In a public meeting a couple weeks back, someone voiced the opinion there are only a few people pushing the notion that Pickens County should change to a multi-member commission.
Among those pushing for the change, it was suggested, is this newspaper.
Not true. We have been covering the work of people who desire a change and those working to provide information about it. We did not advocate for the group drafting legislation for the ballot, nor have we ever endorsed the idea that multiple-heads are better than one.
The effort to move toward a multi-member commission arose after straw polls in the July 15, 2008 election showed a clear majority of Pickens voters (78 percent among Democrats; 59 among Republicans) favored a change.
We have produced a vast amount of coverage, detailing information presented by the committee charged with deciding what they figure to be the best form of multi-member government to put on the ballot. That would be the CAC.
If the Georgia legislature votes this winter to provide Pickens County voters the choice, the November 2010 general election ballot will include a referendum to pick between the form of county government suggested by the group (see page 1A) or our current one commissioner form.
As prescribed when reporting, we cover the work of others, striving to avoid any offer of our own opinion. Reporting on something doesn’t mean we support it. Our intent with this issue has simply been to inform the public on the work of the committee involved as it narrowed its recommendation for the ballot to a single option.
We did not endorse recent millage rate hikes, nor did we agree with all opinions voiced in opposition to hikes at hearings for that purpose. We just reported both sides.
A key difference with our multi-member commission coverage is, at this point, only one side has been presented. So far, people have worked out which multi-member style of government to put on a ballot versus the current sole commissioner form of government. At this preliminary round, few have argued yet publicly to stay with the sole commissioner form, while there has been a wealth of discussion on multi-member forms.
We have faithfully sent a reporter to all substantial meetings of the multi-member research group (the CAC).
If you followed her stories in the Progress, you read exactly how the committee and sub-committees went about their business, and you read their comments just prior to their final choice last week. All that past coverage is available on our website: www.pickensprogress.com.
We have had an editorial or two urging people to find out more and to look at more than personalities when they make this decision at the polls. People change, but whatever style of government we confirm by vote we’re likely stuck with it for at least a decade.
Even now we’re not endorsing a ballot decision for or against. But there is one aspect of the process we unabashedly support: an educated populace. We are biased in the belief that, when this election arrives in 13 months, you should know the issues and be able to make an informed decision.
Moving from one commissioner to a five-member board with a part-time chair elected at large, operating with a county manager and four districts, is a matter the average citizen can study in that amount of time to arrive at their own personal decision.
Haven’t kept up with the CAC’s work so far? No big deal. You still have time to find out why some folks think we need a change. Even if it’s only to convince yourself a single commissioner is all we need here, take a look at the options. Think about it: Would you go to a car dealer and only look at one model? |
|
