Smoldering differences within the all-Republican Utah County Commission broke into the open during the past week. The “rift” became quite public, with new Commissioner Jerry Bradshaw issuing “news releases” castigating veteran Commissioners Kar Lyman, chairman, and Kenneth Pinegar for what he called violation of open meeting. laws, passing measures in is absence, and other procedures to which he .takes exception. Chairman Lyman responded with a public statement in which he denied any wrong-doing, said county buslness can’t be held up when one member is absent, and challenged Mr. Bradshaw to bring up his objections for frank and open discussion in regular commission meetings. in his No. 1 issue, Mr. Bradshaw asked the county attorney’s office to file suit restraining payment of the million – dollar loan the county commission obtained from Municipal Funding Corp. of Colorado nearly a year and a half ago. This matter deserves additional comment. But first, with respect to the Bradshaw vs. LymanPinegar difficulties, the Herald has ong felt that differences of opinion within a county commiss on (or other public body) aren’t necessarily bad if the respective sides air their views openly and in a spirit of objective dialogue. As a matter of fact, full discussion, with all sides represented, can bring maturity of judgment sometimes impossible when a proposal zips through unquestioned an without debate. But this type of open dialogue hasn’t always been evident in recent county commission actions, and relationships have tended to mire sometimes to a level not befitting the dignity of the office. The “news releases” distributed imilaterally by the new commissioner may ave had some value in informing the public; but it’s a mixed blessing when the subject matter is slanted from one polnt of view only, and the “other side” is put in a defensive position of havinjg to take precious time to respon and go to the record to defend itself. It is hoped the relationships wlll quickly improve. Not that all must be of the same mind – certainly there’s room for differences of opinion and for split votes. But at minimum, frank discussion and mutual respect for each other’s views ought to exist. Regarding the million – dollar transaction with Municipal Funding: County commissioners used the proceeds of the loan (negotiated at 8 percent interest) to pay off contracts and obligations resulting from the county’s solid waste commitments after the contractor in a proposed garbage recycling program went de unct. Mr. Bradshaw says the loan should have come before the voters in a bond election. This claim is not without merit and has been raised by many others. Indeed, a civil action by two citizens claiming the county with violation of the state bonding law is still pending. Mr. Lyman declared in a recent public statement that the loan was obtained in the best interests of the county, and said the commission’s actions on the Municipal Funding lease were with “the blessings, help, and approval of the county attorney’s office …” But from the first, the loan had critics, especially foes of the solid waste program of the county and the municipalities, which ran into difficulties after a promising start. Phases of the program have been investigated by the attorney general’s office and the county attorney. The probers reported no evidence of wrong-doing. Now that the issue has been raised again – and by a county commissioner – it seems to us it should be faced head-on, with efforts to resolve the matter promptly legal questions, any new inquiry, or whatever. Meanwhile, in the interest of firsthand communication with the public, the Herald would welcome a statement by the officials who negotiated the loan, conceming actions and events which made it necessary, options and legal questions considered, assets still held, future of the solid waste program, and any other pertinent items. We see steps of this kind as necessary for ublic understanding and enlightenment.