Thursday, September 28, 2006

...and then there were 36

The board voted to reduce itself to 36 on Tuesday. The Northwestern has some stong opinions about it here and here.

The OshNW is being a little unfair in my opinion by telling only half the story. What is the rate of competition for the seats of those supervisors that voted no?

They make it seem like only the ones safe in their seats voted yes. There are many supervisors who voted no that are also safe in their seats.

This goes into the reason that I voted no on this resolution (and would have voted no on all of them given the chance). There is no hard data on any number indicating that it would be a good level of representation.

I think Vice-Chair Schaidler put it the most eloquently. Even if we half the board, there would be no net increase in the number of people running for these seats, there would only be less seats to run for.

Until I am presented with a reasoned explanation along with a plan for board function, I will vote no for any change in the board size whether it is at the board itself, or on a referendum.

I also do not believe that the 1990 study is relevent anymore. It may be helpful, but the duties, function ond funding of county government hav substantially changed in the last 16 years.

I agree that we need a real study. We should vote on facts and reasoned consequences not whim, fear or emotion.

As always, contact me anytime to share your opinion or with any questions.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the 2 more recent studies?

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the current 38 was split and 19 ran vs the other 19 we would at least have debate of the issues before electing a representative. Is that a bad thing?

11:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home