RSS Feed
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another View
There should be no problem with the way the chairmanship is currently done; certainly not that Louisiana Pacific had concerns with it. I am aware of no problems that have arisen because LP has dealt with four different chairmen. Continuity exists between the commission and any industry such as LP if each succeeding chairman passes to the full commission all information timely, and thereby offers a smooth transition to the successor to the chairmanship. Furthermore, the county attorney is in constant communication with the industry, keeping a consistent presence before them as a representative of the commission. It is curious what the big deal is about the chairmanship. I know that the position of chairman has limited duties and privileges spelled out in law, which include: preside over meetings, keep minutes of the proceedings and present them to the commission for approval, keep financial records, supervise the administrator, execute documents approved by the commission, and approve and issue the payment of all legitimate claims. By resolution and current rules the chairman is required to keep office hours in the courthouse 9- 12 a.m. each Monday through Friday during the term as chairman. According to Association of County Commissions of Alabama Executive Director Buddy Sharpless, a chairman is not a dictator, a governor, or a mayor. He is one of five equal positions, serving his turn in the position as chairman with duties described generally above. In its rotation among the five districts, each district gets the honor of the chairmanship, which provides fair and equal representation geographically and demographically. That is the reason for being set up this way in the first place. One man, one vote. Every district gets a fair representation as voted on by the people and every commissioner gets an equal turn as chairman. By the proposed method, one district gets disproportionate advantage and the people of the other four districts are not represented, in the absence of a countywide vote by the people. This new proposal provides that one commissioner may never get to serve as chairman, and to put it another way, one commissioner may conceivably serve permanently. I do not believe the U.S. Department of Justice would approve this proposed change. Neither will it pass the scrutiny of the Voting Rights Act, as well. (On that note, there is no election of commissioners in 2007 as cited in the proposed bill.) You might say the chairman gets some advantages. For one, he may have his name printed in the newspaper fairly frequently or mentioned on the radio news, by which his constituents can feel pride that their elected official is handling county business for them. And that's good for all commissioners in turn. If the chair does a good job as chairman, he or she brings honor to his or her district and benefits the whole county. Otherwise the chairmanship has no apparent advantage to the average citizen/voter. It is a duty to be discharged gladly. The chairman has one vote. The chairman should take no action which is not approved by the full commission. The chairman should work on all issues to achieve a consensus by including every commissioner in the deliberations. A problem may arise if a chairman fails to inform and include every commissioner. A problem may arise if one chairman does not wish to relinquish the chairmanship but wants to exercise control, desires to prevail with an undisclosed agenda, makes unilateral decisions without the deliberation of the full commission, fails to give the respect that is due each commissioner as the qualified, elected representative of his or her district, or does not wish to keep the required office hours, or appoints an unauthorized substitute. Any election of chairman other than by the present method should be done by voters. Otherwise, each district loses its right to representation by chairmanship. I am not in favor of taking the vote from the people. The system we have is not perfect, but the proposed bill is even worse. I have a particular interest in the matter because I have just been reelected a commissioner under the status quo, and this proposed change results in a possible attempt to deprive me of my right to serve my term as chairman which is set to begin on Jan. 28, 2008. I may have no choice but to take this to the appropriate state or federal courts. Furthermore, according to the proposed act it takes four votes for a chairman to be elected. I don't believe any commissioner who is nominated could be allowed to vote for himself or herself. To do so would constitute a conflict of interest as he or she, for example, would be voting for an increase in his or her pay. And in that case, it should likewise be decided in court. If everyone would simply follow the rules, then "It ain't broke and it don't need fixin'.
Patricia DuBose is the District 3 Clarke County Commissioner.
|
for larger version       |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
