Optional forms of government study participants reviewed the meat of the Idaho Code Wednesday night in advance of interviews scheduled with former county commissioners.

Idaho Code Title 31, Chapter 50, ratified in 1994, allows county commissioners to review operational structure and recommend a change, if warranted, to one of six forms. 

Those forms are:

• The commission-executive

• The commission-manager

• The three-member board of county commissioners

• The five-member board of county commissioners

• The seven-member board of county commissioners

• Consolidation of offices among counties with all other characteristics of the government of each participating count to remain unchanged

"The functions of county government are the arms and the legs," commission vice chair Brian Cleary said during the presentation. "The body is the state that directs what can happen, and the county serves as the arms and legs that carry out those functions." 

Cleary pointed out significant differences between the three-, five- and seven-member boards, including a possible need to redraw constituent districts and becoming part-time officials.

The remaining six officers — the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, assessor, clerk, treasurer and coroner‚ could be appointed or elected but still supervised by the commissioners. 

A county executive would be decided through a general election according to state code, Cleary said. Otherwise, a manager could be appointed by the commissioners based on training, experience and administrative qualifications.

Dave Botting, chair of the group, noted that as an elected official there is a "great deal of weight" in the commission-executive position. 

"The commission manager gives the same workload to the manager but does not give the manager the same authority, and the manager is appointed and can be removed by the commission," Botting said. "The executive cannot be removed by the commission or elected, and they are going to stay there until the next election or recall."

As the group pushes forward with information gathering, commission member Tamara Bateson advised the group to be wary of political impacts from changing certain positions. Quoting the state attorney general, she emphasized that any decision made should be in the public's best interest. 

"The people of the state of Idaho in creating the instruments of the government that serve them do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies so created," Bateson said. "I think we always need to incorporate the people." 

Being the first of many discussions the commission will hold, Botting advised that now is not the time to compare the different forms.

"Once we've gathered the evidence, that's when we can start talking about strengths and weaknesses," Botting said. "Until then, I'm sorry, but we don't know what we're talking about. We may all have our own opinions, but we don't know what we're talking about."

The agenda for the next meeting, next Wednesday at 5:30 p.m., includes the interview of and discussion with county commissioners in office when a similar study was done in 1996.

Within the 1996 executive summary, the commission recommended the county board be expanded from three to five elected part-time commissioners who would hire a county manager. In addition, that study group advised making the six elected officials hired positions. 

"Without exception, the group determined that the current structure could be substantially improved to better serve Kootenai County's rapidly changing demographic profile, economy, and the new challenges brought about as a consequence of mercurial population growth in the 1980s and '90s," the 1996 executive summary says. 

That recommendation was rejected by the board of county commissioners and wasn't brought to a public vote.

During Wednesday's meeting, the panel unanimously approved bylaws for the investigative study and re-elected officers:

• Botting as chair

• Cleary as vice chair

• David Levine as secretary