I am in favor of the proposed change to the form of county government for the following reasons:

The structure of county government is not only functionally lopsided today, but there are great divisions between the departments that the minor elected officials run like fiefdoms, to the great detriment of the protection of the rights of ordinary citizens. It is politically very difficult to hold someone like a coroner, treasurer, or assessor accountable through the voting process, because the connection between their individual acts and an election every four years is too attenuated. I would rather see each BOCC member more accountable through their hired executive. A citizen can focus on one executive-level person easier and with more political force than what we have today.

Separation of powers issues are nonexistent with this change. The judiciary remains separate in the first district court, and at the county level the executive and the legislative branches are one branch in the BOCC, except for the executive law enforcement power which is and would remain in the Sheriff and prosecutor's offices, so I don't see any separation of powers issues at all. This is a phantom objection. Liberty remains structurally protected.

Since the minor elected officials do not make public policy, but merely execute statutory requirements, there is little administrative discretion and no policy decision-making for which a public vote matters, so the idea that we are "losing a vote" is just not well-considered.

In fact, the better argument is that an individual citizen's vote for a BOCC position will become more politically powerful by passing this measure, because each vote will effect not only the BOCC's public policy but also the efficiency of the statutorily-required administrative functions of today's minor elected officials.

Therefore, the "we're going to lose our vote" position is misguided, because if one put some thought into it I believe the realization will come that the vote for a minor elected official is a vote for someone whose duties are already statutorily required (thus a vote is of little matter), but it allows the BOCC to get off the hook by blaming those minor electeds for administrative delays and interdepartmental warfare.

Thus, a citizen's vote NOW is actually weaker because the political power in one person's vote for many officials fractures accountability across several votes - diluting any one vote and thus giving little or no control to the citizenry.

The "sacred vote" for a minor elected is a sham vote, because what they do does not involve making public policy. I would rather strengthen the effect of a single citizen's vote for commissioner by making the minor elected officials appointed by the BOCC.

A tough employment contract can be negotiated with the new executive, and the citizenry can watch him or her like a hawk. Accountability flows up to that position, and the BOCC is politically held responsible. It makes a lot a sense to structure a local government entity this way.

Don't let anyone scare you by using words like "separation of powers," "voting rights," or "checks and balances" when with some consideration - and perhaps education you can see past the words into the real meanings of how this change will actually work. The truth is that county government is fractured now, and each citizen's vote is fractured and weaker due to the presence of so many elected officials. This is the true meaning of divide and conquer: you may have three or four extra levers to pull in the voting booth, but they are collectively worth less than a single vote for a BOCC member if this passes in November. I think passing the measure will bring greater accountability while retaining the structure that protects our political liberties.

Arthur B. Macomber is a Coeur d'Alene resident and attorney.