Spending it Right

The Board of County Commissioners recently approved a tentative budget and millage rate, accomplishing a modest, at best, decrease in spending and property tax collections through what could only be termed questionable means.

By socking away a chunk of those back-door tax increases collected during the run-up of the real estate market earlier this decade, commissioners were able to shave a bit on the spending side and a bit on the property tax collection side.

Nothing earth-shattering, certainly nothing that could remotely be called easing the yoke placed on the shoulders of taxpayers the first half of this decade.

And certainly not uniform in that a few constitutional officers and department heads seemed to understand how the landscape has changed in the past three or four years and a few, including several commissioners, seem oblivious.

That the county will continue to be one of the most taxing, per capita, in the state of Florida is hardly cause for popping the champagne cork.

A troubling aspect to these choices, including the $1,200 handed out across the board to county employees and tapping these deep reserves to keep spending and property tax collections tamped close to the status quo, underscores a put-off-until-tomorrow mindset from a board charged with providing short- and long-term leadership for the entire county.

Those last two words should be highlighted.
Commissioners have run away from the issue of county-wide voting almost as fast as voters have embraced it, another example of the wide chasm that exists between the real world and the sanctity of the Commission meeting chambers.

Voters have overwhelmingly approved a return to county-wide voting and away from the parochial single-member districts, but unfortunately face a high hurdle with the current board.

Commissioners have turned the issue back at the public, which they allegedly serve, by earmarking no funds to overturn the federal court edict on county-wide voting year after year.

Despite the resounding voice of the voters, commissioners have tuned it out.

So while socking away all those tax dollars to be used this year in order to dodge tough decisions and provide pay raises - permanent pay raises, along with increases in retirement and other benefits - a small amount of that money could grant voters' desires.

In nearby Washington County, once under a similar federal edict, it cost all of $35,000 to overturn single-member districts and return to county-wide voting.

A federal judge's ruling in a case involving redrawing districts in Franklin County appears - though few legal minds seem to think alike - to open the door for the county to move away from single-member districts.

This is a demonstrably winnable case, one that is demonstrably cost-efficient, but no, commissioners want as much to do with county-wide voting as the plague.

So, best to turn it back at commissioners to answer the hard questions.

What are the advantages of county-wide voting? Why is this jerry-rigged system of government more efficient, transparent and accountable to all citizens of Franklin County?

Where is the accountability, the efficiency, even the transparency, in a government that is effectively five separate fiefdoms as opposed to a county-wide system of governance?

How is allowing individual voters a mere 20 percent say in how the county is operated and led a good thing, as opposed, say, to the case of constitutional officers, who must face 100 percent of the voting public every four years?

How does being answerable, accountable, to only 20 percent of the voters every four years provide an incentive to think and lead for all, to consider the entire county and not a single district when making decisions that will impact citizens, taxpayers, today and for years to come?

How has ensuring a minority voice on the Board of County Commissioners improved life in minority neighborhoods, such as the so-called "Hill" in the county? Minority voice is no longer solely about race, but economic disparity and single-member districts seem enablers, not solutions, to that issue.

Finally, if commissioners were going to place the question before voters and then ignore the answer, why bother with the whole exercise?

What commissioners should provide are sensible, viable answers to those questions.

What commissioners too often seem to ignore is that they work for the public, that the proper use of taxpayer dollars are a significant part of their sworn charge.

Seems there could be no better way to use those taxpayer dollars banked over the years - remember, the public's dollars - than to address an issue the public deems pressing.

And yet the silence from commissioners is deafening.