Expanding the Road Commission may not be the best idea
At a time when other counties are debating whether they should disband their Road Commissions, here in Washtenaw County, we are talking about expanding ours.
We understand the rationale behind the proposal to increase the number of road commissioners from three to five, we just don’t think this is the right time to be adding more people - and potentially, more cost - to an entity that some counties are asking if they can do without altogether.
The three road commissioners are appointed by the county Board of Commissioners, and oversee a $43.3 million agency that employs more than 130 people and maintains 1,647 miles of roads. Next month, the county board plans a public hearing on a proposal to add two more road commissioners.
The arguments for doing so are pragmatic in nature. Three can be an awkward number for a deliberative body, and that small number also can limit input. Adding more members could bring a new perspective on issues like better incorporating biking and walking paths into the road system.
On the other hand, if expanding the Road Commission ends up being a way to add more geographic representation, that could be a step backward, resulting in decisions that are driven by parochialism rather than what’s best for the county as a whole.
One minor concern about a three-person board is how it’s affected by the state’s Open Meetings Act, which requires board members to deliberate in public session whenever a majority is present. For two members to discuss an issue outside a meeting would violate the act because they represent a quorum. We strongly support the act, and believe the public’s business should be done in public, but even we can understand the practical problems posed here.
Still, considering all that, we don’t find an unusually strong case for expanding the Road Commission, particularly at time when the agency has reduced its staff by more than 20 positions and faces dwindling funds.
Under no circumstance could we support this idea if it costs the county more money that should be going to roads instead. Road commissioners are paid $10,500 and the actual cost per commissioner is closer to $20,000 a year when you add in things like travel and training. So adding two more road commissioners could increase that cost by $40,000.
Some county commissioners have suggested that if they increased the number of road commissioners, they could cut the rate of compensation so that having five members wouldn’t cost more than having three does now. That makes the concept more palatable. The pay levels for some elected and appointed county officials - not just here, but across Michigan - are hard to justify in the current economy anyway, especially considering that other people serve the public on bodies like school boards or municipal planning commissions for little or no compensation at all.
But there’s a bigger issue here as well. At a time when declining budgets are forcing government entities to streamline and economize, some counties are asking why they can’t do away with road commissioners and have that function absorbed by the county Board of Commissioners. Wayne County made that move back in the 1980s, but state law doesn’t allow most other counties to do the same.
There have been attempts to pass legislation giving all counties that choice, but those have languished in Lansing. While we don’t take a position on whether Road Commissioners should or shouldn’t be abolished, we think counties at least ought to have the right to decide for themselves.
Lacking that option, Washtenaw County commissioners find themselves tinkering instead with the size of the Road Commission and we don’t see that as the most productive use of their time. We have no particular bone to pick with the current road commissioners, and no particular reason to believe a different number of them would alter the quality or level of service that the public receives in any measurable way.
In recent years, the county has helped the Road Commission save money by providing human resources services to it. That’s the kind of efficiency that the public wants to see more of, and that’s where we’d rather see county commissioners focus their efforts. There have to be better ideas out there for improving the quality of roads and stretching public dollars than adding two more chairs to the Road Commission table.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board of AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
David Briegel
Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 9 p.m.
Kristin, Thank You for all you do! Why do we have a Drain Commissioner and not a Drain Commission? Why not abolish the Road Commission and appoint or elect a Commissioner? Why the difference?
Bob Spink
Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 7:46 p.m.
As I understand it, only the road commission itself has the power to reduce staff and outsource services. The only way the County Commissioners can change direction is to pick commissioners with this type of view. The inefficiency (and resulting lack of money) of the WCRC means bad roads and closed bridges. Outsourcing deserves an unbiased look.
John Galt
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
Although adding more overhead is not a good idea, fixing the crumbling roads should be a priority. We have neglected them for too long and now is a good time to create jobs that have a tangible end result. Too much spending by government is transfer payment/entitlement related. Roads are one of the few basic government services that most of us would agree are fundamental (along with Police and Fire). Some of the federal and State gasoline taxes collected over the years have been dumped into the general funds and used for other purposes. We can look around and see the result.
Kristin
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.
Here is the Act 283 of 1090 that regulates Road Commissions.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(idgd4ejarqudn0ehybgtm545))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-283-of-1909 Some interesting ideas. I am going to look into how we can go about having our road commissioners elected by the people. Also, what has to change at the state level to allow the County Board to become the Road Commission? The question should not only be do we increase from 3-5. We should look at all ways to change the current structure to determine if there is a more efficient and representative way to set it up.
Kristin
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Thank you Tony for writing about this issue. I voted against starting this process right now. You are absolutely right that now is not the time to spend more road money on anything more than roads. The county board has so many more important things to do right now like priority setting and planning for our next budget cycle that is sure to have another deficit. Unfortunately, it takes a majority of the members to move an idea, and I have not been able to get any movement on the priority setting. @Rod J. You bring up some good points. If I remember correctly, state law sets the parameters for the commissioners, but I will look into it. There is an unofficial "appeal process" that I used before I was a county commissioner. I took my issue with the road commission to the county board. We appoint the road commissioners and should be kept informed of concerns residents have about the commission. Since becoming a county commissioner, I have worked with the Road Commission to set up meetings for many residents to get problems solved. The intent of the law in my opinion is to have the county board as the oversite board for the Road Commission. You can find your county commissioner's contact information at ewashtenaw.org.
Rod Johnson
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
Having been the victim of some of the commission's arbitrary decisions, I would like to see a little accountability. Having an appointed commission, six-year terms, and no mechanism for appealing decisions means that the public has very little weight. I would support expanding the board if some of the positions were elected, and if the terms were shorter (three years instead of six, perhaps). A mostly elected board with some appointed or ex officio members would be good, or a model something like the drain commissioner or clerk, with an elected head and a professional staff. I don't understand why the commission has the structure it currently has.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.
Which companies, Stunhsif? Name one that tomorrow could take over the job without using the taxpayer-owned infrastructure. And if they need that infrastructure--well, sounds like corporate welfare. Nothing like corporate profits funded by the taxpayers. You, I know, are familiar with the concept, given the trucking industry's use, abuse, and destruction of taxpayer-owned roads while not paying the cost of their use of those roads. Again, corporate welfare. Good Night and Good Luck
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
How about outsourcing this work to private local companies that can do the work for a lot less and bring more value to the taxpayers?
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:38 a.m.
How about cutting the Road Commission in Half?