Tuesday, May 27, 2014

My testimony to the Freeholders.

I am opposed to this abortion of a county charter, warped and twisted by the leftists infesting us, a product of personal animus and leftist partisanship that bears no resemblance to anything approaching what's best for the people of Clark County.

Watch, fellow conservatives.  The fringe left nutters will be giddy about this piece of crap.  And the reality of those allegedly representing us on this board's true motives along with those of Greg Kimey... and God KNOWS, given how badly HE wants to be the county executive that will have ZERO impact on his deliberations... will be transparent for all to see.

The following is my testimony to the Clark County Freeholders.
My opposition to the county charter. 
Early on, in 2011, there was an effort to develop a county charter and put it to a vote of the people.
Both the Columbian and the democrats were opposed to such an effort: 
The Columbian writing 3 years ago (May 28):
Cheers: To county commissioners for putting an end to the home rule charter process this year.Inspecting methods of government is always a good idea, but there was no demonstrated need to elect a slate of freeholders to, in essence, draft a county charter that would replace the current system. A series of meetings produced no discernible public interest in the process outside of the same handful of activists who have promoted a county charter for years, only to lose at the polls. Better to save the staff time and the estimated $100,000 it would cost to sponsor an election.
The democrats writing in their newsletter:
Proposed changes in county charter could be awful 
Clark County’s government structure is somewhat antique and outdated. A system invented to manage road construction and not much else in the way of governance clanks along clumsily in a high-speed era of complex and varied civic action. 
Streamlining and modernizing the machine appeals to the progressive psyche, but the folks who have convinced the Board of Clark County Commissioners to consider adopting a new county charter have other agenda priorities. 
They hope to give rural interests dominance over urban values. They suppose they can make it harder for county government to raise and spend money on social problems and infrastructure capital. 
They are far away from achieving their goals, but inattention from thoughtful citizens could ease their path.
Without much evident public support, the charter-change advocates have persuaded the county commissioners to start the ball rolling toward charter change for the third time in recent history. In January the board formally adopted a resolution to consider a move from the present form of government to something different. 
Different how? That depends entirely on a panel of elected freeholders and how ably they can sell their program. 
So far the county commissioners have ordained that, should the charter process go forward, each of the three commissioner districts will be represented by five freeholders who would be elected at the Nov. 8 general election. Any registered voter would be qualified to seek election to the board of freeholders. Upon their election the  freeholders would establish a schedule of hearings and meetings for the consideration of what might be included in a new county charter. Upon a majority vote by the freeholders, the Board of Clark County Commissioners would be obliged by tradition if not certainly by law to lay the proposed charter before the electorate.
So, back when democrats controlled the county commission (And even with Marc Boldt and Tom Mielke on the commission, democrats controlled it) they were wildly opposed to it. 
Now that they’ve lost control of the commission, they seek to utilize the freeholder process to overturn the election results of November, 2012, and topple the conservative control of that commission… all their concerns listed above swept aside as they bask in the hatred of Commissioners Madore and Mielke by engaging in this obviously retaliatory effort to weaken the commission to the same stature as “hood ornament.”

“Hatred,” they’d gasp? Why, we don’t “hate” anyone! 
That’s a lie, of course. Merely glancing at their efforts to find a pretense to recall Commissioners Mielke and Madore… or their main hate site on facebook (The falsely named “Clark County Citizens for Good Governance,” a site that should be named something entirely different.) would quickly disabuse the reader from any conclusion save that this entire effort is retaliatory against the commissioners remaining.

We are told that government should never engage in a retaliatory practice. Yet, oddly, the entire basis for this activity is nothing BUT “retaliatory.” Repeated efforts have been made by some freeholders that even go far over the line into unconstitutional in their obvious and frequently admitted efforts to either get Sen. Don Benton out of the legislature or force him to resign from county government to remain a senator by the nonsensical effort to restrict county employees from running for partisan office. 
That variety of hatred... and that is entirely what that is… hatred… is the basis for all of this.

What we know is this: had then Commissioner Marc Boldt remained in office, none of this would be taking place and no effort would be underway to weaken to the point of absurdity the position of commissioner in this county. 
This isn’t about what’s best for the people of Clark County. This is about partisan hatred that is so obvious a blind dog could see it in a minute. Those pushing for this will never admit it, of course, but the reality does not in any way speak to “good governance,” nor does it speak for “what’s best” for the people, since the majority of those shilling this could give a damn about the people when it comes to their issues and projects that happen to conflict with the will of the people, even when expressed at the polls.

No, this effort is not even a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the will of the voters because a certain small and vocal segment of the people aided and abetted by the newspaper demands retaliation against the victors of November. 
In everything from the temporary reduction in pay (Which would only last until the Salary Commission ignored it) to the massive increases in costs of staff and infrastructure that a 5 commissioner board would require to the “cocooning” of Administration from the commissioners themselves… this is a bad idea designed to weaken the commission, increase the size of government and the costs that will go with it.

The veneer of respectability for this coup attempt does not change the fact that, at base, this is a result of the efforts of a group of angry people who were thwarted in their efforts to ram the CRC down our throats and because they didn't happen to like who got the gig for Director of Environmental Services. 
Your charge as a group is not to engage in retaliation. It’s no more acceptable for you to engage in that practice than it is for any governmental body to engage in it and God knows we’ve heard the newspaper whine about THAT. 
As a result, I urge a “no” vote on this misguided and partisan effort to inflict a life-long punishment of the people of this county for the actions of a few and at the behest of some who’s collective noses were disjointed when they lost… repeatedly... at the polls… an action that would be steadfastly opposed by many of these same people had the democrats kept control of the commission.

We are liable to suffer long-term pain for short-term satisfaction. And that, ladies and gentleman, is no way to govern. 
I will do all that I can to defeat this effort this November. And those of you voting for this ought to be ashamed of yourselves, since your alleged job is to put partisanship aside and do what’s best and what’s right for the people of this county, regardless of political affiliation. And no one with a straight face can remotely claim that this… is that.

No comments: