Sudden appearance of State Senator Chip Pearson in late December as an ardent fan of three-man commissions and an equally strong opponent of community control is surprising on many levels.
For those too busy with the holidays to notice: The Dawson resident (representing Pickens as part of his District 51) told members of the 40-person citizens study group he is not sure their work was worth a darn.
What the group determined (after numerous, lengthy meetings and asking anyone they could arm-twist into offering their five-cents worth) was that a five-member board of commissioners with a hired county manager would be the best type government to put on a ballot against the current sole commissioner form of government in Pickens. A referendum is planned for November.
But Pearson told the group last month, he isn’t convinced a five-member commission is better than a three-member one––based on his personal opinion and some phone calls he has received.
Normally it would not matter what some guy from Dawson County thinks about what we want to vote on over here. But, in this case, Pickens falls inside Senator Pearson’s senate district, and we need him to introduce legislation before we can even hold a vote on this matter.
A staunch conservative, Pearson loves to mix messages of common sense and the intentions of our Founding Fathers’ whenever he speaks. You could easily imagine him decrying the loss of freedom in this situation, with local residents not allowed to decide for themselves what they want to vote on. It would be easy to see Pearson in that role, if he weren’t, in this case, the one taking our liberties and denying our common sense.
Introducing legislation to put local issues on the ballot is part of a legislator’s job. Carrying out the will of the people, not second-guessing that will, is what we expect from our men under the gold dome.
The idea a state senator would involve himself this way is frightening for the precedent it sets. Must local officials gain the indulgence of deal-breaking legislators now before being granted the freedom to create a sales tax initiative or change a city council’s configuration?
Philosophical points aside, Pearson’s resistance is baffling on a practical point: With all of his strong sentiments on county government structure, why didn’t he come forward sooner? The CAC study group has begged for public input since they started last April. With hearings in all corners of the county and all-day open houses to hear from residents, they would have offered free toasters if they’d had funds at their disposal.
And the senator never spoke up until now. He’s had months to air his concerns. A strong speech by someone of his stature might well have swayed the process early-on to a three-member proposal.
About the only argument supporting a state official’s involvement is that public sentiment has been distressingly low; turnouts so low all members of the audience might have ridden in one vehicle. By final meetings, half of the original study committee was MIA. If Pearson’s phone rang off the hook with three-member devotees, it is entirely possible he took more public comments than the study committee heard.
But that scenario isn’t realistic. If people didn’t bother to attend meetings or e-mail comments or phone study group members, it’s unlikely they called the legislative office of a state senator. State Rep. Tom Graves, in the same meeting where Pearson announced his concerns, mentioned no phone calls he received.
This commission question, set in place by a straw poll almost two years ago, is now in the home stretch, heading for a final vote in November. Folks who might prefer something besides five commissioners should have come forward before now and not found a bureaucrat to muddy the waters after the fact.
Whether the public’s lack of input means they are happy with a sole commissioner or consider the change to a multi-member form inevitable won’t be known until November. But the preliminary round is over. And it should be up to the people, not a politician, as to what question appears on the ballot.
|
|
