By Michael Howell
The Local Government Study Commission (LGSC) for Ravalli County has been putting together a draft list of questions concerning changes in government structure for possible placement on the November ballot. That draft would then be aired at public hearings held in each community after which a final draft would be placed on the ballot.
At its September 15 meeting, a draft proposal with a list of four questions was under consideration. It included the question of having a three- or five-member Board of Commissioners, whether the Sheriff position should be partisan or non-partisan; whether the Treasurer position should partisan or non-partisan; and finally whether the position of Commissioner should be partisan or non-partisan.
Alan Thompson, Chairman of the LGSC, kicked off the meeting by saying, “I have a huge change that I’d like to see made… after much thought and deliberation and talking to lots of people in the community these past two weeks, it’s my opinion that question number four should be dropped.
“We are partisan at the moment and I believe that the citizens have a right to know who they are electing when they vote. And the last thing I want is for someone to run for election without understanding… how they feel one way or the other about conservatism or liberalism, whatever.”
Thompson said that he talked early in the process about the need for partisan election of policy makers. He said other positions like the Treasurer and Sheriff could be non-partisan, but not the policy makers.
“I’d like to drop this item from the ballot,” he said.
LGSC member Scott Boulanger said that he had been getting a lot of response on the issue too, and he made a motion to drop it from the ballot list.
LGSC member Sharon Schroeder seconded the motion, saying, “I think what we’ve heard at our meetings was a recoil effect from the issues we were facing in the Treasurer’s position. And I know some people felt that non-partisan was a good idea because voters would have to research candidates. But my big fear is that most people go to the ballot box not having done the research and it will just become a popularity contest. So I think it’s important to know if someone is leaning to a liberal or conservative agenda and party designation is the most clear way for people to understand what that leaning is.” She, too, distinguished between offices with job descriptions like the Sheriff and the Treasurer and the “policy makers.”
LGSC member George Corn said, “I disagree. I think what we heard from both sides of the aisle, particularly in Victor where a number of Republicans spoke, was that people wanted a non-partisan election for all offices voted on. There is an argument over it, but striking that question takes it away from the voters to make a choice. They should make that decision, not this committee here.” He said narrowing down the voters’ choices was never a good thing.
“I strongly oppose taking that off the table,” said Corn. “You are saying the public doesn’t have enough intelligence to make a judgment that all offices ought to be non-partisan.”
LGSC member Marilee Shockley said, “I think it needs to be on the ballot and the people can decide. I’m for having partisan commissioner elections, but I’m one person and I think we need to let the people decide.” She said the question has been before the voters already a couple of times and the people voted for partisan. “Maybe they want all partisan elections,” she said, “I think we should let them decide.”
Thompson said that he went back and looked at his notes and there were people talking about non-partisan. “But I will agree with Sharon, it was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to the problems that existed at the time with a particular office.” He said the LGSC had considered a county manager option but decided not to place it on the ballot. He said some people wanted the commissioners to be part-time, but that was rejected.
“I think voters have a right to know who they are voting for,” said Thompson. He said right now we know at every level and it ought to remain that way.
“Every once in a while citizens go to the ballot box without fully understanding what is being presented to them,” said Thompson. “I worry that there are too many people that are uninformed voters and they go too much by emotion.” He said when he did some research he found that in 1976 the citizens voted by district for commissioners. In 1980 the question of having at-large elections was on the ballot and won by a vote of about 9,000 to 2,000. Then the number of commissioners was boosted from three to five “based on emotions. Now that didn’t work so they are ready to go back to three. It’s the same with the partisan or non-partisan issue,” said Thompson. “If it becomes emotional and they vote for non-partisan, they will quickly be disappointed and say, ‘I never would have voted for it if I’d known’.”
Boulanger said, “I’m surprised it even became a question.” He claimed that the issue had been voted down for being placed on the ballot back in July.
Shockley disagreed, saying that having an “R” doesn’t make things any clearer. She said people voted blindly for an “R” when they voted for Stamey and that was a catastrophe.
Speaking up from the audience, Commissioner Greg Chilcott said what he was hearing was that they want the voters to be educated, but they don’t want to tell the voters what political party they belong to.
“Party affiliation is just more information for the voters to consider,” said Chilcott.
“I think that’s nonsense,” said Corn in response. He said the public in Ravalli County was going to find out if any candidate had party affiliations or not.
“And the public, in this case, has enough intelligence and I trust them enough, that they can decide whether the commissioners should be partisan or non-partisan.” said Corn. “Since they seem to flip around on the issue, that’s even more reason to ask them what they think now. What’s the harm? To deny the public a chance to vote on that would be a disservice. I think it shows partisan politics to take it out, that’s the irony of it,” said Corn.
Boulanger said that elections were partisan for offices at the federal, state and county level and should remain so at the county level, and he called for the question.
“I’m really on the fence on this,” said Schroeder. She said that she could understand both sides of the issue. She said there were good reasons to keep the commissioners, as policy makers, a partisan office, “but I’m not sure that we should be the one making the decision by taking it off the ballot.”
Commissioner Jeff Burrows spoke up from the audience, saying, “You talk about the citizens you heard from but I think most of those have some sort of an agenda. I think if you run the numbers, you heard from less than one-half of one percent of the public. You’ve got to be careful when you say you heard from twenty people and fourteen of them want to see us go in some direction. I don’t think there is anybody more informed right now about local government than you five sitting up there. If a majority of you look at it and you feel one way, you should follow your gut feelings because you can’t trust the majority of fifty or whatever who you heard from or who came to your office.”
“You aren’t taking anything away from the voters,” added Burrows. He said by leaving it on the ballot, “you are diluting this ballot. What I heard from the public was they wanted to vote on five or three commissioners, that’s it. Trying to put too many things on the ballot is going to confuse them.”
Burrows said if you ask them whether they want five or three, they are going to know an answer, “but if you say partisan or non-partisan? They don’t know the answer to that. They don’t know about the office or the officials. They don’t know about districts. So I think you are diluting down the main question people want to see when you start asking more questions.”
Burrows said that as much as we want to see an informed citizenry come to the ballot, unfortunately voters he knows well have approached him recently thinking that he was on the next ballot.
Boulanger said, “One of my fears is, do they even know the difference between partisan and non-partisan. It is not a well-known topic. It is not common information, not like asking whether you want three or five. Unless you’re kind of involved in the political world, the average Joe… I don’t think I would have known until very long ago.”
“With all due respect to the folks who made them,” said Corn, “the last two comments are a denigration of the voters.” He argued that the best way to make such a change in our local form of government under the general powers of the state was to let the people decide.
Corn said as far as diluting the process, there are currently only four items being considered for placing on the ballot.
“There is a decision being made right now that they can only vote in a partisan election. I think that’s wrong. The voters should have that choice,” said Corn.
Schroeder said that she would like to have a week or two to talk to more people and gather some more comments before voting. She said she would like to see the motion tabled, but after much discussion on the proper procedure, a vote to remove the ballot measure to make the office of commissioner non-partisan was taken. It failed on a 3-2 vote, with Thompson and Boulanger voting in favor, and Corn, Shockley and Schroeder voting against. Schroeder had wanted to abstain, but that was called into question, so she cast her vote.
“Alright, I vote no, and the motion dies,” said Schroeder. “We’ll see how it goes next week.”
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 22.