The General Assembly is working toward a partial solution to property taxes and their burden on homeowners, businesses and agriculture. The governor's plan, as amended, has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. Final action will occur after the conference committee has produced a report for the General Assembly to consider. Just as controversial is the report from the Kernan-Shepard commission to reform local government. Its hallmark is a suggestion that a single elected executive official be selected to oversee much of county government. It suggests that a single county administration can appoint all the constitutional offices and achieve a more efficient government. The obvious model is that of a city's mayor who appoints department heads. From a business perspective, it has very obvious advantages. By concentrating power in one person, the obligation of government can be accomplished in a much better fashion. Proponents of this theory are convinced that government efficiency increases dramatically. As a product of local government, I have grave doubts about this proposal. I do not believe that concentrating power in the hands of one individual is progress. Our forefathers made sure that there were checks and balances in our system. For instance, the county auditor writes all the checks for the county, while the county treasurer collects and invests the money. Two elected officials are watching the finances of the county. The balance provided by these offices is to assure the taxpayers that multiple minds are overseeing county revenues. If these elected officials are not able to complete their work correctly, the public has access to them through the election process. The proposed change to appointed officials would make elective change impossible. Another fact to consider: The proposed changes do not reduce the number of tasks that must be completed by the various offices. The duties of the commissioners, auditors, treasurers, recorders, clerks and sheriffs would continue. If these duties are all to be relegated to people from the private sector, no savings can be achieved. For instance, the county auditor would need to be a CPA or the equivalent; it is not likely such a person would work for the wages of an elected auditor. The other offices would be the same. Concentration of local government is not without workable solutions. The plan before us is not workable at this time. Make no mistake. I am for efficiency in government. It should be the goal of everyone involved. Eliminating elected officials by the action of the General Assembly is something I take very seriously. I don't believe we achieve the goal of more efficient and responsible services by eliminating elected people. We all know neighbors who work in the courthouse. It helps us to solve some of our problems by contacting them to assist with issues of permits, licenses, support or taxes. Understand this: I don't oppose improving the way government works, but I want the tasks of government to be reviewed and evaluated before we just eliminate elected officials. Let us understand the tasks of government and its services before we make major decisions about the delivery of such services. Elected officials give us access to change the actions of our government, and if they do not respond to their constituents, they are replaced. Thank you for listening. More later,
WCF
|
