mean that the fiber optic broadband proposal for broadband access, and,
television, will go ahead without voter approval? I understand that the
referendum was keyed to the telephone service, but, we all know that the main
question, was about broadband access to the internet. The proponents, main
selling point to the voters, was the advantage that broadband access would
bring to the county. Very little of their efforts were spent on trying to sell
the telephone part of the package. It now seems as if the county board is
going to proceed with this project, i had always thought that the plan was to
come back to the voters if the telephone option failed, and, seek approval for
the internet access and television options. Also, i find the length of the
terms of the commissioners that is being proposed, is way too long, and, the
ability to serve two consecutive terms, means that it will be possible for
commisioners to serve for ten years. I would suggest that they use the model
for the planning and zoning board. Two year terms, seems to me to be the
better way to go. Also, it seems to me, that some pretty clear guidelines on
conflict of interest, need to be made very clear from the start. This board
will, with, the county boards approval, will be responsible for spending
millions of the taxpayer's dollars, and, since they are doing it without a
direct authorization from the voters, they will need to be held accountiable.
The problems with the EDA'S management of the industrial park development,
show, very clearly how an appointed board can create some problems for the
taxpayers.