Avoiding the discussion

In what is actually a welcome development, I'm getting a lot of constructive feedback on my column regarding the proposed changes to Oconee County's governmental structure. Obviously, as evident by some of the comments emailed to me and posted here, there is some healthy disagreement with my position which is the proposed changes to the structure are an overreaction to a concern over communication.

And, to be fair, it isn't as if I'm discounting those valid counterviews. In fact, in most areas, I think we have more agreements then disagreements. My position has largely remained the same, which is that basing a massive overhaul of the county's government because communication is inefficient isn't a compelling argument to me, and I still stand by the line of thought.

The disagreements, it seems, stems from the position that there's more to it that simply communication and there's a broader picture (that 'communication' is code for 'authority and oversight'). Fair enough, but one can't put forward journalistic commentary or reporting on heresay or small town inside baseball.

So, as I've argued, make that case on its merits.

Why are we shirking what is apparently a necessary and needed debate over the authority, responsibility and, yes, power of the position of the chairman and foolishly masking it under the guise of 'well, I'm not getting enough emails on this topic?'

To me at least, that seems to be an amateurish way of avoiding the real problem, and it's sophomoric to then get flustered when, you know, someone calls you out on it.

As I noted in the close of my column ...

If the problem is communication, then how does changing Davis' day-to-day responsibilities fix that? If the problem is communication, how does drowning a variety of staff under a deluge of voices increase efficiency?

If there is a legitimate need to dramatically restructure the government as this ordinance would do, then that case should be made to the public. If the influence of the chairman needs to be curbed, then that argument needs to be put forward beyond the parameters of merely improving communication.

To date, I can only point to Commissioner Chuck Horton who, when he campaigned for the Oconee County Commission last year, openly called for a curbing of the authority granted to the chairman which, as I have repeatedly noted, is a perfectly legitimate position to hold (even if I have some personal disagreements given my inclination to support a strong mayor/chairman system of government).

So, again, my central position has been that couching the basis for restructuring the government under the auspices of 'improving communication' is fundamentally flawed because those changes can be alleviated through considerably less of an overhaul. However, if the intent is to limit the influence and authority of the chairman, then that position ought to be put forward with the appropriate arguments justifying that position.

Those positions are coming forward now, which is very welcome to see, but it's hardly fair to advance one argument up until the final minute and then, at the last second, revert to what it should have been all along and then blame me for being uninformed.