Kernan-Shepard
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
After reading Coroner John Sadler's recent letter to the editor printed in the Times-Union on Jan. 30th and having strong feelings on the issue myself, I thought it was a good time to publicly support their effort to try and defeat this legislation.
I guess my biggest problem is, what is the purpose behind the whole thing? I have heard it's for efficiency, I have heard it is to save money; I have heard it's an old archaic system that no longer works. Let's step back and take a look at this.
I have never seen a study or any evidence that appointed officials are any more efficient then elected ones are. I would argue the opposite.
As far as saving money, where is this coming from? Are they going to pay appointed officials less money then their elected counterparts? Again, I would argue the opposite, that they will be paid more not less.
I have a feeling we would hear how much more expertise and professionalism these appointed officials would have over the people's choice.
The last is my favorite: The same system that allows us to vote for governor and state legislators is too old and broken to be effective in voting for county and local offices? Does that make any sense to you?
As a former elected official who has had the opportunity to work with all the proposed eliminated offices and closely with the commissioners and coroner, I can't think of any good reason to make such a drastic change as recommended by the Kernan-Shepard report. I would challenge any state or national department to run anywhere close to as efficiently as our local commissioners or coroner's office.
After attending a meeting on the Kernan-Shepard report, I remembered hearing some of this same rhetoric before. It was a few years ago in Atwood in a meeting about closing our local schools. It was going to save money; be more efficient, etc. The problem was the people were against it. There were no complaints about the old archaic school, no real evidence on how it was going to save money. Doesn't all this sound a little too familiar? And let me ask, how's that school closing thing working out? That's another subject, I guess.
I urge you to join my friends, John Sadler and Julie Goon, along with the other local officials and volunteer firefighters in opposing this legislation.
I'm not against change. Sometimes change is good, sometimes change is bad. Sometimes, as in this case, I think our forefathers just got it right the first time.
Aaron Rovenstine
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
After reading Coroner John Sadler's recent letter to the editor printed in the Times-Union on Jan. 30th and having strong feelings on the issue myself, I thought it was a good time to publicly support their effort to try and defeat this legislation.
I guess my biggest problem is, what is the purpose behind the whole thing? I have heard it's for efficiency, I have heard it is to save money; I have heard it's an old archaic system that no longer works. Let's step back and take a look at this.
I have never seen a study or any evidence that appointed officials are any more efficient then elected ones are. I would argue the opposite.
As far as saving money, where is this coming from? Are they going to pay appointed officials less money then their elected counterparts? Again, I would argue the opposite, that they will be paid more not less.
I have a feeling we would hear how much more expertise and professionalism these appointed officials would have over the people's choice.
The last is my favorite: The same system that allows us to vote for governor and state legislators is too old and broken to be effective in voting for county and local offices? Does that make any sense to you?
As a former elected official who has had the opportunity to work with all the proposed eliminated offices and closely with the commissioners and coroner, I can't think of any good reason to make such a drastic change as recommended by the Kernan-Shepard report. I would challenge any state or national department to run anywhere close to as efficiently as our local commissioners or coroner's office.
After attending a meeting on the Kernan-Shepard report, I remembered hearing some of this same rhetoric before. It was a few years ago in Atwood in a meeting about closing our local schools. It was going to save money; be more efficient, etc. The problem was the people were against it. There were no complaints about the old archaic school, no real evidence on how it was going to save money. Doesn't all this sound a little too familiar? And let me ask, how's that school closing thing working out? That's another subject, I guess.
I urge you to join my friends, John Sadler and Julie Goon, along with the other local officials and volunteer firefighters in opposing this legislation.
I'm not against change. Sometimes change is good, sometimes change is bad. Sometimes, as in this case, I think our forefathers just got it right the first time.
Aaron Rovenstine
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092