Re: Optional forms of local gov't

[Kenneth Gallant <gallantk@uidaho.edu>]

Right now, the Commissioners can decide to spend us into bankruptcy, and
there is no one there to stop them as well.  That is, the other
elective offices cannot veto a bad commission budget.  That's the problem
with
the current system.  The different offices don't really work as a  set of
checks and balances, because neither can veto the acts of the other.
Instead, they are set up in a way almost guaranteed to have them get in
each other's way, rather than cooperate to get the work done.

Kenneth S. Gallant
Professor of Law
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83844-2322 USA
208-885-6541 (phone)
208-885-4628 (fax)
gallantk@uidaho.edu

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Mayme Trumble wrote:

> Ken
> 
> Thanks for the voting information!
> 
> My feeling right now about the optional form of county government is that I
> would be willing to try a smaller change, to see how it worked. For
> instance, appointing the treasure and coroner maybe. But the proposal
> before us  gives two people the whole run of the county. What if they
> decide to spend us into bankrupcy? Who would stop them?
> The change might be ok with me if there were seven county commisioners who
> appointed all these people, but not a small number like three.
> 
> I am voting against the change. I would certainly like to see a more
> efficient county government but not this particular way.
> 
> Mayme
> 
>