The County Line - January/February 2002

Debate on County Self-Goverance Bill Heats Up

The water continues to heat up on the issue of shifting power from Montgomery to the local level.

I admit that the water hasn't reached the boiling point just yet. But there is no question that the temperature is much warmer than even a year ago. Constitutional reform, and with it more authority for county government, is coming.

The signs are everywhere -- all major candidates for governor in 2002 have already announced their support of constitutional reform. The grassroots effort to move this issue to the public's attention has been carried off masterfully. And even in January some of the state's largest newspapers bankrolled a statewide television production aimed at focusing the public's vision on constitutional reform.

So the question is really no longer "if" there will be constitutional reform. The only questions now are "when" and "how".

This entire ruckus has translated into a bushel basket of legislation now pending in the 2002 session of the Alabama Legislature. There are bills calling for a constitutional convention. Bills rewriting the constitution article by article. There is a bill authorizing the Legislature to rewrite the document. And, perhaps the most interesting to county officials, there is a bill to grant county commissions the ability to make local administrative decisions without returning to Montgomery for the passage of local legislation.

Referred to as "self-governance", the legislation was approved by a Senate committee during the last week in January and has surprising support among members of the upper chamber. The bill was co-sponsored by 25 members of the Senate. As a constitutional amendment, the bill needs 21 votes for approval.

But don't let the mathematics and all the growing support for this idea fool you -- there is still emotional, unrelenting opposition to shifting these decisions to the local level. There are those who, for whatever reason, believe that decisions made in Montgomery are somehow better than decisions made in their own community.

Most of these people are the same folks who believe on the other hand that decisions made in Washington, D.C. are somehow tainted. These same folks cry out almost daily for the shifting of power from the federal government back to the state government. But for whatever reason, their "logic" does not translate to shifting power then from the state level to the local level.

The passage of the legislation through the Senate committee was, in itself; a small version of what would be a public conflict should the bill reach the floor for debate. It was finally passed on a 5-to-3 vote after being placed on the committee agenda three times.

So fierce was the opposition from one Senator that his comments were spread over the front page of the state's second largest newspaper and set off a local conflict that dominated the news for a week. In the end, however, the bill was approved in committee.

Those voting in favor of the bill were: Senators Bill Armistead, Gerald Dial, Jeff Enfinger, Vivian Figures and Jabo Waggoner. Senators George Callahan, Zeb Little and Jimmy Holley voted against the legislation.

Now, a close look at the content of the legislation might make one wonder why anyone would oppose a public vote on this legislation.

The proposed constitutional amendment would grant county governments only administrative self-governance powers. The authority granted in the proposed amendment does not authorize the counties to exercise powers in the following areas:
-Taxation -Land Use Regulation
-Actions defining or creating crimes
-Actions that would subject businesses to dual regulation from the county and a state agency
-Eminent Domain -Courts or Court personnel
-Gambling
-Increasing County Debt Limit
-Municipal Governments
-Authority to Increase Debt Limit of the County

Some of the areas in which the county commission would be constitutionally authorized to exercise administrative powers would be:
-Police and Fire Protection -- (Such power could not be exercised to conflict with a Volunteer Fire Department or the Sheriff's Department)
-Garbage and solid waste
-Public Health Facilities
-Economic Development
-Public Street and Road activ ities
-Parks and recreation
-Storm water and sanitary sewage
-Public housing
-Public Transportation
-Nuisance abatement
-Libraries

As a constitutional amendment, the proposal will be subject to a statewide vote after being approved by the Legislature.

The bill also includes a second level of protection for each county. Even if the statewide vote passes, the powers will be applicable only in those counties where the referendum passes.

If the referendum fails in a county, the commission could call for another referendum later. But again, the powers will not take affect until approved by a majority of the voters in the county.

Even with all these safeguards, there are no guarantees that the bill will make it through the legislative process this year so that it can be voted on during the 2002 election cycle. As we mentioned, the term "home rule" or now even "self-governance" seems to generate opposition on its own.

But one thing is for certain. The heat is turning up. And everyone agrees that the water is going to boil one day soon.