Will the voters opt for the strong mayoral system of government already in place, in effect siding with Anderson? Or will they uphold the will of the City Council and hand the reins of power to a professional manager, reducing the mayor's position to one largely ceremonial in stature?

The referendum is being billed - erroneously but understandably - as the mayor versus the City Council. Anderson and the Council have been at odds since shortly after she won election in November 2005 and fired the city's administrative services director, initiating a power struggle.

Anderson has twice sued the council, most recently for hiring a city manager and thus usurping her power. That led to a moratorium by the state Legislature on changing the form of government without a popular vote, and a successful petition drive by citizens to bring about today's referendum.

But voters need to be clear about what's at stake. Today's election is not a referendum on Anderson's tumultuous term. The voters will be choosing the future form of government for their city. They need to decide if the city should continue under the auspices of an amateur mayor, or if the executive powers should be handed to a professional manager who answers to the elected city council.

Keep in mind that fast-growing Bluffdale, incorporated in 1978, is at a crossroads. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau counted 4,700 citizens. Now, approximately 7,500 call the city home, with many thousands more expected. The decisions that will be made in the next decade regarding development, infrastructure, open space and municipal services will have long-lasting and far-reaching implications.

So if voters decide that a trained, professional manager hired by the city council should control the day-to-day operations of the city through these trying times, they should vote to get rid of the strong-mayor system. But if they are simply looking to send Anderson packing, they have a better option: Vote her out of office in 2009.