Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, August 12, 1995 TAG: 9508140022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN L. FREI
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Appointed bureaucrats are directly accountable to those who make the appointments. That breeds potential cronyism far beyond what editors call ``the courthouse crowd'' because the power of appointment and dismissal would rest with a small body, not the public at large. The public doesn't vote for or against an entire board of supervisors or city council in a given election cycle and, therefore, cannot ``throw the bums out'' all at once if they make bad appointments or dismissals. If that were the case, I might feel differently about constitutional-level appointments because the entirety of local government would be subject to the people's judgment at the same time.
The clerk of Circuit Court, for example, is the guardian of the public record. He or she is accountable to the people for the integrity of the public record - wills, court decrees, corporate charters, deeds, debt, debt secured by deeds, etc. Until we have a system of elected judges, the person guarding the integrity of the public record should be directly accountable to the public.
This responsibility is above the level of ``clerical work'' that you mistakenly assign to the office. The issue is one of responsibility, rather than day-to-day process. As protection against potential abuse of judicial power, the voters should retain the right of judgment where the integrity of the public record is concerned.
It's often the case that constitutional officers are a check-and-balance system on other branches of local government, as in the case of commonwealth's attorneys and police (or sheriffs') departments.
The commonwealth's attorney is the public prosecutor for the jurisdiction. He/she argues the people's case, seeking punishment for those who have violated the law. Commonwealth's attorneys should be accountable to the people to protect against spurious or capricious arraignment of the citizens. If at the whim of a sheriff or at the hands of a rapacious police department the evidence is trumped up, the people's prosecutor is there as a check against reckless law enforcement. These prosecutors have the responsibility to present reliable evidence that can weather the scrutiny of the courtroom, not just act on blind faith when they receive evidence from law-enforcement investigators. This works the other way, too - protecting against personal favoritism by law enforcement. Although most work well with other law-enforcement officials, the office of the commonwealth's attorney is the people's independent team before the judge. It should remain accountable to the people of the jurisdiction.
Sheriffs have the power of arrest and incarceration. Since that involves potential limitations of freedom for members of the citizenry and their treatment prior to determination of guilt, sheriffs should remain accountable to the citizenry. In fact, I would favor elected chiefs of police as well.
The treasurer of a jurisdiction handles the people's money. He/she is literally accountable for what happens to that money. The treasurer is the people's protection against behind-the-scenes shenanigans at city hall or in the county administration.
The commissioner of revenue is the only one of the five that an argument, I'd admit, could be made for appointed rather than electoral selection. There is, after all, book value to personal property and numbers that validate business-tax assessments and fees, similar to the office of real-estate valuation. There are, however, persuasive arguments for retaining the public accountability of that office as well because the rates of assessments of personal property, as well as collection practices, are public issues.
Some people have misgivings about elections and the people involved in them. That's unfortunate. Presently, we have an unelected group of people, the New Century Council, though volunteer and well-intentioned, planning our economic future (and the way our tax dollars may be spent). What if another such powerful group's motivations were selfish or the recommendations inappropriate? Where is the people's right to say no? It's difficult enough getting elected governments to respond to the people. Unelected ``governments'' will have no obligation to respond or to perform in the public interest. We can't vote out the New Century Council, even if we wanted to. (I do not.)
The Towers/Perrin study of potential areas for regional cooperation, moreover, calls for a council of regional governments, not elected by and accountable to the region as a whole but only to its parts. This style of governance is several steps removed from actual accountability to the people. It is, in my opinion, an erosion of democracy.
Eliminating constitutional offices would be another step in that erosion. In these times when people have suspicions, justified or not, about their government, more accountability from all levels of government is needed, not less.
Dan L. Frei is a political- and public-affairs consultant in Roanoke.
by CNB