A City Council meeting follows, with the familiar parade of people speaking for and against him staying in ofﬁce. As expected, some came to his support with "Who would be willing to cast the ﬁrst stone?" Another, "If residents judge him harshly, then it sets a high standard for all of us because we all live in glass houses."
These are probably the same people who no doubt were demanding Bill Clinton's resignation for having had an affair. Their argument now is, please treat Dennis Fife fairly. We all make mistakes. He needs to be forgiven. He may have been immoral, but he can still be a moral mayor.
One commented that we shouldn't compare this lapse in judgement to a Brigham City police ofﬁcer ﬁred by the mayor because, unlike the officer's lady, the mayor's lady was not a city employee but just a member of his ward.
Give me a break! The mayor's office is a public office, not an ecclesiastical one. What Fife has done has demeaned the ofﬁce just as President Clinton or Kevin Garn, former Republican majority leader of the Utah House of Representatives, or others have done.
Fife has lowered the standard for those who aspire to the ofﬁce. And he has put the Brigham City Council in a terrible position, with four out of five apparently having asked for his resignation. The thought of his presiding over a council meeting might be awkward and frustrating.
And what about the decisions he has to make in the future when another city employee does wrong? What will he say to the ones whom he has already fired for their indiscretions? (The lawsuits are coming.) And what about the city employees who do not want to work for him anymore or are fearful of speaking up? When his church has deemed him unfit to lead in his ward, we wonder why he thinks he can lead a city.
This is not about forgiving Dennis Fife. We all forgive him and we accept his apology. The issue is far bigger. It is about governance and the public trust of residents and property owners like me.
The other interesting thing that has come to light as a result of this affair is that Utah laws are silent on how to remove a mayor from office. Council members and the public who want to see the mayor resign are not sure what to do.
So what has the mayor achieved? A divided public; unnecessary ridicule and humiliation upon himself and his family; unplanned, significant expenses for the city to defend upcoming lawsuits, which it can ill afford; lack of respect from many of his city employees and residents; and uncertainty for the remainder of his time in office.
On a positive note, hopefully there will be quick action by the Utah Legislature to define how to remove a mayor from office for undesirable acts.
Suresh Kulkarni retired in 2003 as vice president of Thiokol (now ATK). He serves as chairman of the Brigham City Community Hospital board of trustees and as a member of the Perry Land Use Board. He writes as a private citizen residing in Perry.