Question 3 asks Dukes County voters to support a change where the county treasurer would be appointed rather than elected. The consequent analyses and considerations seem at a minimum incomplete.

At its heart is choosing who will determine the choice of treasurer.

Most states elect their state treasurer. In some, the position is filled by an appointment made by the governor. In a few, such as Maine and New Hampshire, the position is filled via election by state legislators, which as a practical matter is being advocated by Question 3.

The Duke County commission is not a unified body. It is made up of seven elected members, and as such any appointment made by that body is the result of a voting process. Unmentioned is qualification of the appointment (hiring) by the county commissioners. Will it require a simple majority, unanimity, or some other defined preponderance of agreement?

Once chosen, the substantive issue of the independence and control of the treasurer arises. A single individual elected to a six-year term reinforces them. Absent however, is consideration of accountability, and the negative side of endurance. Elected persons are accountable only to voters, however in this case at six-year intervals, which is a rather lengthy period in the event the elected person fails to meet expectations.

I served on both Dukes County charter study commissions. The second study was absent suggested changes to county government until I proposed and argued that county commissioners be elected to concurrent two-year terms. The reasoning was to allow voters to hold elected officials accountable more frequently, and create a more attractive environment for citizens willing to serve. In 2008, Dukes County voters approved the ballot question by 71.6 per cent.

The process of running for elected office is onerous, however in this case the job pays handsomely. Running unopposed provides job security, whether deserved or not. In most years voters cannot even name their elected officials, let alone formulate an opinion of their job performance. Continuing an election process with so many known pitfalls or succumbing to the cautionary fears of a single former office holder is unsupportable. I am compelled to vote yes on Question 3.

Ted Stanley

West Tisbury