 |
President's Message
- Legislative Conference Issue 2004
"Home Rule" Legislation has others talking for us
If you are one of those who believe that being the Association president is a glamorous job, you should have been in Montgomery a couple of weeks ago.
One afternoon I received a call to come to Montgomery for a House of Representatives committee meeting on our limited "home rule" bill. I really didn't know what to expect, but I headed to Montgomery anyway.
That morning we were jammed into a committee room at the Alabama State House with the House Constitution and Elections Committee and we were more than outnumbered by folks who have been convinced that the words "home rule" are synonymous with communism. Listening to their complaints, I began to think about why I had volunteered for this job as president. After all, I could have been back in the courthouse in Jasper, working on local problems that need attention.
But there we sat - your first vice president, Stanley Batemon; a member of the board of directors, Joe Faulk; the chairman of the Coosa County Commission, Bobby Davis; and your president - smiling as one person after another spoke of the evils of county government. Most of those people, I decided during the meeting, probably have little or no real idea about the impact county government has on their lives. It was obvious that they have no appreciation for what has been done to help them.
The very county commissioners they criticized that morning have worked hard to get public water systems operational in their area, to improve the rural road system they drive on everyday, and to provide the means necessary to attract industry so their children can have good jobs. Most of that work on their behalf was conducted with early morning or nighttime meetings, extra work on weekends and, usually at the expense of personal income or resources. But the people speaking against "home rule" that day would have never admitted that anyone associated with county government had ever assisted them in any way.
A time or two my collar got a little tight and it was necessary for me to hold on to the arms of my chair to keep from standing up and speaking my mind. In the end, it was not necessary for me to say very much. Most of the points I would have made were already very clear to the legislators participating in the committee meeting.
That morning I gained a very different perspective on county government and its future in our state. Despite the opposition, a large core of legislators (many of them in very powerful positions) has decided that some authority should be returned to the local level. And they have set this course as a priority.
The afternoon before our committee meeting, we sat in the gallery of the Senate for more than two hours while Lowell Barron, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, spoke in favor of our "home rule" bill. The debate on additional local authority focused almost exclusively on how to make it happen. Years ago, such debate would only have been about whether or not it should happen.
I was struck by the fact that not a single Senator went to the microphone and said he or she did not support the concept of granting more authority to county governments.
Things have changed on the issue of home rule. There are a lot of reasons, I guess.
Legislators are probably tired of being bothered with local matters that have little to do with "legislative business." Our Association has worked hard to sell the message that county commissions are ready for this challenge. And, despite what the speakers said in that committee room that morning, a majority of the voters would prefer their local issues be debated in the courthouse rather than in Montgomery.
So in that committee meeting, we sat quietly and thought about the 360 or so county commissioners we were representing. We didn't say much, 'cause we've finally reached the point that we've got some others who will do the talking for us.
|
|
