Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Is it time for a new form of county government?
Summit County is currently run by three county commissioners and seven elected department heads. But some say the job has become too big for a three-person board and it is time for an overhaul. One proposal suggests electing five commissioners and hiring a county manager.The concept is much more popular on the west side of the county where many residents live in the unincorporated Synderville Basin, than it is on the east side where residents favor the status quo. Where do you stand and why? Click on "comments" below and then select "anonymous" to avoid registration. You can sign your name on your comment though, if you dare!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The FOG committee members are misleading the public. The county manager would only "supervise" five county departments. Only five of the 29 counties in Utah have changed their form of government and none have changed to the five-member council recommended by the FOG committee. Only one department head suggested a change in the current form, and that department head is no longer employed by the county. The county currently employs department heads and elected officials to respond to the public on a daily basis. If those individuals become ineffective in their positions, they need to be replaced by election or termination of employment, not by changing the form of government.
Summit County absolutely needs a change in the form of governance. As the FOG report concludes, no one is in charge on a day to day basis responsible for the overall management of the county. In addition, although not addressed by the FOG report, each time there is a change in the commissioners someone new is in charge of a specific "portfolio" within the county and the policies and priorities change. The proposed change in the form of government would allow for the "big picture" decisions to be made at the Board of Commissioner level and allow the county manager to be the executive in charge of implementation of the overall policy. Finally, it is interesting to note that the deparment head that suggested the change was in charge of the department that has created many of the problems faced by the county -- perhaps he was pleading to have a responsible executive in charge of the county's business.
Look to the motive of the elected officials who oppose a county manager. They are fearful of losing the non statutory authority that they have accumulated over years in office. They are not accountable to the public for these duties at all. A county manager needs to oversee the day to day operations at the county, personnel issues, budget oversight, and leave the policy and direction setting to the elected council. Otherwise, why would these entrenched officials be fighting this? It's about authority and power that goes beyond their duties.
I agree with the last comment -- fear is driving opposition to the plan. In addition to the elected officials, there are number of appointed positions, such as the deputy county attorney, that would have their power curtailed if an executive is appointed/hired and had management authority over day to day operations.
The FOG committee missed a fundemental lesson in their civics class: Cities and Counties are different on purpose! To try and make the County more like Park City is delusional at best. County governments have a diffused executive branch of government unlike cities and a County manager cannot do the things the FOG committee envisions. There was a clear agenda of some of the committee members that was NOT to promote the best interests of the County, but to promote their own vendettas. The premise that the County is not professionally run is simply not true.
The premise that the County is not professionally run is simply too true. I do not see any effort to make the County like Park City, simply a recommendation that the legislative branch of the county government not be mired in the details of running the various elements of the county. For example, should all three commissioners (as well as two other county employees) attend the meeting of Summit Water? Is that professional or effective management of the county?
What is the clear agenda and vendettas put forth in the FOG report?
Civics Class 101...Counties and Cities are supposed to be different. However when Summit County stops acting like a City and more like a County the form of government should be different. However Summit County continues to pursue urban development in the unincorporated areas. Any planner worth their salt would tell you that urban development belongs in cities where services can be provided more efficiently by the municipal authority, not by competing service districts. Unfortunately that horse has left the barn, and Summit County Government has grown too large and too greedy to ever allow the incorporation of Synderville or Jeremy Ranch. We are doomed to become Salt Lake County, continually competing and fighting with the incorporated Cities, haphazardly created special service districts and developers. There goes our tax dollar down the tubes!
Once again, I see that many of you are still being mislead. There are responsible, informed individuals who are employed by the county to interact with the public and make informed decisions on a daily basis. These are your department heads. They will know far more about their day-to-day affairs more than any county manager. A county manager would be dependent upon them to make an informed decision. Therefore, you're only adding another level to the decision making process. What a waste! The commissioners can be involved in the daily affairs of the county only as much as they want to be. If they feel that they have too much to handle, it is their own fault. They can delegate, they can hire an assistant. As for the argument that current elected officials might feel threatened, THE CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT WILL EFFECT THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS VERY LITTLE. They will still have most of the same responsibilities that they had before. THE CHANGE WILL ONLY EFFECT FIVE (5) COUNTY DEPARTMENTS!!! This is not even the majority of the employees or a majority of the annual county budget.
And, if Hy Saunders was making incorrect statements about me, I think that I would show up to correct him as well. Why do find fault with the county officials that went to the Summit Water meeting?
back to the civics lesson:
Three independent branches of government. The purpose of the independent branches is to provide checks and balances of each branch by the others. By its very nature, the current form of government merges the legislative and executive branches and provides no checks or balances. Rather you have built in conflict and no method of resolution of the conflict. Add the interference with the judicial branch and the problem is even worse.
In summit county, the merger of the executive and legislative branches has resulted in actual conflicts. Often, leaders in the county do not even recognize the conflict and make no effort to resolve. Other times, the officials exploit the dual role. For those reasons alone, a county manager -- the executive branch -- is a necessary modification to the structure of the county government.
