Some County Reorganization "Group" Members Don't Necessarily Agree with a Strong Elected County Administrator

I'll never support establishing a powerful "KING" elected County Administrator.  Never. To do so would be an absolute disaster.

I wrote last week about the initiative to radically transform Escambia County's current governance structure--being spearheaded by downtown businessman John Peacock.

Rick Outzen published a list of individuals purportedly "supporting" this radical change.

And I know many on the list so I have now had the opportunity to speak with a number of them personally on this topic specifically.

One I spoke with said simply "I was asked to attend a meeting and provide input, and that's what I did.  I didn't know my name was going to be used and associated with supporting this effort, though."  This individual continued  "I received a couple of emails and I stopped responding and stopped attending--I agree with some of what they are trying to do--but certainly not all of it."

Another individual, with whom I am very well acquainted and with whom I speak very frequently, summed it up succinctly  "Jeff, I am supportive of making the 5 elected commissioners be voted on county-wide like most commissioners are around the state--but knowing the civil rights rulings out there I knew this would not be possible--so I was supportive of the idea of going with 7 commissioners, two of

which would be 'at large'.  That was my interest in attending" he concluded.

I've spoken with former elected officials that were involved with the previous effort to establish a charter for Escambia County--and the sentiment is mixed on whether or not having done this back in 2009-2010 would have been beneficial for us today.

So I stand by what I have said all along--I'm willing to listen, I'm willing to have a discussion.

But I don't see this effort getting legs and gaining traction--for the following two critical reasons:

1.  I do not believe there are three commissioners willing to cede their ability to hire an administrator to carry out important board policy and initiatives  in favor of allowing a select cabal of monied, downtown interests to "anoint" a hand-selected person for whom they would raise money and install as a powerful "king" administrator.  (I lived this in the school district for 10 years with a king, boss hog superintendent--I'll never support doing this in the county and in fact I'll vehemently oppose it actively)

2.  While I strongly support the concept of having four of us run county-wide (1,2, 4 and 5)--with D3 remaining a district-specific elected seat in the minority-majority district to comport with the McMillan Decision---OR establishing a 7-Member Comission with the addition of 2 At-Large seats---I have already brought these concepts before this current board and there was no appetite, whatsover, to even pursue further discussion on it.  The board, according to what I heard back from them when I brought this--didn't favor the ideas or the concepts.  So unless their opinions have changed considerably and radically in the 8 months since I brought these ideas---it appears to me that this is a non-starter.

So if it is a NO for a king/boss hogg administrator and a NO for at large elected commissioners---what else is left?  Some minor, functional division consolidation?  maybe?  or would anything else besides the two biggies be simply "tweaking at the margins?"

Nope.  I don't see this latest push going anywhere.  But we shall see what the discussion brings.