTA and said he is sponsoring the bill to reappoint the legislative auditor for six more years.

"How does that comport with Claire Geddes' inside knowledge of the process?" Hughes said.

Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said he doubts the shift in partisan makeup would have much impact on how the committees operate, aside from "maybe some optics."

"Here in the Senate, we respect our Democratic colleagues," he said. "The makeup of the committees obviously has some influence, but we're not here to muzzle or try to shut out the voice of Democrats here in the Senate."

— Lee Davidson contributed to this story.

Twitter: @RobertGehrke