The so-called “King of the County” bill…is it a good thing or a not-so-good thing? Just like a lot of legislation, I would tend to believe there are some good points and some points better served falling onto the cutting room floor. Governor Daniels’ mantra on the bill is to reduce the size of government and to make it more efficient. The war cry from the opposition is that government is already slimmed down as can be and is efficient.
As stated in an earlier posting, the report contains 27 provisions that aim to reduce the number of government officials. We will not tackle all 27 in this one article, so you can expect another story or two on this topic to follow.
With that said, let’s look at the first of the provisions, and man is it a hot topic. The argument in the report is that government should be simpler and more understandable. I think we can all agree with the concept behind that. What seems to cause the most indigestion here is the recommendation: establish a single county executive. This executive would then be responsible for overseeing the administering of the duties of the county auditor, treasurer, recorder, assessor, surveyor, sheriff and coroner. It would also transfer duties for township assessment, poor relief, fire protection, emergency medical service cemeteries and all other remaining responsibilities to this county executive. (Wow! I thought my comma button was going to give out there for a minute.) What are all other remaining responsibilities? Seems pretty open ended, doesn’t it. The duties of the clerk would be transferred to the courts, election boards and the county executive. The way I see it, this would be a good one stop shop solution to the layers and layers of government. On the other hand, it vests a considerable amount of influence in the hands of one person.
Also in the third provision, there would be established objective minimum professional qualifications and standards for certain county administrative functions. I would lean toward supporting this one, but I would be leery that county offices will become completely run by a bunch of empty suites with a degree from ABC University that think they know everything. Some of our best presidents didn’t go to college.
Provision 15 – allow city council to appoint the city clerk in a second class city. I would like your thoughts on this one. I guess if you are going to take the vote away from the people to elect an auditor, sheriff etc., one more elected office shouldn’t matter. With that said, putting it back on the council would make this position/person a majority party puppet, but I bet that person would be responsive to the council’s needs.
I will end part one on that note and will look at getting into another contentious point in the next article: the prevention of local government employees from serving as elected officials. I will also look at the provisions that apply to the schools.
1. Is a county executive to much power in on person’s hands?
2. Would you want any of the present commissioners fill that roll?
3. What you support the city council appointing the city clerk?
4. Don’t we have enough suites in positions of power?
5. Does this have the feel of aristocracy about it?
6. What would be the procedure for removal of this county executive if the circumstances called for it?
7. How much compensation would this executive command?
8. Couldn’t the prospects of this completely upset the balance of power in the county?
9. I bet Jerry Sitton hopes it’s a Republican?
