The Peril Of Shrinking Representation

Currently there are nine  GT County commissioners. There is currently a team composed of The Proscutor, The County Clerk, the County Treasurer, and the chairs of the Republican and Democrat party that are considering new plans which may affect the make up of our county districts.  This would include size and some possible modifications to geography.

Today, I wrote the following to the good folks who will be deciding how the county districts will be comprised for the next ten years.  While not entirely engaged in their process, I am still interested to see what becomes of the arrangement, and whether the voter has more say, or less, in how their county is run.

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I have withheld any real comment on this issue because I trust all of those involved in the discussion, and planning of county districts have given sufficient consideration to quite a few issues outside of the political ramifications.

I have one suggestion that ought to be considered before taking a final vote on plans.

No plan should be approved that has fewer commission districts than currently established.

Consider these points:

1. A smaller number of districts creates a more sizable constituency.  The uniqueness of certain parts of the county is less likely to be properly represented.
2. Stretching the responsibilities by adding additional governmental units to each remaining district may affect their ability to represent or interface with those units.
3. For the same reasons a reduction of commissioners would result in committee seats being either left vacant or not properly populated because of either real life, or conflicting schedules within the committee structure.
4. OPEN MEETINGS – A smaller configuration for the board will result in OMA violations, OR reduced effectiveness of the board.

This last point in my view, is probably as important, or more so than the previous three.

Currently, a casual gathering of four commissioners (ie: at the end of a meeting) does not constitute a quorum.  Though sometimes information is exchanged that is beneficial to solving an issue (or issues), it is considered legal. A smaller board would make SOME of these discussions necessarily vacated.

Currently, A phone call or email to discuss different possibilities of a project with another commissioner can be seen as relatively benign if it is understood that it does not result in a chain of communications.  Occasionally, another commissioner might be included for expertise or some history.  A smaller board would reduce the threshold to a point where again, some solutions would not be discussed because to do so would require a potential OMA violation prior to a board meeting.

Ideas are born of discourse.  Communications are necessary, and limiting topical discussion to a few meetings a month by default would be unfortunate.

Jason Gillman
Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners
District 1

cc: JasonGillman.com