Change is overdue

Let’s face it: There are some compelling arguments on both sides of the debate over changing Kootenai County’s form of government.

Those who would have you vote “no” on the ballot measure say changing several positions from elected to appointed could erode checks and balances at the highest levels of county government. There is some truth to that.

Also, opponents of the proposed changes say the new model would introduce a layer of bureaucracy they deem unnecessary or downright dastardly.

Under the proposed form of government, the three county commissioners would hire a manager or administrator to manage much of the county’s day to day business. The manager and commissioners would hire four department heads that currently are elected: coroner, assessor, treasurer and clerk.

That’s a dramatic change that some in our community oppose vociferously. The Press editorial board, however, has been calling for similar change for years, and we commend the county commissioners for finally putting this item on the ballot for voters to decide. We know how we’ll vote: Yes. The benefits of change outweigh the risks.

Fifteen years ago, an independent study commission of nine citizens spent nine months — an estimated 1,000 hours — examining the way Kootenai County was being run. They insisted that because it was dysfunctional, voters should be given the choice to change it in November 1998.

“The structure of Kootenai County’s government is clearly broken, despite the pleadings of a few to the contrary,” they wrote. “Our system divides power and responsibility and assumes conflict. The proposed system is based on unity of power, cooperation and teamwork.

“. . .To retain the status quo is to ignore the obvious problems that already exist and will only continue to grow in the future. It is broken, and it must be fixed.”

The panel’s recommendations were: 1. Increase the number of county commissioners from three full time to five part time; 2. Hire a manager as administrative head of the county; 3. Make all six elected department head positions (those listed above plus the sheriff and county prosecutor) appointees by the county manager with confirmation from the three commissioners.

No public vote was forthcoming, despite promises to the contrary from the three county commissioners at that time, so nothing changed.

In 2005, another group was impaneled — a contingent of 10 outstanding citizens and civic leaders. That group likewise immersed itself in an objective analysis of the way the county was being administered, and not only did it urge a public vote for change but also proffered the same recommendations as the earlier group’s, with only one exception: keeping the sheriff and county prosecutor positions elected.

Both citizen volunteer groups extensively interviewed current and former county employees. That they came to essentially the same conclusions, eight years apart, is testament that the system is indeed broken.

Don’t take our word for it. Don’t take Commissioner Dan Green’s. The Press is publishing this editorial on cdapress.com and including both reports with it. We urge voters to read those objective and emphatic reports before deciding whether to stick with a broken status quo or opting for a more efficient and effective form of county government.