vision2020
Re: Optional form of govt
Briana, your wit is so incisive. Ken, do you need a band-aid?
Am I missing something here (as I am n so many other areas)? Don't
candidates for public office have to LIVE in Latah County? Isn't
that a significant issue in the question of who should be elected vs.
appointed? I want county residents making the ultimate decisions for
the county. But, I want a law enforcement professional running the
Sheriff's dept. Again, without any denigration intended to the folks
currently in office, I think it's pretty obvious that we have a
larger (and, therefore, sometimes more qualified) pool of
"candidates" for a position if they do not have to be Latah County
residents at the time they are applying for the job. I mentioned in
a previous note the question of whether it would make sense to have a
general election for our school superintendent. With a university
here and our existing staff, we might do very well in finding a
person we like. Would that person actually want to CAMPAIGN--and
then stand for periodic re-election? In fact, our school board chose
someone from well outside our county--New York--for our new super.
Of the four "finalists," weren't 3 of them from outside our area?
So, the two points that occur to me are:
1. we get a larger pool of candidates
2. some good candidates would apply for appointment but would not
run for election (even assuming they are already Latah County
residents.
Yes, we have to trade off a layer of insulation. We have to "fire"
the commissioners if we don't like the people they hire--the same as
with the school board. But, I think it much more likely that if we
want to fire the commissioners it won't be because of their
appointees, but because of the DIRECTIONS they give them--ie, the
policies they ask/require those appointees to implement.
Yes, we have fewer commissioners than many of us might like to have
(although we might blanch a bit at paying for more of them), but one
could argue that fewer means we know more precisely where the
responsibilty lies for either bad appointments or bad policy.
Most of us recognize there is risk if we change. I'd submit there is
also risk if we don't change.
Date:
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 07:09:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Briana
LeClaire <mmsmom1@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Optional form of govt
To: Kenneth Gallant <gallantk@uidaho.edu>, Bert Cross <bcross@uidaho.edu>
Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
You've convinced me, Prof. Gallant. Anything that removes government
a step away from the great unwashed is OK with me. ;-) B.
Kenneth Gallant <gallantk@uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
> Obviously by now, everyone knows it is
> easy to get me to rise to any bait that is offered, but OK, I *will*
> respond to Bert's point:
>
> We cannot make the commission offices non-partisan--that's from the
Idaho
> Constitution and Statutes.
>
> It's true that two commissioners have raised havoc in Bonner County,
and
> the other elected officers have done ZERO to protect the citizenry
from
> them. At least an appointed manager would provide insulation for the
> daily operations of county government that affect the citizenry--the
size
> of tax assessment, routine police patrols, welfare determinations,
> weed control, etc. That really does seem to
> be the experience nationally--insulation helps.
>
> We are afraid we will elect bad people to office of county
commissioner,
> but
> we think the same electorate, us, that elects those people will do
> better electing a sheriff or assessor.
>
> This is a difficult argument
> considering that in democratic theory, the policymaking and ultimate
> accountability
> functions of the commissioners are appropriate for elective office,
but
> the technical functions of the row offices generally are not.
> It's also a difficult argument given that the more elective offices
there
> are, the less time the average citizen has to pay attention to
> qualifications for any one of them. (And to the many of us on the
list
> who do pay attention to the plethora of offices, well this list is
made
> up of Moscow's political junkies, including me) I'd rather have us
all pay
> good attention to electing the commissioners, rather than indifferent
> attention to a boatload of offices.
>
>
> Kenneth S. Gallant
> Moscow, Idaho 83844-2322 USA
> 208-885-6541 (phone)
> 208-885-4628 (fax)
> gallantk@uidaho.edu
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Bert Cross wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
==
:-) Briana
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536
Back to TOC