The County Line - September/October 1999

Commission Structure May Be the Cause of No Self-Governance
The other day an old college buddy, now the editorial page editor of a daily newspaper, called to discuss one of our favorite subjects -- self-governance for county commissions.

Editorial writers in Alabama have embraced this subject for decades, pointing out that it doesn't make sense for county government to be hamstrung without the ability to make everyday decisions. For the most part these editorials, and most likely the one written by my friend, have fallen on unfertile ground. The issue of self-governance -- we used to call it home rule -- is a popular one for conversations, but there isn't widespread support in the legislative arena.

And it was that aspect of this self-governance issue that started the old brain ticking the other day. Alabama counties, by their very design, have few -- if any -- of the tools they need to respond to the needs of our society in the 21st century. And as we march into a new century that will be dominated by split-second communication and ever-changing technology, things are only going to get worse. But why doesn't someone do something about it? And why is it that most persons agree efforts to pass sweeping self-governance legislation have little chance of getting beyond even first base?

Well, the critics of county government would say that self-governance is still only an editorial dream because the public simply has little confidence in the county level of government. Those people would say that the citizens trust the Alabama Legislature to make those decisions. Recent developments, including the resounding defeat of Amendment 2 on Oct. 12, 1999, make that analysis difficult for me to embrace. I don't believe that the public has any more confidence in the Alabama Legislature than it does its county governments. But that's only my opinion. I have no survey data to back that up.

Others would say that we in Alabama are very -- no, let's make that extremely -- slow to accept change. And although we aren't particularly happy with the way things are working, we realize that this is the way things have always worked and we don't really want to change. The old, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know," axiom.

But, perhaps the reason that we've not seen substantial movement toward empowering county governments in Alabama really lies in the structure of the very county commissions that we wish to empower. Said another way, it may be that we need to look at changing the structure of Alabama's county commissions before we can make a serious stab at granting those commissions self-governance.

Here's what I mean. Alabama's 67 county governments are very, very different. And I don't mean on the obvious issues such as their size, population, economic make-up and the like.

The number of members on each county commission and the way the county commission chair is elected is so different from county to county that it is difficult to fashion a common solution to the needs of those governing bodies. And, I now am convinced the differences in election procedures are the single most important factor in determining the public's opinions of and expectations from the county governing body.

Let's illustrate what we mean:
*In Mobile County the commission is composed of three full-time commissioners, elected from districts. The chairman seat in Mobile rotates among the three commissioners.

*But in Tuscaloosa County there are four district commissioners who serve part-time and the probate judge serves as the commission chairman.

*Down the road in Washington County the five district commissioners are full-time and the probate judge chairman presides over the meetings, but is prohibited by local law from even voting.

*In Cleburne County the four part-time district commissioners are elected -- not from their districts -- but countywide. The probate judge also serves as chairman.

*In Morgan County the four district commissioners are full-time and the commission chairman is also a full-time position that is filled by a countywide election.

*In Jefferson County the five, full-time district-elected commissioners select the one commissioner who will serve as chair. And after that election, the commissioners are each given a different countywide department over which to preside.

*And in Shelby County the commission is composed of nine district commissioners, who are all part-time and the chair's role rotates between them.

Who is to say which one of these procedures -- which are only examples because there are many others at work around the state -- is the best? It may be that the method that works in one area would not work as well as the method used in another county. I suspect this issue is kind of like beauty, the opinions will vary from county to county.

However, the mere fact that these differences exist makes it very difficult to then argue successfully for a standard set of powers and authorities. So, in county government in Alabama, it seems we find ourselves in a dilemma.

If we choose to do nothing about changing the organizational structure of county government, our friends in the editorial-writing business will likely continue to have a subject to dust off every few years. Or, if we want to move toward giving counties the tools they need to operate effectively, we must begin to look at the root of the problem and search for solutions.

There could be a variety of approaches taken to address this problem. Some states have one set of laws that govern the composition of county commissions and prohibit variation. That's one option that we could explore.

Municipal governments in Alabama are organized into a classification system based on population with a different set of laws for each "class". Setting up such a system for counties would seem to be another option.

Or, some type of "charter" process could be established in Alabama that would allow the citizens of each county to organize and grant the powers to their county government in the way they see fit. That, too, is an option worth considering.

There are probably other ideas that elude the thinking process. However, the main thing is that we've got to start looking for new solutions or resolve ourselves to living with the same old problems.