Times Editorial : Let's talk

FAYETTEVILLE — Attempting to understand democracy's mechanics isn't for the faint of heart. Even in a rural, relatively conservative state such as Arkansas, appreciating the complexities behind any number of processes could take a lifetime.

Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't a certain method to the madness. For instance, health care reform versus Washington's laborious legislative process. Some may argue there's no point to letting all these individuals in the House and Senate debate a range of proposals to death, especially since little will be decided until the issue reaches conference committee, where leaders from both houses will begin making some truly momentous calls.

It's worth noting that for more than 200 years we've had a process in this country where we expect our elected representatives to give their two cents about any number of legislative efforts. Maybe their opinions will fail to influence the final verdict, but so what? The public has a right to know how their leaders in local, state and national government feel about those subjects which have a direct influence on our lives.

With that in mind, we turn to a story regarding the Washington County Quorum Court. Last week District 12 Justice of the Peace Ann Harbison brought forth an ordinance asking that the Quorum Court be eliminated from the appeals process regarding decisions made by the county planning board and the zoning board of adjustment. Doing so, she says, would save taxpayer dollars and remove an unnecessary step in the appeals process.

Harbison, along with other members of country government, are not incorrect in their assumption that, quite regardless of what the Quorum Court says, its decisions on such matters could be overturned.

Then again, this rationale implies that our lower courts have no reason to issue verdicts since they could be appealed to a higher court. If that's true, then why espouse an opinion about anything? Why should politicians speak if there's even a remote chance they could look foolish?

Luckily, District 4 JP Rex Bailey sees the light ("I believe we need to be accountable. The planning board are not elected officials, and we are," he retorted last week). So does planning board member Jim Gallagher, who asked the Quorum Court to stay in the process.

Harbison told us that, in retrospect, it may have been premature to beat this particular drum. "I only brought it up because I thought money was being spent unwisely," she says. She added she doesn't want to limit debate - and yet it costs $1,300 every time the Quorum Court meets. Documents have to be produced, and country officials have to be there. Figure in every angle of the appeals process, and Harbison says you're talking real money.

Though her proposal is already scheduled to be heard Oct. 8 by the full Quorum Court, will she pull it anyway? "Probably" we're told. She says it's a good ordinance, but adds the public perception of this issue has become such that support for her ordinance is slackening. More appeals may be required to get her point across, she says.

We like the way county government already works. We admit it can be tough when politics and property rights come into play, and tough decisions are required. And yes, paying for democracy is by no means an inexpensive expenditure. And yet an able democracy requires able ears listening to the nuances in stories who are then able to discern matters fairly. We like our reps being reps. Besides, citizens deserve an audience in front of their elected officials on those issues which they consider most important to them.

Bailey is right. Citizens should have the ability to complain to the people they elect. Public officials have a responsibility to hear out these concerns - and this despite the fact that their word may not be final.