|
Advertisements |
|
You
have linked to a page that resides on the
|
Study Commission
Votes Against District Representation
On the issue of how commissioners are elected: The genius of America's government is its model of pluralism - that the common good is the result of competing ideas and compromise until a majority emerges. The most important characteristic of a truly representative body is that it be truly representative of the diversity of viewpoints of the larger body it is said to represent, not simply representative of the single, monolithic majority viewpoint. Representatives elected at-large are much more likely to reflect the latter situation, which is the authoritarian model. It is no accident that America and each state is governed by representatives elected by geographic region. The system handed down to us is not meant to be pretty or efficient, just effective and representative! This is really more of a philosophical issue rather than a partisan one, although the Party philosophies tend to coincide. Democrats tend to believe in diversity, arguments, compromise, different perspectives. Republicans tend to prefer uniformity, conformity, that there is only one right answer - No need to confuse matters with opposing viewpoints. We have watched with admiration the open deliberations of the Study Commission, but we note that they seem to be unduly and unwisely preoccupied to deliver a system of government that is comfortable for the governors, and not necessarily one that is representative of the governed. How else to explain their summary dismissal of a significantly larger and more representative body, because it might be unwieldy, and their concern over a pay disparity that would last only two years. As the authors of a new government, we believe they should build in and ensure diversity within the structure of the government. The best way to do that is the way our incredibly wise forefathers did 210 years ago, with geographic representation. In addition to the issues of representation and the row offices, Democrats are concerned about the missed opportunity to reduce the cost of county government. Our proposal would reduce costs about $500,000 annually, while increasing representation. Their proposal saves money by combining three row offices (We recommended combining four) and then spends the entire savings by adding two, full-time, fully benefited commissioners (We called for part-time citizen legislators). We're also concerned about the lifetime appointment of the county administrator. The time to substantially revise county government is NOW! Passing a bad charter now in hopes of making it right some time in the future is wishful thinking. The idea that a bad Home Rule Charter is better than no Home Rule Charter is preposterous. On the other hand, there are many good things in the proposed Charter. Election Board reform, separation of powers, required financial planning, county solicitor reform, greater openness and ethics requirements are features we applaud. Unfortunately, our disagreements on some of the big issues are very problematic. The Study Commission has until early September to finalize their proposal. After that time, the Democratic Party's Executive Committee will decide what our position should be. But, clearly, Tuesday's action, diminishes our chances of support. Support, which, by the way, we would very much like to provide.
|
|
The vote by
the Study Commission against district representation was
disappointing, particularly since the comments indicated many of the
commissioners supported the concept, but simply wouldn't vote for it
because of the late timing (They had our recommendations since
January). Unfortunately, they did the same thing with the row offices.
Eight commissioners signed their interim report which strongly
expressed their views that clerical, administrative positions should
not be elected. Yet, despite what they say they believe, they continue
to call for their election, rather than appointment.