The major flaw in county government is the election of Department Heads. It seems intuitive that positions like treasurer, assessor, and clerk, for instance, should be non-political. County positions are not being filled by the most qualified persons and worst of all, there is no clear chain of authority. Hiring a County Administrator will not correct this huge problem and the proposal to have the County Manager's employment confirmed on a ballot every four years is simply ridiculous. Jan Scott
Back to civics class.
While cities have a single legislative branch (council) and a single executive branch (mayor) which executive branch can delegate to a manager, a county does not work that way. Counties have a single legislative branch (commission) and MULTIPLE executive authority. Each elected official has executive authority and is part of the executive branch of government, not just the County Commission. A county manager could consolidate and manage only those executive powers vested in the commission and NO OTHERS. Because of this diffused executive branch system with specified statutory and constitutional elected officials with executive duties and authority over which a county manager would have absolutly no control, the role of "manager" is meaningless. As is, the elected officials and department heads meet regularly and effectively to manage the county in a very professional manner.
As for the blogger lamenting the urbanization of the basin, it is true the Summit County is unique in that it is required to provide municiple style services to its citizens unlike most other counties. However, the reason the basin can't incorporate as a city has nothing to do with the County and everything to do with the State Legislature and state law. If you want to place blame, place it correctly.
(sigh)
I don't think a new form of government is going to help
unless we try to eliminate
corrupt personalities,
and lack of experience.
And if you think a county
manager slash 7 councilmembers
is the fix, have you checked out
the political "good old boy club"
in Wasatch County? I don't think so.....
You are correct that the ultimate problem will not be corrected by a simple change in the form of government. The real question then, how do you rid the county of the corrupt personalities and bring relevant experience to the job? A related question is how deep does the corruption extend in the county government?
There are methods of dealing with corruption in government - any level. There are methods of dealing with corruption at the county level. Where is the corruption in Summit County? Am I being naive? Or, perhaps, because someone didn't get their way with a planning commission we are to believe that the department is corrupted? Or is there corruption at the library? How about personnel? Information Technology? Public Works? Because these are the only departments that will be supervised by the created county manager. Corruption in Public Safety? Vote out the Sheriff. Corruption in tax assessments? Assessor. Same with the other elected officials. Vote them out if they are corrupt! There are more checks and balances for the voters under the current form of government.
You are not being naive, you are well aware of the sources of the problems. The corruption and management problems lie primarily in the county commission and in the county attorney's office. Their fraud, mismanagement, apathy, ineptitude or whatever condition you want to apply to their management of the county flows downward to each and every department in some fashion. Some departments are more impacted than others for sure.
Your real problem is that only a small portion of the public is ever subjected to the corrupt behavior. The "easy' method of voting out the officials is not an effective remedy -- there is inadequate public information and scrutiny. Really, why would those that are not personally and negatively (there do appear to be some real beneficiaries) affected take any action? Of course, if any of the issues are raised in a public forum, the affected officials claim "they [the complaining party] didn't get what they wanted from the planning commission and are just unhappy about the result."
What appears to be happening in Summit County is that the corruption is being addressed -- in a manner that ultimately will be very open, public and devastating to the responsible officials.
Oh, . . . well.
A nerve has been touched -- no response.
For those in the know, how does State law and the Legislature prevent the Basin from incorporating?
thanks to the lobbying efforts of the larger counties, new cities wishing to incorporate cannot take commercial (income generating) areas along with them if the income generated in that commercial area represents more than a fraction (I think 5%) of the revenue of the County. Since the income from Kimball Junction, the Canyons, etc. represents far more than the allowed fraction, it cannot be included in any incorporation efforts.
This is Steve Dougherty, a member of the study group, so you know from where this comment comes. I appreciate blogs, but too often they make potshots with no real debate. Would those who try to defend the present form of government (a default form by statute) please present any reason why its better the the recommended form? Most people in Summit County live in the Basin, meaning that most people don't live in a city. Summit County is more like a city than a county, at least to those of us in the Basin. We can't incorporate or annex or split the county. There is no reason the new form of government won't work. We interviewed Cache, Salt Lake and Wasatch Counties. While those who no longer had the power they had before the change complain, everyone else seems to like the change, although many lament that the size of the council (all greater than 5) is too big. Frankly, for a year I've heard the same complaints from the same people who sit in the Coalville Courthouse and whose powerbase in eastside politics is threatened. They've lost credibility with me, particularly when they take cheap potshots in the Record. That's not to say all eastsiders are the same. In fact, several I sincerly respect although I don't agree with them.
All is compromise in politics. Just because the recommendation doesn't address all perceived ills of the present form (what corruption? don't confuse with incompetence), doesn't mean no change should be made. My goal in analyzing different forms was to find the form that would encourage the best people to get involved in running the County. Could other things have been changed as well? Sure, but one handful of mud at a time.
And frankly, I need no lectures in civics from anonymous sources.
Post a Comment