After the last local contentious elections (again), I was prepared to rest up. But there is no rest for the weary.
According to my sources, a proposal is afoot at the Rood Center to rekindle merging the offices of treasurer-tax collector and auditor-controller. And if that’s not enough, there will be a proposal to merge the county’s assessor and clerk-recorder’s office as well.
The electorate likely will get to decide whether the proposal is a judicious cost-saving plan — or one that undermines “checks and balances.” And that might come in November.
Either way, it ultimately could lead to an election that pits Sue Horne against Gregory Diaz for the combined office of clerk-recorder and assessor. And that will be a “battle royal” between the left and the right — for nonpartisan posts, mind you.
Once again, those of us in the middle risk getting run over. Regardless, I’m looking forward to a quiet, peaceful vacation in July, enjoying all that the Sierra has to offer. We’re going camping ASAP.
Back at the ranch, my two cents would have been to let sleeping dogs lie.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Wow – that sounds like a hefty work load! Wonder if Sue Horne (or anyone else) really wants that?
I commend Mr. Diaz for staying his appointed course with grace and continuing to serve with excellence in his elected office in spite of the harassment and badgering of the racially biased elements in our county.
Hmmmm….I am wondering about the economic analysis behind this. Frankly I doubt merging these offices would really save that much money compared to the risks. The work load on each of these offices is already pretty high from my anecdotal observations, and merging simply means one needs a higher level subordinate to take on the specialized skills required in each one. This should be a non-partisan economic and governmental efficiency discussion–tempered with a little understanding of how other jurisdictions have fared after similar mergers. Somehow I am not hopeful it will be approached that way in the public—seems like it could be another opportunity for the ‘ shrink government down to the size where you can drown it in the bathtub’ crowd.
I think the clerk-recorder has quite enough work as it. I’m not sure about merging the other two, but the clerk-recorder has such a different focus that I believe it would be a disaster.
P.S. Is this being brought to us by the same folks who wanted to privatize the library? Just wondering.
Assessor and Clerk Recorder? Since the Clerk Recorder has special certification how does that work? Clerk Recorder heads up both operations? Besides, the purpose and functions of each don’t overlap or are compatible. This is what happens when there’s a push to shrink government so much that it can’t function.
I’m not a big fan of such ministerial positions being elected. Don’t we elect the Board of Supervisors to hire for such positions, anyway? Let the Board of Supervisors take the time to organize the county government, and then hold them accountable at the ballot box. It would shorten our ballot, and give the Board of Supervisors one less excuse when things go wrong.
BTW: I never feel particularly competent when evaluating the candidates for such positions, anyway–and I do not like the way that partisan politics seems to push in to these elections in places like Nevada County.
Tony, most clerk recorders, auditors, controllers, assessors and treasurers-tax collectors in California are elected offices (in various configurations) at the County level, in order to separate their powers from the decision-making powers of Supervisors. In theory this reduces corruption by not giving Supervisors the oversight of contracts, property valuation and taxation, and elections.
Steve:
I get all this. But why is an elected who needs campaign contributions less accountable to a Board which can fire them “at will”.
A number of other major county positions which handle contracts (e.g. Director of Public Works, the head of the County Health Agency, etc.) are all appointed. Does this make these positions more corrupt?
Tony
Tony, I am a bit of a novice at figuring out the rationale behind this issue, and am learning as a I do a little research, but here is what I think I have learned so far.
If the BOS makes contract, land use, and zoning decisions that can substantively enrich particular contractors, land-owners and businesses or individuals, the role of the auditor and controller is to review those contracts from the safety of a separate elected office to ensure that favors are not bestowed (to family, friends, or campaign contributors).
In addition, the auditor reviews the actions of each individual department and agency of local government, and the treasurer-tax collector invests funds on behalf of the local government, giving them the security of not being able to pressured from the local government that they would be overseen by if they were a department of local government.
I’m not sure their independent status as elected officials, and need for campaign contributions, would make then inherently less corrupt (we are of course speaking theoretically here since I don’t think any of our local electeds are corrupt), but it does create a separation between the decisions at the Board level and the treasurer/auditor/assessor/tax collector level and the decisions that would be most likely able to enrich special interests.
By the way, aren’t the contracts done by the County Health Agency or the Public Works department reviewed by the auditor and controller? I think they are….so they play the function of being a separate branch upholding a specific set of standards.
Its really a microcosm of the “checks and balances” argument.
I plan to look at other jurisdictions that have looked at mergers to see if there are successful examples out there and what the savings have been. I also plan to look at California law to see what the rules around this are….I suspect some of these offices are constitutionally created and thus may be required to maintain independent status, but as I said, I know little of this issue, and am feeling my way as you are.
Cheers
Steve
Yubanet has now weighed in on this story:
http://yubanet.com/regional/Merced-Treasurer-Tax-Collector-to-Nevada-County-BOS-DO-NOT-APPROVE-the-Consolidation-of-Treasurer-Tax-Collector-Auditor-Controller.php#.T-MVpxzDYeV
This is nothing but a power grab by the Board of Supervisors intended to weaken the electorate. So now we get to vote for one or two positions instead of four. This is a terrible idea and is bound to be the springboard for a recall effort of any supervisor who votes for it.