Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1922-03-17
COMMISSION COUNTY GOVERN
MENT

he thorough public discussion Of ii.
The fact that there has thus far been
very little discussion of it in the press
tempts me to call attention TO a few
facts.
At the outset, let us understand that
we are not going to vote on the adop-
ton of the system of county govern
ment in effect in Iowa, Ohio. Indiana,
PENNSYLVANIA and some other states.
including all of the southern states
Comparisons with those states are
therefore, Of little value. III those
states the county is the basic unit
there being no town meeting and no
town officers with any real power
Whatever advantages there are IN cen
traiization are secured in such states.
Under the system we are to wore on,
no change will be made except IN the
number of members of the county
board. three instead Of thirty-SlX. Inc
three members will have all of the pow
ers of the present county board, no
more-the numerous town, city anu
village officers will all remain. with
the same powers rs now.
In an article published a couple Of
weeks ago. @. \. Sergent set forth
what he considered advantages OF the
proposed system. Let us look INTO
them for a moment.
Each commissioner has certain spe'
cific duties to perform and is held per-
sonally responsible
| have searched the law carefully
and find no mention Of the duties of the
commissioners except the blanket pro
vision that they shall have 'ail duties,
liabilities. authority. powers and priyl-
lcges heretofore imposed or conferred
by law upon the county board. The
new system will give us nothing in his
respect that we have not already.
He represents the county as a
whole. not some small unit OF it.
This seems to be mistake. The
proposed system provides that the
county be divided into three districts,
and that each district elect commas
siOner. The commissioner will repre-
sent Il district, not the entire county.
He must know the needs OF the en-
tire county. which is seldom the case
under our present system.
We will all agree that the commits
sioncr should understand the needs or
the entire county, but there is nothing
in the law requiring him to know
them. lie will be elected by DIS
Il
nary human beings he will best know
and he most interested in the needs OF
his district. as is the case at present.
The commissioners meet often, at
least once a month.
This frequent meeting is an advan-
tage only in taking care OF the current
needs of the county, auditing ordinary
expenSe bills and looking after emer-
gencics that may arise. AS Il matter
of fact. this county has already made
provision for this. The auditing COM
mittce meets each month and audlts
current bills. In order to give due
credit. let us note that Mr.. Sergent
promoted and secured this provision
of monthly committee meetings. rms
provision secures, under the present
system, what is practically the only adj
vantage to be secured under the pro-
posed system.
THE cost is considerable less than
under our present system.
In the distribution of county eX'
penses made by the county clerk, the
nf
board for the five years, 1916 to 1870
inclusive, was $1S1S.44. How much
the commission would cost under the
new system is problematical. The com
missioncrs will receive a salary OF S5ot
each for attending board meetings, ano
6 cents per mile for travel, making
$1,000 annually exclusive OF mileage
In addition they will get 81 per day lol
committee work, but shall not receive
more than $3.50 per year each Tor sllcI
committee work. They will also re
ceiyn 6 cents per mile travel pay TOT
committee work The maximum cos'
oworld be $500. plus mileage, which Is
considerably more than the present
county board is costing us
Hetc is another way OF looking at 1t
Assume that the cost of committee
work would he the same as under the
present system. Ii should be some
what less than under the present sys
lem as the monthly meeting OF TN
hoard would obvatc some OF the worn
that is now done through committees
Lei us compare the cost OF boaf'
meetings only under the two systems.
During the year 1921, the per dien
and mileage of the county hoard 10
hoard meetings was S1221o2. noe
the new system the cost for boaf'
meetings would be $1,000 plus mileage
which probably would amount to abou
$50. making total of S1l00. or Il say
inc of S12192. On the other hand, III
cost Of board meetings, per diem am
mileage. for the year 1920, was onl
S95603. or $143.07 less than it woui
he under the new system. Considerin
thes facts. there seems no ground {
claim il saving III direct cost,
with il large number of represent
atives on the board there is a teno