A referendum that counted for zilch

by David Grand
November 7, 2007

When I was with the Federal government--you notice I didn't say worked for the government since that would open me up to ridicule--I became intimately acquainted with three ladies: Miss-Management, Miss-Appropriation and Miss-Feasance.

I thought that when I finally took my head out of the public trough, that would be the last I'd see of those witches, who'd bedeviled me for nearly 30 years.

But alas, it was not to be, what with one of them, Miss-Feasance, (who I detested perhaps the most) following me all the way to Carroll County.

At first I taunted her for wasting her time by thinking she could latch on to any local politicians here and influence them to "perform a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner."

As it turned out, however, I was wrong as sin, as she cast her evil spell on most members of the state delegation at a meeting in December 2005, held for the purpose of voting on which of the two commissioner's district maps (referred to as Option 1 and Option 2) they'd submit at the upcoming legislative session.

The latter option--delineating the five commissioner districts that voters overwhelmingly approved and that the districting committee recommended be adopted by the delegation--ended up being deep-sixed with no discussion before I even got there; while the first option, that depicted the district lines the minority Republicans on that committee favored, won by a vote of 5-2.

That had to be the most blatant stacked deck, I'd recall thinking, since the Supreme Court handed Bush the presidency on a platter. Now, I was aware that Sen. Haines would do everything possible to defeat the voter's choice--even if it meant in so doing he'd be violating his sworn duty to be the servant of the people, not its master--but that he would do it so flagrantly can only be viewed as the height of arrogance.

While I was not in the least surprised that Delegates Nancy Stocksdale and Tanya Shewell supported him, that Senators David Brinkley and Allan Kittleman also jumped aboard the Haines' bandwagon was a real eye-opener, since neither of 'em were beholden to Haines for their election, what with their respective districts having only a toehold in Carroll.

And the reasons they later told reporters for voting for Option 1 were as specious as the justification we were given for invading Iraq. But at least delegates Donald Elliott and Susan Krebs showed proper respect for the will of the people.

 That most of them are still as muddleheaded in their thinking today as they were back then was made abundantly clear at the meeting recently held at a local restaurant, where they went over a revised districting plan presented by Del. Elliott. It varies from what was previously known as Option 2, in that it calls for one commissioner in each of four districts, with the fifth commissioner (who'd be the president of the board) elected at large. My only thought was, why tamper with an approved product if not for other than political gain?

Although no consensus was reached, they did agree to hold public hearings on it, albeit with Sen. Haines repeating (like a broken record) his preference for all commissioners to be elected at large. Translation: the voters be dammed.

That's so much balderdash was my reaction, for public hearings would only be popularity contests. And that the only and "right" way to gauge the voter's sentiments about the changes would be by submitting the altered plan to a referendum. Not to, would be adding insult to injury and surely be remembered by voters when they're up for reelection.