I was proud to be selected as 1 of 15 local citizens, 3 from each of the 5 County Commission Districts, to serve on the 2006 Charter Review Commission. The CRC is required to be appointed every 4 years to Review the Charter and recommend any improvements it may deem appropriate. Those recommendations are then forwarded to the BCC for a perfunctory vote and then sent to the citizens for approval or denial at the next election.
One of the 3 ideas sent to the electorate, and approved by the electorate, was to add 2 at-large commissioners to the existing 5 single district commissioners. One of the 2 would be elected as the 4-year Chairman of the BCC.
The reasons that I supported this idea during the CRC process, volunteered to advocate for it leading up to the vote, and continue to support the idea are:
1.) Though I appreciate the district level accountability of a single-district BCC, I do not like the fact that I have only 1 commissioner to vote for. With an at-large BCC, I had the “power” to speak to all 5 commissioners with my vote. When the electorate supported a citizen’s initiative to change the BCC from at-large, to single-district, that “power” was reduced by 80%. True, my new single-district county commissioner, or as I like to call them, district commissioners, had better pay attention to my local district concerns, but I have no county-wide representation. By adding 2 at-large to the existing 5 single district, I now get to vote for 3 commissioners, not just 1. I like math, so instead of 1 of 5 (20%), I get a shot at 3 of 7 (43%) – more than doubles the “power” of my vote.
2.) Again, I acknowledge that there was a reasonable justification for District 1 voters to be frustrated when the incumbent commissioner lost the district vote, but retained office by being carried by the balance of the county. It didn’t help that the incumbent went on to be embroiled in a little fiasco I’ll call “Sandbag-gate”. Voters had a right to be mad as hell, and not take it anymore. BUT – I strongly believe that the COUNTY deserves representation, not just the individual Districts. The 2 additional AT-LARGE commissioners are there just for that purpose. To suggest that the concerns of District 1 are the same as District 4 is naïve. I want someone who will think countywide, not just district-wide. The single-district system approved by the Citizens is still 100% intact. Not violated at all. Not reduced at all. Not modified in any manner whatsoever. The District 1 commissioner will continue to be elected by NO ONE but the voters of District 1. But, I want more of a say in how Clay COUNTY is governed than just getting to vote for 1 of 5 district commissioners.
3.) A 4-year Chairman of the BCC who is elected by ALL the CITIZENS of Clay County is one of the best ideas to come along in a long time. Under the current rotating Chair system, Clay County is like a ship floundering in the ocean that gets a skipper per year. Skipper Rutledge thinks we should sail west. Great, west we go. A year of sailing west, and then, Skipper Bush comes in and thinks, No, not west, let’s go east. So the ship turns around, and we sail east for a year. Another year, another change in command. Nothing against the Skippers, they’re doing their job. But, 1 year is just not enough time to choose a course, set sail, and see what kind of progress we can make. 4 years is the term of office, so let the Skipper serve 4 years. If at the end of his term, we don’t like where we have sailed to, WE – THE CITIZENS, select a new Skipper, and set sail again. To me, an old Navy sailor, this seems to make a whole lot of sense. Commanding Officers in the military don’t rotate in and out every year. That would be much too disruptive. It’s too disruptive for our County also. Not only that, the rotating Chair is just that – rotating. The gavel gets passed up and down the line with no sense of who will make the best leader. We, THE CITIZENS, deserve to be able to choose the Chairman of the body that governs us. We choose our Governor and we choose our President. We should choose our Chair also.
Those 3 reasons are why I think the 5+2 is a good, no a great idea. I know there are arguments against this idea. This blog is not against anything. It is FOR something. It is FOR proper representation, power of my vote, and for good solid, accountable leadership. I’m going to write another blog that will try to address some of the “against” stuff. I’m going to call it – 5+2 Red Herrings.
Bill Garrison