For over 50 years, in two states, and in five counties, I have been a direct observer of the function of local government. During that time, I have witnessed effective and efficient leadership and maintenance, and I have seen arrogance, bigotry, abuse, and oppression. I have seen good communities become corrupt, and I have watched as corrupt neighborhoods have reformed and emerged as vibrant and nurturing places to live.

It all depends upon the people!

People are the material that makes a community, town, county, state, or nation a worthy place in which to live. Great leaders emerge because they have great followers, and the only difference between a great follower and a great leader is the structure in which they find themselves at any given moment upon the human continuum.

In the primary elections of 2006, the people of Gordon County in both major political parties were asked whether or not they wished the organizational structure of their county government to be reformed. By a 72% majority in both parties, the answer was yes. In response to the message from the people, Representative Tom Graves and Representative John Meadows have begun the process of establishing a Special Commission to look into this issue and to determine what is best for our county.

It is my hope that this little paper will be of assistance to those members of the Special Commission who are ultimately selected to delve into this matter. The argument for change is offered in simplistic terms and the rationale is grounded in the very bedrock of American history.

I doubt not that the Special Commission will arrive at a logical and suitable recommendation, and, when the time comes, I doubt not that the "people" will embrace and ratify the appropriate plan.

 Dr. Gary D. Lemmons

October 1, 2006

The concept of the "county" as a political unit comes from European origins. It was generally a sub-district of a sovereign jurisdiction with some level of self-governance. On the continent, a "count," often called an "earl" generally presided over the affairs of the area. Said ruler was the vassal or liege of some higher "lord" or the "king."

In England, the "county" concept arrived in 1066 A.D. with the Norman Conquest under William the Conqueror and replaced the old "shire" system that typified Anglo-Saxon Britain.

With the settlement of the 13 Original American Colonies, the "county" system was introduced into the New World and became a part of the American tradition. Only in Louisiana, where political sub-divisions are called "parishes," and in Alaska, where political sub-divisions are called "boroughs," are terms other than "county" used. Including the "parishes" and the "boroughs," there are some 3076 "counties" in the United States today.

The organization of counties, their scope of power, and their limitations are defined in Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Georgia as Amended 2005.  Review of this article clearly reveals that any reform in the structure of county government requires action by the General Assembly of the State of Georgia and the ratification of a majority of voters in the affected county.

While Washington was "the father of our country," Franklin, the "founding grandfather," and Jefferson, the "author of the Declaration of Independence," it was Samuel Adams, the "father of the American Revolution," who more than anyone else assured the ratification of the Constitution of 1787 by Massachusetts and the ultimate formation of these United States of America. This distinguished patriot, often relegated to the second row among the pantheon of "American founders," possessed some fundamental ideas about government and about how its impact upon the liberty and freedom of its citizens should be limited.

It is often not taught in school, but the "soul" of the Declaration of Independence was first glimpsed in Adams’s mind in 1772 when he wrote:

Adams went on to say:

While much of what Adams said relates to a justification for the colonies throwing off the oppressive yoke of British dominance, the underlying philosophy is clear. Government is a compact entered into by the people who are subject to its jurisdiction. This compact is social in nature and subject to adjustment by the populace in accordance with legal means. Only if the nature of the government becomes so destructive of the legal means of adjustment do steps of civil disobedience or extraordinary procedures for affecting change become appropriate. That, of course, is not the case in the matter before us.

The notion of the right of the people to unite in a common agreement for their maintenance and governance is as old as the earliest settlements. In 1607, the Jamestown colony in Virginia was founded. It was operated under a charter issued by the British Crown to the Virginia Company and had governance that was so approved. By the following year, the colony had fallen into such a state of chaos that the colonists elected Captain John Smith to take charge of the situation. His governance, while at times harsh, was ratified by the members of the colony who may have grumbled but survived. The point is that he was chosen by the consensus of the people.

Twelve years later and several hundred miles to the north of Virginia, the Pilgrims of Mayflower fame landed at Plymouth on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Prior to going ashore these stalwart Puritans joined together with the "strangers" (those others on the ship who were not of the Pilgrim persuasion) and drafted a plan of governance…the Mayflower Compact.

