Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Let the Treasurer Ride into the Sunset with the Sheriff
The County Executive is prepared to ask County Council for a May referendum question that, if approved, would make the Sheriff an appointed position. It would likely pass, especially given the allegations of malfeasance facing the office and the criminal convictions of its leadership. And history shows that the voters want to eliminate the row offices. In 2004, voters overwhelmingly went for a ballot measure that eliminated the election of six row offices, including coroner, recorder of deeds, and jury commissioner. Those positions have since been folded into the administration.
If the Sheriff’s office was made an appointed position, that would leave three row offices—district attorney, controller, and treasurer. We wonder what the arguments are for leaving the treasurer’s office as an elected position. If there needs to be a guardian for the public’s dollars, the controller can certainly fill that position. There are also outside auditors that perform these duties. There is not a real justification to keep an elected office described in the County’s audited financial statement as “responsible for all receipts and disbursements of County monies…[and] is the principal investment officer for the County”.
Whereas we could make a reasoned argument for keeping the D.A. and controller separate from the administration, the same does not hold for the treasurer. If it is an office for housing patronage jobs, then all the more reason its elimination should be supported by good government crusaders and those wanting cost-effective County government. In sum, the Executive ought to include the elimination of the elected Treasurer’s office on the May ballot.
If the Sheriff’s office was made an appointed position, that would leave three row offices—district attorney, controller, and treasurer. We wonder what the arguments are for leaving the treasurer’s office as an elected position. If there needs to be a guardian for the public’s dollars, the controller can certainly fill that position. There are also outside auditors that perform these duties. There is not a real justification to keep an elected office described in the County’s audited financial statement as “responsible for all receipts and disbursements of County monies…[and] is the principal investment officer for the County”.
Whereas we could make a reasoned argument for keeping the D.A. and controller separate from the administration, the same does not hold for the treasurer. If it is an office for housing patronage jobs, then all the more reason its elimination should be supported by good government crusaders and those wanting cost-effective County government. In sum, the Executive ought to include the elimination of the elected Treasurer’s office on the May ballot.
