Melick on Issues 

Alcohol

            This is not one of the most pressing issues facing the county, but it is one of the issues that is most frequently asked about, so I will clearly state my position on it. Personally, I do not drink and do not intend to start, but I also do not look down on those who do, short of excess. I have seen far too many people's lives destroyed by drunk drivers, and all of our insurance rates are higher because of them. Furthermore, studies show that where there is alcohol a few irresponsible people through law enforcement costs, all but eat up the revenue gained by alcohol taxes, but I believe that the vast majority of adults are capable of drinking responsibly.

            That said, my personal feelings have little bearing on the issue as I believe that in a society that has a government by the people, issues that would fundamentally alter a community should be decided by the people. We have already had a very costly referendum on the issue. As commissioner, I would not go against the wishes of the people either openly or by using back door methods. To do otherwise would be a mockery of the voters. And yes, in a Jeffersonian democracy, which I firmly believe in and which we are supposed to have, the majority, however slight it may be, constitutes the will of the people. That is the only way our system can work. Otherwise we have chaos.

I believe that the alcohol referendum that the current commissioner initiated has bound us as a dry county for some time. And anyone that believes in the will of the people would agree.

However, if citizens are really concerned about an issue, with enough signatures, they can always force a referendum and the commissioner will have to abide by it. I will always listen to the voice of the people.

This only pertains to the portions of the county outside the city limits. Whether or not alcohol is allowed in the city of Blairsville, is solely up to the Mayor and city council.

Multi-Commissioner Board

            My stance on this issue is also a frequently asked question. I believe that a board of commissioners is a much better form of government than a sole-commissioner. And being as there are only nine counties in the United States that still have sole-commissioners, someone must agree with me.

            As everyone knows, one man rule is very efficient. Too efficient. And that is why the President, answers to the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the Governor has the State House and Senate, Mayors have the city council and the school superintendent has a school board. A sole-commissioner answers to no one and there is no oversight.

            Certainly, a benevolent dictator is the simplest and most efficient form of government, but if you know your history, there have been virtually no benevolent dictators in the modern era. Per capita, a sole-commissioner has more power than the president. As citizens, it is not fair to place that much power and responsibility in one person's hands. In Union County, the commissioner is the sole signer on all county checks. This can lead to disaster as we saw recently in Lumpkin County. Their sole-commissioner disappeared with millions of the taxpayer's money, leaving the county nearly bankrupt and close to financial ruin. Lumpkin County has still not fully recovered. As a result, the county switched to a multi-commissioner board.

            As with most issues, the commissioner cannot wave a magic wand and change things. A referendum, or an act of the State Legislature would be needed to establish a multi-commissioner board. Because I have such high regard for the will of the people, I would call for a referendum on the issue and place it on the ballot in the next election after, being elected. Single issue referendums are far too costly, so I would never initiate one.

            One frequent objection to switching to a board of commissioners is that it would cost the county more money. This is simply not true. Our commissioner is paid $87,000 annually plus $12,000 for expenses. A board of commissioners works part time, receiving a very modest stipend and generally hires a county administrator. When an administrator is hired, the county is assured that the person carrying out the day to day operations of the county is qualified for the job as their credentials and references are checked just like in any other job. The administrator is answerable to the board and the board is answerable to the voters.

            Another defense for the sole-commissioner form of government is that if something is wrong, you know exactly who to point the finger at. With a board of commissioners, you still know exactly who to blame, and you have a much better chance of talking to someone in charge if you have a problem. Under the current system, our single commissioner is kept extremely busy running the entire county, particularly if he is a micro-manager. It can be very difficult to get an appointment to see the commissioner. I know of someone who made an appointment with the current commissioner, and on appointment day waited three hours before being told that the commissioner would not be able to see him that day.

            It is also true, that with a sole-commissioner if there is something wrong, the voters may well not know it until it is too late. The commissioner's office has no oversight and is virtually accountable to no one. In such a situation, it is very easy to hide financial misdeeds as the commissioner alone controls the purse strings and releases only the financial information he chooses to. When an audit is conducted, the commissioner alone chooses the auditing company and the results of the audit that are released are always extremely vague. No matter how good the auditors are the, annual audit is cursory and it would take a forensic audit to reveal any financial impropriety or incompetence. I am not accusing the current commissioner of corruption, but am rather accusing the sole-commissioner form of government of being dangerous. Absolute power corrupts as you know. Therefore, we better be sure we trust someone absolutely before we let them be our commissioner. We must ask ourselves, whether in this day and time, it is responsible to take such a risk.

            The truth is that a sole-commissioner is not more efficient, it is less efficient. With a board, the county is divided into districts with each commissioner charged with making sure their district is taken care of and the needs of its constituents addressed. The work load is shared. When one man is in charge of everything, concerns are inevitably forgotten or neglected. There is no shortage of people in this county who have made road maintenance or other requests and have been waiting months or years for action to be taken.

            The sole-commissioner form of government is a very antiquated one. Furthermore, it violates the principle of separation of powers. It may even violate the constitution as I believe that our founding fathers never intended for one man to have so much power with so little oversight. For example, did you know that shortly after taking office, our current commissioner quietly formed a county finance corporation, that allows him to buy and sell county land without the consent of the governed? In other words, the commissioner can buy as much land for the county as he wants, using your money, without ever consulting you the voters and taxpayers. In my opinion, this constitutes taxation without representation. This is something we must never allow in this country ever again.