Appearing on the Nov. 2 general election ballot as “lnitiative Proposal B” will be the Utah Recall and Advisory Recall Act. Essentially, its purpose is to authorize removal of any public officer, elected or appointed, for any reason, by the voters of the electoral district from which the officer is elected or appointed. The proposal, if enacted, would authorize a special election to replace an officer as a result of a recall petition signed by at least 10 per cent of the registered voters for state officers, 12 per cent for county officers, and 15 per cent for local officers. lnitiators of the proposal feel it will serve to make public officials more accountable and more responsive to the voice of the people, besides providing effective machinery for removing an officer deemed to act in opposition to the public interest. With all due respect for sponsors of the petition and their good intentions, the Herald feels there are sound reasons for defeating the recall proposal. Present Utah law, it seems to us, is adequate to handle the situation in most cases. It permits the removal of state legislators by vote of their own legislative houses; of all other public officers by impeachment or court trial; and of members of the state judiciary by impeachment or by twothirds vote of the legislature. Appointive officials can be removed by administrative superiors or through merit system procedures. If these provisions are not sufficient, then we feel a more responsible recall setup should come by state constitutional amendment requiring good and sufficient reason for removal and a higher per cent of signatures to force a force a recall election. Legislation aimed at such an amendment was passed by the last Legislature but the session ended before steps could be taken to have a conference committee coordinate House and Senate versions. These are among our qualms about the recall measure that appears on the ballot: -Recall for “any reason whatsoever, including political reasons,” is too allencompassing. Specific and responsible charges of wrongdoing ought to be required. 4The small percentage of voters required to initiate a recall election could invite harassment or removal action from small dissident groups against even a wise and courageous official who stands up against pressure for what he feels is best for the people. AExpenses of a recall election would be paid by tax payers of the jurisdiction of the officer whose recall is sought. Cost of a statewide recall election has been estimated at $217,000; and a county recall election rnaging up to $82,000. The proposed law therefore could prove expensive, especially if abused. -Constitutionality is dubious. The proposal states that nothing in the State Constitution prohibits recall enactment. But the Utah legislative general counsel believes that statutory enactment of recall provisions is unconstitutional without the benefit of an amendment to the Utah Constitution providing for recall. -Proposal B even includes advisory (not binding) recall provisions pertaining to members of Congress and U.S. District Court judges, prompting this question as voiced by Rep. Lee W. Farnsworth of Provo District 37: in the Voter information Pamphlet: “Can Utah usurp the National Constitution?” it seems to us there are just too many problems with the recall proposal. and that its defeat would be in the public interest. So They Suy “There are no contemporarywriters of importance. Not one. 0’Neill and Tennessee Williams had moments, but l don’t regard them as great classical writers.” – Marlon Brando, commenting on the lack of good material available to actors.