Size matters with county commissioners

Is five preferable to three? Absolutely. Personally, I think seven is even better. But last night I learned that no Oregon county has more than five county commissioners.

It's hard to imagine that a meeting with the geeky title of "Marion County Governance in the 21^st Century" would be as interesting as it was. Before I headed off to the Salem Public Library to attend this Friends of Marion County forum, I considered taking along a super-sized latte to be sure I stayed awake.

But it was surprisingly engaging. The reason for the get-together was to explore the pros and cons of expanding the Marion County board of commissioners from three to five members.

Voters in Clackamas County recently approved such a move. Ron Johnson, former chair of the county Planning Commission, said that unchecked dysfunctional growth convinced both political leaders and citizens that more heads around the board of commissioners table would make for better decision-making.

Peter Sorenson, a Lane County commissioner, gave the same message. Five commissioners leads to fewer problems and better results.

The math is simple: two people making a decision versus three. With five commissioners it takes more talking to get something done. And that's good.

Under Oregon's public meetings law, a majority of a decision-making body can't discuss an issue up for a vote in private. So two people on a three member board can't have a working coffee or lunch together. With a five member board, they can.

I asked Sorenson why the usual governmental system of checks and balances doesn't apply at the county level. Usually there are separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches – like the President of the United States, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

But in Oregon a board of commissioners can administer county departments (including hiring and firing managers), pass ordinances, and then make quasi-judicial decisions on those ordinances.

I said that this seemed like too much concentration of power. Sorenson replied that in land use planning matters there'd been a state legislative effort to have cases appealed to a state hearings officer, which makes a lot of sense. It didn't go anywhere.

Too bad. However, enlarging the number of people making county decisions, quasi-judicial or otherwise, would help to diffuse the power of a single commissioner – which obviously is high in a three-person board where two rule.

Those attending the meeting filled out a questionnaire asking which of various options they preferred. Three or five members? Elected county wide or by districts? With an elected chair or a rotating chair?

It'd take an initiative to change the board structure. That could be referred to voters by the current board of commissioners (the easy way), or signatures could be gathered (the harder way).

Even harder would be changing Marion County from a General Law to a Home Rule governance. This is an ever geekier subject that I won't attempt to describe.

Janet Carlson, chair of the county board of commissioners, came to the forum and made some remarks as an audience member. Kudos to Commissioner Carlson. The current board should seriously consider expanding from three to five members.

Hopefully there will be enough interest in this issue to keep the discussion going. Admittedly, it isn't the most provocative political topic at the moment, with the presidential race so hot and furious. Still, it holds the promise of improving how Marion County is governed – an undeniably good thing.

Comments

[SalemWatcher]

First off, Carlson isn't the chair. It's Brenano. But don't let that stop you from kissing her butt every chance you get for always voting your way on land use decisions. Second, this is simply a move by the democrat party (and their allies like Friends of Marion County) to expand their influence on the county commission by increasing their chances to be elected. But that probably won't happen unless the county is broken up into districts based on population, with at least two of those being in the Salem area. That's the only way it will happen.

This is a pretty thin disguise. Good governance = demorat control. Gee, who could have a problem with that? It just makes good sense, right?

[Brian]

Carlson was the chair in 2007. I gather they switched chairs in 2008. If so, I stand corrected.

Sure, Friends of Marion County wants to see better representation of the citizens on the board of commissioners. How is that a bad thing?

In Clackamas County, the move from three to five passed with well over 60% voter approval, if I remember correctly. And that county isn't a hotbed of Democrat progressivism.

I don't see this as a political issue, though it has political overtones. More decision makers means better decisions, because alternative views have to be considered more carefully.

Groupthink isn't good. And that's more likely to happen when a group of two rules, rather than three.

[SalemWatcher]

So what happens when three people gang up on the minority two? Should we then expand to seven, so a majority of four can oppress a minority of three? The larger the board becomes, the more people end up being oppressed in a minority. :)

Don't worry, I know that's ridiculous logic, and it's sure not something I'll hang my hat on. But the facts are there will always be a majority and minority on decisions. At Marion County, those seem to switch around, depending on the issue. The benefit of a three commissioner board is they are not allowed to deliberate amongst themselves outside a public meeting because it would constitute a "majority." If you expand to five, you allow two commissioners to meet secretly, craft an agenda and pursue a result without the benefit of public oversight. We saw how that all went down in Multnomah County. Not pretty, regardless of how you feel about their politics. Government in ANY form is going to be imperfect at best, but moving from three to five is going to lead to a lot more infighting and a definite lack of public oversight. Sure, "Friends of Marion County" might benefit in the short term on a couple of land use decisions, but it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. When the worm turns, what happens when they are get more government than they bargained for?

[HarryVanderpool]

I agree with both of you.
Rather than risk ending up with two more knuckleheads, lets just use the election process to replace the two that we already have.....

Putin and Bush are seated in a restaurant.
The waiter approaches the table and says, "I am ready to take your order".
Putin says, "I'll take steak".
"And as for the vegetable?" the waiter asks.
Putin replies, "Oh, he'll take steak also".
:-Q