A clash in the state Senate threatens to derail a long-overdue move to clarify the structure of most municipal governments in Utah. Fortunately, we think there is a simple way to move forward that should be acceptable to all parties.

There's nothing wrong with city managers. But there is something wrong with eviscerating an elected mayor without asking the people. Attempts to do so have resulted in great turmoil and bad feelings in a number of Utah cities.

Lehi was about to undercut its mayor, Howard Johnson, with the so-called "manager form of government by ordinance" just before the matter was referred to the Legislature more than a year ago. The Legislature wisely put the brakes on such changes and assigned a task force to come up with a solution.

That solution, SB 20, championed by Sen. Carlene Walker, aims to set things straight, and it does. And, until Monday, it seemed to have the blessing of all parties, from mayors to the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which has pushed for the predominance of city councils. Everyone seemed to agree that no city should be able to change its form of government without a vote of the people.

Walker's bill makes it crystal clear that any change in a form of city government must go to the people for approval. It also sets out, and generally strengthens, the general duties of a mayor in a five- and six-member city council format. It specifies, for instance, that in council forms the mayor "is the chief executive officer of the municipality."

But Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, supported by most of Utah County's legislators, didn't think SB 20 went far enough. Stephenson proposed an amendment on Monday that resulted in a vitriolic floor battle in the Senate. Senators ultimately sided with Stephenson, whose amendment says that any change in a mayor's duties constitutes a change in the form of government and must be referred to the people for a vote.

We agree strongly with the sentiment behind Stephenson's amendment. But we think his change is too broad. Traditionally, city councils and mayors have enjoyed the flexibility of working out details of city management at the local level, and it's not practical to refer to the people every time some small adjustment is needed. If the council wants the mayor to be a dog-catcher, and the mayor wants the job because he has experience with dog-catching, there is no reason he shouldn't take on those duties without asking the people to weigh in.

Walker says that Stephenson's amendment would harden the respective duties of council and mayor in statutory glue and undermine the traditional ability of local elected officials to make adjustments based on local needs and personnel.

The League of Cities and Towns went ballistic and won't support SB 20 if the amendment stays in.

We think there's a third alternative that should satisfy all parties. We recognize that smaller communities don't need bright-line separations of power as found in larger cities -- i.e. the council-mayor form of government in which a mayor has veto power over legislation. Nor should smaller cities be strictly limited by statutory lists of mayoral duties, such as those laid out in SB 20. On the contrary, cooperative arrangements between council and mayor that work to the benefit of the community should be encouraged.

Mayors need a reasonable foundation of authority, but the rules should not be so rigid that they get in the way of practicality.

We suggest dropping Stephenson's amendment, and substituting one to this effect:

In a five- and six-member council form of government, allow for negotiation between an elected mayor and members of the city council. But such arrangements should apply only for the duration of the mayor's term of office. If another mayor is subsequently elected, let the game return to default status -- to the powers and duties specified in SB 20. The new mayor and council can then make new arrangements as needed.

Such negotiated adjustments do not constitute a change in form of government; they require no reference to the voters. They merely represent the exercise of good judgment by independently elected officials whose constituents, by the way, expect them to do exactly that.

While it's true that fences make good neighbors, there's no need for a Maginot line in this case. We see no reason that elected officials in smaller communities should not, in good faith, make adjustments to city administration such as they believe are in the best interest of the people they represent. Doing that should not trigger a vote on the form of government.

The bottom line in all this is that the citizens of a community have a right to expect cooperation and order from their elected officials, not acrimony, feuding and power plays based on personalities, style or misinterpretation of law. We think the people elected them to use their heads, not to inflate their egos.

Our suggested compromise would provide a solid statutory foundation for the authority of mayors while allowing for the traditional give-and-take that has long been the hallmark of well managed cities and towns in Utah. It reasonably balances the powers of a council against the mayor, and it takes the guesswork out of the equation. Clarifying the role of a mayor is healthy for mayors and councils alike.

The main motive behind SB 20 was to repeal a bad statute that allowed councils to change the form of government by the mere passage of a city ordinance -- without the consent of their fellow citizens, a majority of whom voted for a mayor in good faith and with the expectation that he or she would function in a certain way. Walker's bill keeps faith with them in return.

SB 20 is the culmination of the efforts of a great many people over more than a year. It should not be set aside. The Legislature would be malfeasant to abandon this badly needed correction to the municipal code. We urge the Senate to bring SB 20 back to the floor and pass it with a reasonable compromise.