On Monday, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett released a proposal to “put Madison on a diet” and save $1.1 billion a year, and among the proposals offered by Barrett was the idea to eliminate the offices of Secretary of State and State Treasurer, which would save $1 million. Not shockingly, State Treasurer candidate Dan Bohrod, a Democrat from Madison, isn’t too keen on Barrett’s proposal. In a statement issued yesterday, Bohrod questioned Barrett’s proposal to eliminate the office of State Treasurer:
“I’ve been working hard over the last 8 ½ months trying to make the case that the State Treasurer is an important office, but has for many years lacked the appropriate leadership to provide a meaningful contribution to the public discourse as regards important state financial issues,” said Bohrod. “Apparently, I have more work to do. I certainly believe that the programs the Treasurer administers can be delivered more efficiently, but the Mayor’s proposal conflates the programs the Treasurer administers with the Office as envisioned in the Constitution: one who provides an additional, independent voice of the people regarding use of their tax monies. I have two decades of public budgeting experience that, as Treasurer, I’ll utilize to realize that vision.
“I think any time one Constitutional officer proposes elimination of another, folks should be wary. The Mayor’s idea to amend the Constitution purportedly to save $1 million shows an unfortunate lack of both imagination and practicality: we can manage our budget without the cumbersome, expensive and unwise process of changing the Constitution. Eliminating the Treasurer results only in the stifling of a voice of the people, a duly elected, Constitutional Officer.
“I am disappointed that such a proposal would come from a Democrat. However, I am fairly confident that, were I elected, I would work well with Governor Barrett and the Legislature to help ensure the public that their government is efficient and accountable.”
Personally, I don’t think there’s anything the Secretary of State does that can’t be folded into other areas of state government to save some money, and while I know as a liberal I’m always supposed to support “big government” at least according to some on the right, I do believe there’s a lot of ways that state government could be made more efficient, from the elimination of unnecessary positions to smarter practices when it comes to how state government operates.
It’s an interesting idea & I would probably support it – but devil is in the details. If can be implemented in such a way that the functions could be streamlined & rolled into other areas to save us money and not sacrifice accountability or transparency, that would be great.
I am under the impression that those qualities have been lacking in recent years as it is. That said, you are correct: any rearrangement of government must be done to ensure accountability and transparency are at very least continued, if not created and enforced.