Now this is a nicely done story on the County Treasurer’s race. Kudos to KPRC for not skimping on the details or cramming it all in to a 15-second sound byte.
One point that needs to be made about the Treasurer’s office: The story casts the debate as being between Orlando Sanchez, who wants to streamline the office, and Richard Garcia, who wants to abolish it. It’s important to realize there’s a distinction between the elected office of Harris County Treasurer, and the employees of that office, who do and will continue to do certain clerical functions whether that elected office exists or not. Garcia has also spoken about improving the efficiency of the office. The difference is that he believes improved processes can be put in place without the continued need for the elected position. Bear in mind that if Garcia is successful in his attempt to abolish the elected office – and he will run into opposition on this – the earliest that it can happen is November of 2007, after the Lege passes a joint resolution and the voters of Texas ratify a constitutional amendment. There will be plenty of time to make the ongoing functions more efficient before that happens.
Bottom line: Richard Garcia says he can make the office work better and eliminate the elected position. Orlando Sanchez says he can make the office work better, but the elected position needs to continue to exist. Which one do you think is going to save more money?
Abolishing the County Treasurer’s office puts the function in Commissioners Court. This invites abuse. This is no different than when the owner of a store does not watch the cash register and then wonders where all the money is going (into the employees’ pockets).
Why would the Commissioner’s Court be any more potentially corrupt than an elected Treasurer? Anybody can steal money if they want to. But the county has an auditor and professional staff people in the treasurer’s office who would continue their fiduciary roles.
Why would the Commissioner’s Court be any more potentially corrupt than an elected Treasurer?
That’s why one should be watching the other and both be accountable to the citizen.
But the county has an auditor and professional staff people in the treasurer’s office who would continue their fiduciary roles.
Then there is no “cost savings” promoted by those in favor of eliminating the office.
Dennis – Who said anything about corruption? This is about cost cutting.
Charles – As the job of Treasurer itself would be eliminated, there would be a cost savings associated with that. Basically, it’s like merging two departments in a business and laying off one department’s manager.
Charles Kuffner:
Dennis said something about corruption and it is an important issue. Yes the County Treasurer’s function is about accountability to maintain a check on corruption. Someone might argue there is a cost to that check. History defines this as a prudent cost.
The fact that this structure has worked well enough to remain transparent is not justification to eliminating it.
********
In reference to your point about the cost benefits of merging two departments:
As County Treasurers noted in Harris County Commissioners Court: those counties that have eliminated their office of County Treasurer have not benefited from a cost savings. County Treasurers support this claim by noting that the Department Heads hired to replace that function typically make more money than the former County Treasurer did.
Richerd Garcia personally witnessed this claim in Commissioners Court.
*****************
If Commissioners Court would only be so noble as ironing out such cost savings in their own functions and leaving other elected offices out of their own management problems.
With Orlando Sanchez proven record of management and fiscal responsibility with his many different businesses that he has owned, makes him the better candidate.
NOT.
Kuff asks “who said anything about corruption”? I took Mr. Hixon’s word “abuse” to be a synonym for corruption. What other meaning did he intend?