Update on Board Size
I received a question on where things sit now. Here is where it is as I currently understand it...
(For the record, I am still of the mind that 38 supervisors is a perfectly workable number. In fact, looking at it, there are many boards with fewer members that cost their counties a lot more.)
1 - CUT Lawsuit:
The first hearing is Thursday. This is the email I got from County Clerk Sue Ertmer:
2 - Maps:
The 36 member map was passed by the board and vetoed by County Exec Harris. Mr. Harris indicated that he did not believe we should approve a map while there was a court case pending.
I voted for the map, because I believe that if the board passed 36 members (which I voted against, see statement above) we need to make a map, so both elected members, prospective candidates and other interested parties can make plans.
Also, if, as we had been indicated, the map provided the lowest disparity in population - we should have that as the first and only criteria for approval above any political considerations.
Because the map was vetoed and that veto was not over-ridden, the map question went back to the judiciary committee. This is why they will be reviewing maps again next week. I hope we resolve this part of the issue at this month's board meeting.
3 - Board Re-organization Committee Recommendation:
A recommendation came from the committee to re-organize under a 28-member structure after the 2010 census. I have not seen a resolution before the full board for this as of yet.
If this is passed by the board, it would be independent of any other action. After the census, the board has the ability to give itself any size it feels necessary. If we end up at 19 or 36 after all these actions, we can re-organize our size every 10 years as we see fit.
As I have said all along, without a real plan - including an organizational structure - I will not support any number other than 38. Otherwise we are merely picking numbers out of a hat. That is no way to run a government.
If I have anything wrong in this, feel free to post a comment.
(For the record, I am still of the mind that 38 supervisors is a perfectly workable number. In fact, looking at it, there are many boards with fewer members that cost their counties a lot more.)
1 - CUT Lawsuit:
The first hearing is Thursday. This is the email I got from County Clerk Sue Ertmer:
Just a reminder that the hearing on the CUT petitions will be held this Thursday (February 8) at 2:00 p.m. in Judge Schmidt's courtroom in the Safety Building.They are (still) pushing to get the referendum for 19 supervisors. Unless it all gets wrapped up in this hearing, it is unlikely that any action on this will be in time to make the ballot in April. Otherwise, there is not another election until the Feb 08 primaries.
2 - Maps:
The 36 member map was passed by the board and vetoed by County Exec Harris. Mr. Harris indicated that he did not believe we should approve a map while there was a court case pending.
I voted for the map, because I believe that if the board passed 36 members (which I voted against, see statement above) we need to make a map, so both elected members, prospective candidates and other interested parties can make plans.
Also, if, as we had been indicated, the map provided the lowest disparity in population - we should have that as the first and only criteria for approval above any political considerations.
Because the map was vetoed and that veto was not over-ridden, the map question went back to the judiciary committee. This is why they will be reviewing maps again next week. I hope we resolve this part of the issue at this month's board meeting.
3 - Board Re-organization Committee Recommendation:
A recommendation came from the committee to re-organize under a 28-member structure after the 2010 census. I have not seen a resolution before the full board for this as of yet.
If this is passed by the board, it would be independent of any other action. After the census, the board has the ability to give itself any size it feels necessary. If we end up at 19 or 36 after all these actions, we can re-organize our size every 10 years as we see fit.
As I have said all along, without a real plan - including an organizational structure - I will not support any number other than 38. Otherwise we are merely picking numbers out of a hat. That is no way to run a government.
If I have anything wrong in this, feel free to post a comment.
Labels: Board Size
posted by Jef Hall at 7:43 AM
1 Comments:
Jef,
Thank you for keeping us up to date on this!
Post a Comment
<< Home