Changing the way we vote for commissioners
Chairman Jack Conway will be introducing a resolution to change the way we elect county commissioners this month. It is a repeat of the same resolution (passed on a 3-2 vote last year) that will ask our state legislature to allow the county to elect commissioners by district only, instead of county-wide elections, and to add a full-time commission chairman to the board. Actually, the resolution doesn't specifically call for a full-time chairman, it merely designates one as a figurehead who runs meetings, sets agendas, and attends ceremonies. But it could very easily be made into a full-time position without any further approval from the legislature, which is exactly what certain people in the administration building want.

I think Chairman Conway is dead wrong on this issue, for a number of reasons.
First, no one has brought this issue up at the county level in the past election cycle, except for those people who ran for office. The county population by and large does not have an issue with how we elect our county commissioners, only candidates and elected politicians. Is that reason enough to make the change? I don't think so. Proponents say it will make it easier for people to run for office, and will give voters a wider choice in candidates to vote for in elections. It will also supposedly make it less expensive for candidates to run for an office if their voter base is reduced by 4/5. Some others say that since nearly every other county elects their officials by district, we should, too. But let's look at some facts, keeping the emotion out of the mix.

Easier to run for office - Should we have people running for elected office who don't take the time to think long and hard before deciding to run, whether it is due to the time involved in serving, or the time and expense of running? The last thing voters need are more candidates deciding to run for public office on a whim.

A wide choice of candidates - Let's see - three people qualified for Post 4; all Republican, four people qualified for Post 2; three Republicans and one Democrat, and FIVE people qualified for Post 5 county commission, all Republican. Does that seem to be a shortage of candidates to anyone out there?

Less expensive to run for office - Who pays for a run for office? Unless you are Joe Hart or some kind of millionaire, campaign contributors pay for the candidate to run for office. By and large, it doesn't cost a candidate any large sum of money to run for county commission. I ran my campaign against a well-known county figure on just $3,300, and even though he didn't actively campaign himself, his name recognition went a long way for him. The biggest issue for any candidate is time. And if you don't want to spend the time to canvas the county to gain election to the commission, don't run.

Everyone else does it - Nearly everyone else has a higher tax rate than we do. Should we copy them, too? Everyone else has lower average home prices than we do. Do we copy them, too? I'm willing to steal shamelessly from anyone who has a better idea, but no one has convinced me this election plan improves anything. People will say that we elect our state representatives, by district, so why not our commissioners? True, we do elect by district state-wide, because they need to represent the areas they support, and electing reps by state-wide vote would be too un-wieldy. We can still elect county-wide due to our size and scope of our jobs. And we still represent our individual commissioner districts in the same way any district-elected official would.

Why we shouldn't adopt this plan.
I've always been a firm believer that you do things to either improve services, or save money. This plan does nothing to improve services; district-only commissioners will still have the same constituents to represent as at-large commissioners have today, so this plan fails the improvement test. It doesn't save money, because the full-time chairman, a position who's duties are not even remotely defined, is also paid a full-time salary. Even if a sixth commissioner as chairman is created and doesn't become full-time, it is still a waste of money on a figurehead. This plan separates commissioners into distinct districts, making them beholden to only those areas they represent. One of the reasons we have so few repeat commissioners each election cycle is because they forget who they represent, which are the taxpayers and citizens of Forsyth County. Do we really need to have these same people reelected each and every time, even though they ignore the wishes of the majority of residents? That is a very bad idea. This plan is an incumbent protection act, a retaliation strike against people who were elected against the wishes of the commissioners in power, and a power grab by those who want to see that power consolidated into one office holder.

I urge everyone reading this to contact their local state representative (Tom Knox, Jack Murphy or Amos Amerson) and senator (Bill Stephens or Chip Pearson) and tell them you do not want this change to occur in Forsyth County. They can stop this at the state level very easily, but they need your input! You can also let me know your opinion at dwrichard@forsythco.com