From staff reports

The county board’s narrowing of the options for courthouse renovation to one is an example of a working, democratic representational government.

Wednesday, July 14, 1999

The county board’s narrowing of the options for courthouse renovation to one is an example of a working, democratic representational government.

That it also will present its singular recommendation to the public is a sensible courtesy.

Here’s why.

First, consider Thursday’s vote.

In our representational government, voters, by the very act, empower their representatives to make decisions for them. The county board did so Thursday. And while the 3-2 split indicates weak support for the chosen option, the decision has been made to narrow the field for further consideration, none-the-less.

Had the board simply presented a group of options and tried to allow the public to decide, it would have neglected its decision-making responsibility. True, such an approach may seem closer to a &uot;pure democracy,&uot; but it is also unwieldy; imagine trying to pack every county resident into a townhall meeting to decide county issues. It cannot work.

If board members feel uncertain as to their constituents’ wishes on the matter, there remains plenty of time and opportunity to be sure they represent their constituents well in the final vote.

Next, consider the public meeting on the matter.

While we charge the county commissioners with the responsibility to make the decision for us, it is a decision that will impact everyone for generations to come.

Clearly, there is room here for public input on the selected option.

No doubt the commissioners have already heard from many constituents on the issue, but others may only now become interested, with a solution to the courthouse problems nearer. A public meeting simply allows better communication of the proposal, and another chance for the public to react prior to the board’s final decision.

Perhaps the pending public input will sway some members to vote for, or against the plan in the end. Perhaps not.

Everyone has a stake in the changes, whether that be financial – through the use of county tax dollars and a possible levy increase – or aesthetic preference, a chance to have a say in the future appearance and structure of an important county landmark.

The meeting date has yet to be set, but once it is, we should all plan to participate, whether by attending, reading about it and writing letters to the newspaper, or calling and writing commissioners directly.

And then, the county commissioners can make the next, final decision.