Optional Forms of Government 12/16
Tonight was the latest installment of the Optional Forms of Government Study Commission meeting: a pointless waste of three hours that got absolutely nothing done.
One interesting thing that was brought up was the point of Brian Cleary when he asked why this whole process is seemingly backwards. Botting didn’t want any discussion about the specifics of alternate forms of government during the interview process, he wanted to wait until deliberations. Now that they’re in the deliberations portion, they’ve decided on an alternate form and are trying to find reasoning around why they think it’s better. When Cleary points this out Botting’s answer was “well, people were getting emotionally charged over electing vs. appointing the sheriff and we had to start with SOMETHING.” (I’m paraphrasing)
I’m going to end with the table that the study commission has been working through the last 3-4 weeks but before that I just want to remind everyone that the public hearing is scheduled for January 19th. This is going to be your ONLY chance to tell the study commission what you think of their recommendation to the 5-person commissioner PLUS county manager.
If we put aside the millions of dollars of extra cost to change to a different form of government, no one has answered the question about whether our government is so broken to warrant a change….or if we just need to replace the PEOPLE in those positions.
Below is the table of strengths and weaknesses that they came up with for the current form of government and the one that majority “agreed” to recommend (by a 5-4 vote). I have included ALL strengths and weaknesses; the last few weeks have been discussing whether they are really facts, opinions, everything else.
5 Commissioners with Manager