COLUMN: Is a County Executive the best way to go?

By Dan Kontos

Almost a year ago, I discussed the election for County Executive, which was eventually won by John Pavelski. At that time, I said that we can discuss this more in the future, and it seems that this may be the time.

On February 13, Mr. Pavelski told the county’s Finance Committee that he thinks the county would be better served if his position of county executive were replaced with a county administrator. He had campaigned on his vision of eliminating the spot that he had fought hard to win. 

Since most people, including many in county government, don’t really understand the difference, let’s take a look at what this means for the citizens of Portage County. Why? Well, because you may be asked to decide on what we will be doing in the future.

In 2005, the voters of the county approved a referendum to create the position of County Executive. This effectively removed the control of county operations from the County Board. The result established a new position with the responsibility to lead the executive branch of county government and the voters would then need to elect a person to fulfill that role every four years.

According to Wisconsin law,  a county can be administered by one of three methods. The current method chosen by the voters is the County Executive. An executive is an independent position who is the chief executive officer of the county, meaning that he manages all aspects of county departments, and supports those offices that have an elected head (such as sheriff, county clerk, etc.)

This position is mandatory for counties with a population of 750,000 people or more. It’s optional for smaller counties, created by resolution of the Board, or by a petition and referendum, which is what we did in 2005. Now that it’s here, it can only be eliminated or replaced by another petition and referendum.

There are currently only 12 counties in Wisconsin with an executive, and Portage County is the smallest by population, with over 70,000, while the next smallest is Manitowoc County at over 81,000. It is often stated that Portage County is too small to need an executive, but that’s like saying that there are not enough people in my home to justify all the guns that I own.

The pros of a county executive are pretty distinct. This position is independent of the County Board. It serves as a check and balance to the rest of government, as a cognitively functioning and ethical president does to balance the other two branches (namely Congress and the courts) at the federal level. The big selling point when the position was created was that it was a way to counter the “good ol’ boys” network that some thought the Board had become.

A good Executive can coordinate the vast functions of government, while providing a vision and direction for others to follow. Duties of that position roughly include appointing and supervising non-elected department heads, executing appropriate ordinances, setting general county policy, approving or vetoing county legislation, proposing a budget, and appointing members of boards and commissions. Many of these functions require confirmation of the Board.

The cons of this position are not inconsiderable. County government is complex, and often serves as an arm of state government, executing many of their responsibilities at a more local level. When the people elect an executive every four years, like other elected offices, many times the person selected is not necessarily the best individual with the greatest applicable skill set. Additionally, like all new employees, not only does it take time to orient themselves to the new job, if they lack the appropriate governmental background, they have to now educate themselves to understand what is even going on.

Mr. Pavelski instead advocates for a county administrator. Counties who have a population of less than 750,000 may, by resolution of the board or by popular petition and referendum, create the office. The county administrator is then appointed by majority vote of the board, and serves at their pleasure. 

The duties of an administrator are similar to that of an executive, but there is no authority to veto ordinances. Otherwise, the differences between the two are fairly minor. Twenty nine Wisconsin counties are currently managed by an administrator.

County Executive Pavelski told the Finance Committee that between salaries, benefits, and “some ancillary costs” his office costs approximately $250,000, insinuating that there may be a savings to be found in a switch from an executive to an administrator. However, I’m not sure what he thinks an administrator will cost the County. That’s not a winning argument, so let’s set that aside for now.

The pros of an administrator are that, assuming the board makes a wise selection, administrators are professional governmental managers. They are trained, educated, and experienced in running government. With all due respect to those with good intentions, there is no substitute for a professional public administrator. This is just what they do.

The cons are that the administrator is subject to the whims of the board. While the board supervisors are elected, and thus responsible to the people, administrators have to walk a fine line when they have disagreements with the board. The administrator is hired and fired by the board, so much of the checks and balances are removed, and the board is responsible for filtering their own decisions amongst themselves.

The third option for the counties, absent an executive or administrator, is that the board designates an elected or appointed official to serve as the administrative coordinator. The coordinator is responsible for synchronizing all administrative and management functions of the county government not otherwise vested by law somewhere else. 

Prior to the County Executive, Portage County had a Coordinator. This was always vested in the County Board Chair.

The pros of a coordinator are few, in my humble opinion. The county would be run by direct management of the board and its committees. The expertise and focus on operations in a consolidated fashion is often lost in the noise. If you think government can be sluggish at times now, I challenge you to remember back to the challenging times when the board controlled everything. 

The cons are pretty self-evident. The lack of professional expertise and skills can be detrimental to the complex functions of a county. While board oversight in having to make collective decisions may provide for a diversity of viewpoints, it can grind an otherwise functioning county to a crawl.

As explained by the International City/County Management Association, “Historically, most counties were governed by commissions or boards whose members had both legislative and executive responsibilities. This system functioned effectively when county government was limited in scope and complexity. With the expansion of the responsibilities of counties however, the policy-making demands of governing bodies greatly increased, as did the need for technical competence in the management of the operation and delivery of services. Today’s elected board members can better fulfill their legislative or policy-making roles and maintain their overall control of service delivery by delegating the day-to-day management of the county to an appointed professional administrator.”

So, for my money, I agree with Mr. Pavelski and think that the county administrator option is the way to go. Does that mean that the county wouldn’t benefit by having an executive who could act as a stronger potential foil to the Board? No, but the onus then falls to the sovereigns of the county, that is, the voters who have to choose their supervisors well, and then hold them accountable.

So, with that, let’s meet in the opinion section to talk about all of it, boldly, honestly, and with a healthy respect for each other. Be informed and ready to choose should that referendum come up in 2025. Until then, God bless.