This looks like another power grab from Houle and.....Theide?

A power grab may be in the eyes of the beholder, Fish. For my money, I would prefer more efficient service and lower cost to getting to vote on offices for people I never know and who are most frequently never challenged.

I appreciate the editorial's focus on efficiency and customer service and the question of when an official ought to be elected. That said, the case for electing our elections official is not persuasive to me. Election law in Minnesota is not determined at the local level, nor should it be. It is uniformly prescribed by the Legislature for administration at the local level consistent with the law. That means very little discretion is left to local officials. Simply put, they must follow the law, not make the law. This is vastly different than the discretion for a County Board or City Council to tax us or for a prosecutor to deprive us of our liberty.

Moreover, there are many counties in Minnesota, including our neighbor Cass, that have an appointed position overseeing their elections, so the argument that this can effectively be accomplished with an appointed position isn't just speculation, but you can see it working in actual practice.

As far as grabbing "power," if this is a power grab by Houle or Thiede, I would think they might find an area to try to grab where there is actual policy discretion to apply, rather than just administering policy set by others. Doesn't really sound like Thiede's style to me.

I believe I have mentioned to you before, If you don't know anything about the subject being discussed, stay out. You seem to have a knack for sticking your nose into things you know nothing about and then making yourself look like a buttface. Do some research nextime before you write.

Charlie, who peed on your cornflakes this morning?

I thought it was a fair question. Have the seats for either of these positions been challenged in recent years? Why does it make me "look like a buttface" to ask that? In kindergarten, they taught me that the only stupid question is the one you are afraid to ask. So I'm asking. When I form an opinion, I want to have information upon which to support it.

And, I also think it's a valid point to consider that every time you combine 2 positions into 1 in any company, you end up with 1 displaced person. Does the benefit to efficiency outweigh the burden of 1 more unemployed person? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It has to be considered to be responsible.

You are a cranky old guy with some type of ax to grind with me it seems, and you don't even know me.

"Does the benefit to efficiency outweigh the burden of 1 more unemployed person?" Yes, especially if that person
is paid with taxpayer funds. That is how it would be in the
private sector. I would think the job of the commissioners is
to be responsible to the taxpayers, not to employ people.

Of course, that is my opinion.

Please consider taking your own advice. Your posts drip with venom and distain and negativity. Talk about wearing on people. I believe you are just one of those perpetually unhappy and bitter people.

And no, you don't know me at all. And yes, I am relatively new to the area. I was aware that the positions of the Auditor and Treasurer were combined not long ago. I was not aware that the displaced person had been rehired to a supposedly "new position" (you are inferring it must have been a newly created position at the same salary since you claim there was no net loss, and I don't know so I'll take your word for it).

And, I wasn't suggesting that the County should employ people who do nothing simply to keep them employed. What I was suggesting is that laying off people comes with a financial burden in the way of unemployment benefits and severance pay (sometimes), and also the burden of lost productivity, so what does it cost to lay someone off? That needs to be considered as part of the equation. And it is a question that needs to be asked in private sector jobs AND public sector jobs.

Example, ABCTOWN USA has a factory that makes widgets and that is their primary industry. The town has a service industry, retail industry, government and educational sector all mainly hinging on one major employer. What happens if the market for widgets falls off and the widget factory lays off half it's staff? Well, unemployment rises, and we are left with folks who can no longer support the service and retail industry, so more people are laid off, more businesses close, and more people are out of work. There is less population for the government and education structure to service as people pack up and leave town to find other jobs, so lay offs happen there too, and more people leave. Eventually, there is not enough of anything to support to the town, attract new residents, or entice new business. The town dies. So, any job that allows a person to earn money that they in turn spend to support other local business is a valuable job. So the question of whether to lay someone off or not is not simply a black and white question. There is more to consider. So, for those calling for blood simply because it is a private sector job, it is a reminder that there are real people that this affects and somewhere down the road, the person affected by an unintended consequence may be you.