I supported the changes made by the Charter approved by the voters in 2005.
Thus, I am distressed that Proposition 2 would eliminate the present position of County Administrator, a professional position similar to that of a CEO in a private company, with a real role in the leadership of the county. This position fulfills an important part of the separation of powers concept of governance. The position prevents mismanagement and inappropriate, politically motivated intrusions into operations by the legislative branch.
The position of County Manager proposed by the Charter Review Committee sounds innocent enough but the differences are significant: The Manager position is more like an administrative assistant. Because of the lack of separation of the administrative and legislative branch—a key separation that Proposition 2 seeks to undo—the real people in charge would be, like before the Charter, the multi-headed Council, who as before would meddle giving conflicting direction to the “Manager” causing confusion, stagnation and legal chaos. I choose not to go back to this.
The challenges we face in our county are significant. We need the very best and most highly qualified administrator we can find to direct the complicated day-to-day operations of the County. The only way to ensure that we attract such a competent professional is by keeping the separation of powers and the position of County Administrator as set forth in the present Charter.
Please Vote No on Charter Review Props 1 and 2!
Peggy Hoyle
Orcas
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
I fully agree with Peggy Hoyle’s reasoning concerning Propositions 1 and 2. A real and effective separation of power is essential to good governance. As I stated previously on this matter, just imagine the U.S. Congress making AND implementing policy on a national basis. If we think we are having problems now . . .
Just because the current Charter provisions were ineffectively implemented is poor reason to return to the previous governing structure with all its inherent flaws. The motivations to move away from the former form of government are as valid today as they were when the new charter was accepted and adopted.
I will vote NO on propositions 1 and 2, and encourage others to do the same.
“We need the very best and most highly qualified administrator we can find to direct the complicated day-to-day operations of the County. The only way to ensure that we attract such a competent professional is by keeping the separation of powers and the position of County Administrator as set forth in the present Charter.” The problem is that we had what our leaders thought was the most highly-qualified administrator available for the past 5 years–even though we are a small county–and that was disastrous. The size of the administrative branch increased dramatically, with new positions such as Communications Director and Deputy Administrator added. Yet the Administrator functioned as a glorified amdinistrative assistant. I am not sure which Charter options I’ll support, but I do think that there are important arguments on both sides of each of the propositions, and that individual personalities have played (and will continue to play) a major role in how our government…