Any suggestion that every governor would, or even could, leave politics and patronage out of the process in appointing government officials is ludicrous on its face.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The revised West Virginia Constitution of 1872 provided that the superintendent of schools be elected by the people.
A hundred years later, some of us were accused of being "know-nothings" by certain self-labeled "modern government" tub-thumpers because we vocally opposed ill-advised elements of their misleadingly named (shades of Orwell!) "Better Government Amendment," especially the provision that, thereafter, the superintendent would be a will-and-pleasure hand, hired by a board the governor selected. Indeed, there is nothing "modern" about multilayered despotism. It predates recorded history.
My contention remains that, by their very accession to the state's highest office, governors prove themselves to be the current politico de tutti politicos. I argued that any suggestion that every governor would, or even could, leave politics and patronage out of the process in appointing government officials is ludicrous on its face. The succession of events since then have reinforced the belief of many that "better government" did not result from that 1970s constitutional miscarriage.
In fact, the recent suggestion that the governor appoint judges so as to "depoliticize the judicial process" is no less a power-grabbing fabrication. Appointment compounds the political element geometrically.
By 1989, West Virginia voters had wised up enough to knock down a proposal by Gov. Gaston Caperton to eliminate the Board of Education as an entity and placing all its powers in his new Department of Education and the Arts, which would have consolidated the governor's grip.
We need to put not only the superintendent's position back in the hands of the voters, but also the entire state Board of Education. Election by the people gives us the opportunity to periodically cast out those shown to be mugwumps, nodding chair-warmers and the vainglorious. As we have seen, appointment of such by the governor can bring a dark cloud that seems to dwell over our state forever.
I had hoped that, by now, the irreversible Jorea Marple debacle and brouhaha in the Board of Education (after 660 Google pages on the matter, I quit looking) would have died down. We would be back to nepotism, cronyism and backside-bussing as usual.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The revised West Virginia Constitution of 1872 provided that the superintendent of schools be elected by the people.
A hundred years later, some of us were accused of being "know-nothings" by certain self-labeled "modern government" tub-thumpers because we vocally opposed ill-advised elements of their misleadingly named (shades of Orwell!) "Better Government Amendment," especially the provision that, thereafter, the superintendent would be a will-and-pleasure hand, hired by a board the governor selected. Indeed, there is nothing "modern" about multilayered despotism. It predates recorded history.
My contention remains that, by their very accession to the state's highest office, governors prove themselves to be the current politico de tutti politicos. I argued that any suggestion that every governor would, or even could, leave politics and patronage out of the process in appointing government officials is ludicrous on its face. The succession of events since then have reinforced the belief of many that "better government" did not result from that 1970s constitutional miscarriage.
In fact, the recent suggestion that the governor appoint judges so as to "depoliticize the judicial process" is no less a power-grabbing fabrication. Appointment compounds the political element geometrically.
By 1989, West Virginia voters had wised up enough to knock down a proposal by Gov. Gaston Caperton to eliminate the Board of Education as an entity and placing all its powers in his new Department of Education and the Arts, which would have consolidated the governor's grip.
We need to put not only the superintendent's position back in the hands of the voters, but also the entire state Board of Education. Election by the people gives us the opportunity to periodically cast out those shown to be mugwumps, nodding chair-warmers and the vainglorious. As we have seen, appointment of such by the governor can bring a dark cloud that seems to dwell over our state forever.
I had hoped that, by now, the irreversible Jorea Marple debacle and brouhaha in the Board of Education (after 660 Google pages on the matter, I quit looking) would have died down. We would be back to nepotism, cronyism and backside-bussing as usual.
But no! In the Jan. 26 Sunday Gazette-Mail came Charlotte Pritt with her own "better government" scheme to trump the status quo. She would compel the governor to further stack the deck by mandatorily packing the school board with teachers union officials and other ax-grinders having their own agendas, which do not necessarily put educational achievement first. At least her obviously sincere suggestion, however misguided, calls for sorely needed change.
In 1992, I published a pamphlet, "Twenty-First Century West Virginia," a copy of which was mailed to the governor, members of the Legislature, all newspapers, TV and radio stations in the state. I offered ideas how county and state government might be downsized and made more democratic. They were unanimous in ignoring it.
As to school system organization, it suggested that the 55 county school districts be reduced to nine, of equal population, which would shift geographically with every census. Each would elect seven members who would compose the district boards. Thus, statewide, school board members would be cut from 275 to 63, with attendant reduction of their bureaucracy.
The members of each district would elect one of their own to serve on the state board. Those nine would in turn elect one of theirs to be state superintendent of schools.
Thus, membership on the state Board of Education would be diverse and spread equally around the state instead of concentrated in the hands of those having the governor's favor. Presumably, under scrutiny of the electorate, the district boards and state board would select the best qualified of their own to serve in the leadership positions. If a person's service was not satisfactory, they could readily be demoted by their board.
Yes, those who end up on the boards could still form cliques that act arbitrarily and ill-advisedly, but that is far less likely because of their geographic dispersion and being readily dealt with come election time.
Cook is an author, artist and inventor who lives in Hurricane.
Get Connected