 |
| Sometimes what some put forth as "solutions" to pressing issues are nothing more that veiled attempts at greater degrees of control...... |
Ho hum.
I met with John Peacock earlier this year on this topic. I told him then, in my office to his face, I was open to look at what he is considering--even willing to discuss it at a workshop with my peers---as we cannot discuss anything outside of these meetings. My understanding is we will have such a discussion at an upcoming committee of the whole.
Good.
But my willingness to discuss these ideas does not signal my support of these concepts--and I told Peacock this as well to his face; he left the meeting knowing I do not support an elected executive administrator for the county.
And reading the tea leaves from earlier discussions I have held with my counterparts over my idea to make 4 of 5 districts at large--I see no appetite thus far leading me to believe there is support for an even more radical transformation of the board's makeup the likes of which Peacock's group is proposing.
Wanting to create efficiencies for taxpayers and save by consolidating some functions in common with other entities? Yes--that makes sense and I could support such a plan if it was well thought out and was efficient and effective.
Wanting a strong, independently-elected "County Mayor" for our organization? No, that is a horrible idea. Absolutely terrible and I do not, will not and cannot support that. And, again, I told Peacock this.
It was bad enough ceding all power to ONE king superintendent in the county's school district where I served 10 years...and where on many occassions the duly elected 5-member board's staffing ideas were
