In a bizarrely twisted editorial The World admits Commissioner Fred Messerle used poor judgment when he unilaterally reduced fees at the planning department and implies the command was either invalid or that he doesn’t have the respect of county staff and that lack of accountability precludes any incentive for Messerle to make good decisions.
The fee scenario would have gone differently with an administrator. A top executive’s authority generally is clearly defined and appropriately limited. Department heads wouldn’t dare defy valid commands. On the other hand, if the administrator’s decisions turn out badly, the county commissioners can hold him or her accountable. Accountability encourages caution and communication.
The paper has caught itself between a rock and a hard place. First, it is trying to help elect a man who applied for one job but now admits and has demonstrated and the paper agrees isn’t qualified for and who is now campaigning for a job description that doesn’t yet exist. Second, it wants to promote a centralized power structure with the hiring of a professional administrator empowered to make discretionary decisions and act unilaterally and then uses a bad unilateral decision as a supporting argument. The editors are going to lose some paint maneuvering through this dead end canyon.
Finally, has the paper actually read the proposed ordinance? The editors claim, “A top executive’s authority generally is clearly defined and appropriately limited.” SECTION 01.06.050 Authority of County Administrator of the proposed governance change ordinance, however, states “The Board hereby delegates to the County Administrator broad authority to perform his or her job functions.”
If, and only if, you want a demonstration in pretzel logic, read today’s editorial here
It is true, the paper actually says Fred has poor judgment and no leadership, also true but quite something coming from The World editors
The ordinance authors fail to take into consideration the scope of county government compared to a hospital board or a school district or a municipality. Perhaps it is deliberate or not but it seems that one of the arguments in favor of volunteer commissioners and an administrator is simply because “everyone else is doing it”…
There is much more in section 050 to be concerned about. As the ordinance is written, the commissioners could delegate 100% of their duties to an adminsitrator. And, for $1,000 a month, that may be OK. But remember, as the ordinance is written, another section permits the commissioners to raise their slaries and perks from $1,000 a month to any amount, maybe more than the present $90,000 salary and perks, after one year. The section appears to create another position called Budget Officer. And we can’t forget that along with all these duties delegated over the entire county, thats not true. The admisnistrator will have no ability to direct anything in the sheriffs office, the county clerks office, the surveyors office, the assessors office, the treasurers office, the courts, (that’s a bunch of people) as the law gives all powers to the elected people who head those departments.
The Sentinel got a copy of some comments that were sent to Parry and published them last Wednesday as a Letter to the Editor. It’s many columns long.