A piece of legislation is being floated that would change how we elect county commissioners to be chosen by the districts they represent and ask voters in larger counties to decide if they want to increase to five commissioners. We think both ideas have merit and would lead to a more representative and collaborative county government.

State Rep. Bob Marshall, D-Highlands Ranch, said the bill he plans to introduce into this year’s session of the Colorado Legislature is about holding the most powerful county officials accountable to the people they actually represent, according to reporting by The Daily Sentinel’s Charles Ashby.

“It won’t change power structure, or at least it shouldn’t, but it should bring in another voice, and hopefully a voice that has some influence,” he said. “If they did this, it definitely would bring in a minority voice that is not being heard right now, and a reasonable minority voice and a point of view that should be heard.”

We agree. As the system works now, all three Mesa County Commissioners are elected county-wide. They have to live in a specific district under the current system, but having them elected by their district would make them even more accountable to the constituents they’re representing.

Having five commissioners would also improve our system in a few ways. As it stands, a two vote majority can run the county as they see fit. That’s a lot of power to concentrate into the hands of just two people. Having five members disburses that power.

Five commissioners, especially if they are elected by district, gives more local control over county government. The people in their districts would get more of a say over what the county does in their area through their commissioner.

As a practical matter, it would also give commissioners more freedom to work collaboratively outside of open meetings. As it stands, two commissioners form a quorum. If they want to discuss county business and not run afoul of Colorado’s sunshine laws, they have to do it in an open meeting. With five commissioners, two of them discussing policy outside a meeting is acceptable and could lead to a more manageable working environment.

The main argument against these proposals is the cost.

Commissioner Cody Davis said that while having five commissioners would not, in itself, necessarily be a bad idea, he said it would cost counties more to pay the six-figure salaries for two additional commissioners.

“My issue is less about having five commissioners, because I’ve been open to that idea, but it’s more about local control, because five commissioners obviously would cost a lot more money,” Davis said. “You’re looking at $400,000 to $500,000.”

Marshall said that if money is the problem, he will add an amendment to the bill allowing those counties to pay each commissioner less than they make now, and divide that total amount between five commissioners instead of just three. Even without that change, the additional cost would be around $200,000 – a small amount in the context of the larger budget.

Ultimately, we think the improvement to the representation for voters and the spreading out of power among more commissioners is worth paying a little more.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

Read the original article here.