Re: Optional form of govt

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

I have had the same thoughts about the number of commissioners 
as expressed here.  However, I am considering  voting for the change 
because I think that we can't very well push to have more 
commissioners on the assumption that (a) we will thereafter obtain a 
majority vote on the optional form of govt issue, and (b) that if we 
do, having 3 commissioners will be a disaster.  And because I'm not 
very happy with the current form.  Electing a sheriff and coroner 
seems pretty crazy to me. 

While it may seem a bit chaotic or at least risky to change and see 
what happens, I'm not confident that our collective expectations of 
disaster and more egregious political infighting will prove accurate 
either.  I am therefore, willing to "send a message" to the 
commissioners changing our form of government with the hope and 
expectation that they understand they can't duck responsibility by 
pointing at some other elected official.  They either do the job as 
the majority of us wants or we (a) vote them out or (b) increase 
their number or (c) both.  I don't think we can build the bridge to 
better government until we lay this foundation.

I too am guilty of not having participated in the process before the 
report was issued.  The lack of public input causes me to wonder if 
I were appointed to a committee if I would just want to make a report 
after the first meeting, since once something is actually proposed 
public input increases exponentially.  

And as long as I'm purging my soul today, I'll also confess to not 
having read the full report.  Priscilla, if you're out there, this 
sure looks like one of those issues about which the public could use 
some education and information without having to ask Ken Gallant to 
answer every question that's raised.  Maybe we could have several 
people read the report and discuss the pros and cons--without 
necessarily trying to "convince" anyone yes or no, but to provide a 
balanced look at what the committee found was wrong with what we have 
and how this might help.  Is this an issue we could or should 
address??

Mike Curley

From:          "Bert 
Cross" <bcross@uidaho.edu> To:            vision2020@moscow.com Date: 
         Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:10:45 +0000 Subject:       Optional form 
of govt Priority:      normal

I've read the full report and listened to arguments pro and con and 
have decided to vote against the optional form of county government.  
The thing that bothers me most is still having only three 
commissioners.  We have seen what havoc only two commissioners can 
cause (look at Bonner County).  I would opt for at least five.  And 
since their work load would be diminished, salaries should be reduced 
to help pay the county administrator's salary.  We also might 
consider making the commssion offices non-partisan.  The commission 
would then be a policy-making body with the adminstrator carrying out 
its policies.

The ironic thing in the current election is this:  If I vote for 
assessor, county clerk, and county treasurer and then vote FOR the 
optional form, I am then voting to rescind my three prior votes.  

I agree we need to fine-tune our county government and make it more 
efficient and effective.  The county manager concept is generally a 
good one.  More officers should be appointed rather than elected. But 
we need to work out some of the bugs before we jump to this rather 
drastic and sudden change.  

I also must plead guilty to failing in my own civic responsibility 
when the study commission was seeking public input, as many of us 
did.

Bert Cross
1448 Borah Ave.
Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 882-7660
email: bcross@uidaho.edu

Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536