It was a little surreal. How often do staff, let alone supervisory staff and more surprising, some elected officials, ask for a new layer of supervision - an additional boss? It happened in 2005. I was there.

I try to avoid volleyed responses in this column, preferring to focus on research and occasionally, my own opinion than to respond to the published opinions of others. I also respect Dr. West, former county coroner who wrote a "My Turn" in this spot last week. His perspective and experience are valuable. However, because I was there to witness it, I must make an exception. The My Turn referred to "the June 2005 survey... by a BOCC committee studying county government." I was a member of that public advisory committee.

Keep in mind that commissioners do not oversee elected county department heads. These answer only to the public on election day. So the Board of County Commissioners has no axe to wield. It can make requests of those officials, but can force them to do nothing. All the commissioners can fully control is their budgets.

In brief, our six-member citizen committee was asked to review recommended pay raises, nothing more. We took our job very seriously, conducting our own research. We heard from each department of Kootenai County, generally from the department's head or their deputies. We also heard from some ex-officials.

The surprise: Many complained bitterly about another department, unrelated to our questions about pay and function. Some blamed problems on each other, citing constrictions of function and delays, a few allegedly intentional. Generally those who complained lamented the loss of a county administrator, or stated they wished we had one. We hadn't asked them; they kept bringing it up.

After we heard several say it, we discussed with each other (a) our surprise at what we were hearing (both the intensity of interdepartmental power struggles and the repetitive wishes for a county administrator), and (b) formally asking county elected officials about this issue, whether they perceived inefficiencies or need for an administrator, via a questionnaire. We sent them the written question and received long and thoughtful responses.

We still hesitated. To suggest something which we were not asked to study required care. Yet we were overwhelmed by this, and it was clear a problem existed. So we wrote a memo to the BOCC, sharing what we heard, and recommending they study the idea of a change in structure:

"With six elected officers in addition to (the) commissioners... good cross-department cooperation was a constant battle and the lack (of an administrator) thereof is a major limiting factor to giving the citizen the best bang for their tax dollar."

We were hardly the first to mention it. A 1997 study commission recommended a commissioner-manager form of government, and that all department heads should be appointed (we didn't go that far).

We also studied Idaho Code and its several options for county government, recommending a five-member, part-time board and a full-time professional administrator. We suggested keeping as elected at least the sheriff and prosecuting attorney. Our citizen committee's memo to the BOCC dated July 20, 2005, is public information.

Commissioner Brodie described the current structure as "rowing with one oar." Other commissioners have called the current system "dysfunctional" and said the vast majority of their time is spent on mundane tasks. Most of it could be done by a more experienced manager-administrator (with authority over appointed department heads), leaving elected commissioners free to study and focus on policy and budget - their statutorily intended functions.

Cassia County's (in 2005 the only one with an administrator; most Idaho counties are very small) Clerk stated in an email, "Cassia really appreciates the effort of the county administrator. He takes a big burden off the commissioners by being here full time. I feel every county could benefit by having a county administrator."

Most counties in Idaho are structured like ours, without one. However this isn't the case in many other states, especially as counties get bigger, more complex and time-consuming to run. Commissioners in a county this size should be free to focus on their intended function, not bogged down in daily administrative tasks or coping with interdepartmental issues.

One more thought in response to the My Turn, which opened with a comment that commissioners depart from campaign promises of "openness" by offering this ballot measure to add an administrator, etc. Commissioner Dan Green was very open during his campaign when he publicly proposed this idea, referring to this pledge and the citizen committees' findings well before he was elected. He also recommended reduced pay for his own position, if restructured.

It's 2012 now. Some people and circumstances have changed. Perhaps things have improved. However, optimal county function should not depend on individuals or other changeable factors. We live in a rapidly growing area; Kootenai County, with 700 employees and budget greater than $70 million, is not the same as it was when this structure was formed. Some change is warranted.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D., is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.