Lighten up, commissioners

by David Grand
December 30, 2004

While I know they were greatly disappointed upon learning that Carrollians had voted by a wide margin for five commissioners at last month's election, I'd have thought by now they've quit pouting and would've accepted-however grudingly-that there'd be two more of 'em come the election in 2006.      

But apparently I was wrong, in view of their recent effort to claim the final say-so in deciding who, among the nominees submitted to them from the respective central committees and election board to serve on a committee given the task of drawing the lines of the five districts, are the most qualified.       

There was no clearer evidence of their intention than when they tried to do an end run around the State law by requesting the two political committees submit seven names instead of the three the law prescribes, and the Board of Election, three names rather than one.       

Nice try commissioners was my first reaction in reading of that ploy to give them the whip hand in picking its members, as opposed to accepting at face-value the nominations they'd be given.       

And apparently the attorney general's office saw it the same way, ruling that the commissioners have no role whatsoever to play in selecting who sits on that seven-member committee. He did, however, add that each group in forwarding their recommendations to the commissioners had the option of submitting more than the minimum number required under the law.     

Phooey to that said the Chairman of the GOP Central Committee David Jones. " We're sending in only three nominations," while his Democratic counterpart Laura O'Callaghan was noncommittal, saying "it's the quality not the quantity of the people that's important."      

To me, it was plain silly for the commissioners to try and involve themselves in the selection process, which made them appear as poor losers because the vote on expanding the board didn't turn out the way they hoped it would. And instead of shrugging it off Dean Minnich blew his cork, saying "it would be our team against their team," and threatened not to run for reelection in 2006. But I make allowances for all columnists-past and present-who use excessive hyperbole to drive a point home.      

And I can't figure out why they're so upset at the prospect of having two more nameplates sitting on the table where they meet and at public hearings. They won't have to give up any office space to accommodate the new arrivals, for when the County Office Building was expanded two offices were set aside in the event that the question on the 1997 ballot calling for a charter government or the one for five commissioners was passed. And they won't have to get up earlier to make sure they get a parking space in the section reserved for them, since two more spaces had also been created.       

Now, one doesn't need to be a mind reader to know that it isn't expanding the board to five that has them in such a tizzy, as it is their concern over who will be joining them, assuming they're reelected. And I'm sure the question that haunts them is: Will it be moderate Republicans like themselves who are elected, or will they be throwbacks to the last, pro-growth board from which the county is still recovering?       

And after seeing those political gadflies who campaigned so vigorously for expanding the board (all of whom have nothing but contempt for the incumbents), heaven help the county if any of them or their ilk are elected. There'd be a constant tug of war, with the county suffering for it.       

Between now and 2006, I'd suggest that the commissioners put their "worry beads" in a desk drawer, and quit setting up a "straw man" this far in advance of the 2006 election. And above all, to refrain from further interfering in the selection process for that committee, lest they be compared with former commissioners Dell and Yates who did everything in their power to obstruct the process leading up to the vote on charter government. Obstructionists seldom win out.