Down through our history as a nation, we find example after example of citizens coming together in geographic areas and developing forms and machinery of government for their convenience. Such is the duty of free men and women.

Government, at its best, has the potential to be inept, disengaged, and dysfunctional. At its worst, it can be arrogant, abusive, and oppressive. Only when it is held accountable, frequently injected with new participants through democratic elections, and kept close to the citizens over who it has dominion, can it be controlled.

Experience has shown that the more familiar elected officials are with the constituents they serve…the more frequently they have to look their fellow citizens in the eye and respond to inquiries…the more responsible they will tend to be.

The political question confronting the citizens of Gordon County is shall we change the manner in which our commissioners are selected by the electorate. If so, how shall this change be accomplished to maintain the integrity of governance and to insure the most equitable distribution of power and influence to the citizenry?

There are those who would argue that the current structure of our county government, wherein all commissioners are elected at-large by the citizenry, has worked well and does not merit change. Inasmuch as the decisions of the county commission affect all of the citizens of the county, it is reasoned that all of the citizens should have a say on all the commissioners. This is an attractive view, but there is a fundamental flaw to the logic behind it.

Gordon County is now divided into five geographic districts, with each one entitled to a seat on the county commission. While candidates for seats on the county commission must reside in the district from which they are seeking election, they are elected by popular vote of the electorate of the entire county. Consequently, in most instances, candidates must acquire a substantial number of votes from outside their respective home district in order to be elected. It is quite possible that a candidate from District A can receive a substantial majority of the vote from her or his district and still be defeated by the voters from Districts B, C. and E. This has the effect of denying the voters of District A of their chosen representative.

There are those who would argue that the citizens of some districts might be prone to elect less than effective commissioners to the board. Given the variance in the cultures within the county, it may be that some regions would be prone to elect less educated, less thoughtful, more combative representatives. These people view the at-large process as a method by which wiser heads may prevail and direct the less sophisticated citizenry onto the paths in which they should trod.

What an arrogant and elitist attitude!

The argument that is most often put forward in opposition to the elimination of the current structure of government in Gordon County is that, by electing commissioners from and by specific districts, the officeholders will become more polarized for their districts and tend to be less cooperative for the common good.

This argument does not take into consideration that each commissioner will have only one vote and consequently must listen to, work with, and cooperate with the fellow commissioners in order to achieve needed goals and objectives. I suspect situation will actually serve to enhance the political talents of the commissioners elected to serve.

I would offer the following choices for consideration in the effort to improve the structure of government within Gordon County:

A question that arises, regardless of what the nature of the reform of the county commission takes, is:

How shall the chairperson of the county commission be selected?

There are two schools of thought as to this matter. First, there is the belief that the chairperson should be elected at-large by all the voters of the county. Second, there is the idea that all commissioners five (5) or seven (7) should be elected and then select their own chairperson.

My personal preference is for the chairperson to be elected at-large by the citizenry. However, realizing the dynamics and the political jealousies of legislative and regulatory bodies such as county commissions, I would yield to their appetite for controlling the filling of this titular position.

Within the framework of this effort there is a lesser though very important question:

Shall the board of commissioners retain the services of a county administrator?

It is my belief that the nature of the requirements upon county government today mandates professional conduct in the management of county business. While the board of commissioners should represent the people and be the final authority in all matters related to county government, few of us have the education and expertise to navigate the treacherous political waters of the 21^st Century. A professional hand at the helm of day to day operations is essentially necessary. Consequently, my advice is to maintain the position of county administrator.

If, however, the determination is made to dispense with the county administrator and leave that responsibility to the commission chairperson, then, said position should be funded as a full-time slot. Necessary expenses for bonding, education, travel, etc. should be taken into account.

That the organizational structure of Gordon County Government should be changed is not in question. By almost a three-fourth majority, the voters of Gordon County have answered that inquiry. It is now up to the Special Commission to review all options and to offer a just, fair, and efficient plan for the restructure. Please exercise due diligence in your deliberations.